Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 12:36 am
Enjoy!
Empire Earth and Empire Earth: The Art of Conquest Online Community. Get support for NeoEE multiplayer, discuss strategies, civilizations, and more!
http://www.save-ee.com/
Care to elaborate? I'd love to know what you think is a better distribution of points.P-51 wrote:Its not a great 4v4 civ and could have a better distribution of points.
Thank you Elite I did not understand that even after seeing the massive amount of points used up on siege weapons. You must be an important member on these forums.Elite wrote:Remember p51 this is Mid DM no rules, not that bullshit no siege crap you people played on AoC. You know, where you both mass catas and archers and whoever hero rapes first wins?
This civ would work better in a 2v2. In a 4v4 it would be wiser to focus on the archers and swords and let the pocket use siege so he could support you. This will help you with the pop cap and also to be easier to organize your army which will be very useful when you get knight rushed.Omega wrote:Care to elaborate? I'd love to know what you think is a better distribution of points.P-51 wrote:Its not a great 4v4 civ and could have a better distribution of points.
In a 2 vs 2 there's significantly more distance between players, and the available population is much larger. Due to the first factor, namely distance, highly aggressive strategies are weaker. This needs to be played as a highly aggressive strategy to win. Additionally, due to the lack of sword cost reduction, this civilization will be even worse in 2 vs 2 due to the increased pop cap and increased distance. More distance means more trebuchets and/or crossbows the opponent has, means more sword attrition, which means, you really want cost reduction, and obviously, you want enough swords that they can't just charge headlong into you without a care, and cost reduction helps with that later on when resources start to run low before your economy kicks into full gear.P-51 wrote:This civ would work better in a 2v2.
Archers? Hmm...P-51 wrote: In a 4v4 it would be wiser to focus on the archers and swords and let the pocket use siege so he could support you.
Pop cap is not relevant in the short term in the first place, and you can get 2 archers for every trebuchet in terms of pop cap, unless we're talking Cav Archers, but you're simply *NOT* going to get 2 crossbows per trebuchet due to build time issues, and 2 long bows per trebuchet is not worth it.P-51 wrote: This will help you with the pop cap and also to be easier to organize your army which will be very useful when you get knight rushed.
There are three attributes that essentially define a unit, power, or how it kills//what it kills, time to build, and cost. Cost is not relevant for early game 4v4 Deathmatch, so you're looking for the units that give you the best Power/time ratio. That unit is not the long bow. It's certainly the trebuchet.P-51 wrote:Building only archers and swords will also be cheaper and more efficient when fighting because you will be able to create a larger mass of units and do it faster and cheaper than your opponent will.
The siege is made because it has the best power/time ratio, and, honestly, if you threw cost (resources and pop) in there as factors as well, trebuchets would still be some of the absolute best units in Middle.P-51 wrote: Let your ally worry about supporting you with siege, that's what pockets are there for.
Not really, because trebuchets are more valuable than all of them in this instance. Even if you could dump all the points on siege and magically make crossbows build in the same time as trebs, you'd keep the points on siege for trebs because they do something that xbows do not--they destroy buildings with ease, and being able to snipe your opponent's buildings means you can limit his production capacity (and you can do selectively based off how the game is going), meaning you make him much easier to overrun.P-51 wrote: The civ points should be used more on your archers and other stuff rather than the siege.
You have 4 spare points, and not much of value to put it on. Of the the things of value, mountain combat bonus wins, because taking and controlling hills is vital to winning.P-51 wrote:I would also question the mountain combat bonus but that is more of a personal preference I guess.
Elite pls remember that there used to be alot of players in aoc, who played mid dm no rules.Elite wrote:Remember p51 this is Mid DM no rules, not that bullshit no siege crap you people played on AoC. You know, where you both mass catas and archers and whoever hero rapes first wins?
from what i remember if you where using a sword/treb civ and you knew your opponent made knights, then you would immediatly make pikes and wall your base, and stay inside your base, why? well because knights basicly rapes anything if they are controlled good, and if they need an extra shield, you would usually make seige towers and draw your enemys attention towards the seige tower, while the knights kill their units. which would make it even harder to defend against knights.Omega wrote:I will admit it'd certainly be easier to beat with Cav Archers (which you preclude due to population), although I would not use Long Bows still. Then again, when you see that your opponent is flooding you with knights you go "...gay, but on the bright side as long as I don't mess up, we've got our side", and although that may tempt you to WANT to make archers to make the gayness stop early, there's essentially no point in doing so--you're countering whats essentially a non-threat by making units that are useless to you in the future.