A Discussion With Nashwan

[Crandaeolon]

Quote[/b] ]Upon retrospect I like playing top players and unorthodox players since they make you actually think. Versus newbies or semi-vets games actually get a bit boring and its almost muscle memory as to what to click when.

I fully agree with Paul. I still remember when me and Paul played against Magy and Koc some months ago... we lost, but those games were great experiences.

[Tera]

My greatest experiences where the games I've played against the best of the best, practically speaking about Koc, AMP and Magy. The thing I remember most vividly from an AMP game was back in STW...he used ...literally... 2/10 of his army to hold (and they miracously did against half of my army ) and the other 8/10 in a gigantic flanking manouver. I wished we had replays back then lol

Obviously I lost miserably as I was just a little noob back then ...but these are the games that teach you how to play ultimately. My 'big step' came when I played a top player like Satake (soon to come back) for like big tens of times in few weeks...that's the trick.

I think I still need to play you Cranda, looking forward

Tera

[Skomatth]

Quote
LRossaLordJimi: I miss our funny game Alio,with Ale and Sko

Me too, I remember a lot of fun with that battle but I don't remember if the armies where balanced or not as (ssshhhhh, this is a secret) some of us were somewhat drunk in that game. You know, there are balanced/imbalanced armies as well as balanced/imbalanced generals (by the effects of some nice degrees of alcohol). Beware when we start with all those "Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuu" & "Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee", that's not the signal of a balanced general



Speaking of that game, I wish we had the replay lol. me and kuma were 2 sober guys out of six but that was a very tactical game. No point recounting here tho all I can say is chooo chooo.

[alioven]

Sko:

Quote[/b] ]Speaking of that game, I wish we had the replay lol. me and kuma were 2 sober guys out of six but that was a very tactical game. No point recounting here tho all I can say is chooo chooo.

So we were only 6 players in that battle? Hmmm, I always thought we were at least 12

About that chooo-choooo (or chucu-chú), in its intended original name, please don't tell too much about it. That ultra-secret tactic is only reserved for games really drun... errr, funny like that (or all those Gah games Krast usually play).

One day I'll send you a replay where a western battle is depicted, with even a formation like those made with wagons against Cherokee raids in western movies

[LRossaLordJimi]

Hey,my army was balancedI just put 1/2 of Tuborg beer,1/4 of Adelscott Beer valor upgraded,1/8 of Limoncello 3armour and the rest of something i don't remember
Ave

[LordTed]

Some one called me a poodle wolf

[tgi01]

Quote[/b] ]The thing I find about players always playing with honorable? 'balanced' army, is that after some times their games (and mine) get stagnant, boring, isnt fun to play with anymore.

Just wanted to say that i couldnt agree more with Tootee...


TGI

[Wolf_Nashwan]

The thing I find about players always playing with honorable? 'balanced' army, is that after some times their games (and mine) get stagnant, boring, isnt fun to play with anymore.

This you say i can allso not agree with, cuz what i anyway mean normal balanced is ( not to take example more than 7-8 fighting cavs, and about 1 pav rest strong infs.
A normal balanced army can be different, depending to wich faction u take.

Example: russian they aint meant to held with power against example the europeans, they must play the mongolian style, where u play on speed and flanks + some cav archers irretating his flanks.

Russian and all the Muslim factions is hard to play when u havent the control and speed in touch, but this u learn by battle fields chaos experience.

All the Europeans styles depending much on power, well diceplined armys, with great swords and powerfull heavy cavelerys.

The Euorpean is recomended to play with if ur new.
(i dont say that veterans shouldent use the Euoropeans cuz then i would say against myself ) this is just a help for the newBs .

And allso veterans playing with the Euoropeans against Veterans playing With Euopeans = fair differents is Zero. And the Euoropeans can having big problems against veterans playing mongol style, this i have proffs of.

but it require more of the speed with thoose players who wanna play with the mongolian styles, but it can be very effektive once u learn.

I would say the opposit of that u said balanced armys after a while gets borring.

I want u to think after abit more what balanced armys is and what nonebalanced armys is.

There is many more styles in balanced armys that unbalanced, for a army to be balanced mustent it have like 4 p arbs, 3 swords 3 spears, 6 cavs, this i would allso call borrrinnngg ))) but as i told in the mail there is many different swords spears cavs even missails, and u dont need to always play with 4 arbs, i sometimes play with 2-3 arbs, allso sometimes when i know my opponent like cavs, i take away 1 sword and add 1 extra spears, and cavs if u wanna flank him or take his arbs ( choose fast cavs ) but if ur rest army is weak, take srong heavy cavs.



Well this are what i belive
Wolf_Nashwan

[ErikJansen]

Quote[/b] (Wolf_Nashwan @ May 03 2003,05:58)]The Euorpean is recomended to play with if ur new.
(i dont say that veterans shouldent use the Euoropeans cuz then i would say against myself ) this is just a help for the newBs .

While I agree fully with the rest of your post Nash, I kinda differ a bit in opinion regarding this. European armies might offer the newbie better chances at victory than a Turk army, but the Turk army will teach you a lot more about the use of specialist units and micromanagement. Not only that, but you must also learn to manuever a lot more than the usual european juggernaught. It teaches the value of speed and manueverability vs raw power, and you'll gain more tactical understanding quicker.

You'll prolly loose more in the beginning, but it'll pay off

Regards,

[Wolf_Nashwan]

Yes you are right.

I was thinking for new player if they wanna win in beggining.

But ur right, taking example turkish faction will pay off.

Wolf_Nashwan

[Alrowan]

i think even taking on turks only as a new player will make them a grand general, and they wont fall into the european style generals that so many have become

[Tempiic]

Very true alro... Hmmmm sadly im unable yet to play catholics the same way i play muslims and russians...So im stuck with this so-called european style which i suck at more than that so-called muslim style

[Tera]

Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ May 03 2003,23:15)]i think even taking on turks only as a new player will make them a grand general, and they wont fall into the european style generals that so many have become

Mo used Turks for most of his time in MTW, only since few months he's been taking Catholic armies...and somehow he's kinda good

[Puzz3D]

Tera,

There is a lot more room for error in choosing an MTW army than there was in STW because there are more units and many factions. However, once players learn what to take, the army factor diminishes, and skill reemerges as the main factor in winning. The "luck" factor hasn't changed since STW, and I see no basis for believing that it has.

The feeling that all cav is somehow dishonorable stems from the inability of some players to defeat it. It's definitly beatable with a balanced army and Crand, Cheetah and I all demonstrated it in 1v1 against good players.

[Skomatth]

I'm not really sure what you guys mean by the mongolian/european styles. Care to expand?

[Tera]

The 'European' style is more or less the 'normal' style so to say.A row of missiles, a row of spears, a row of swords and cavs on the flanks with the general behind. Missile battle and afer it who loses attacks. It's quite easy to master decently if you have a good army and very effective, so everyone uses it.

The 'Mongolian' style goes heavy on cavalry, normally having a mix of horse archers, light cavalry and heavy cavalry with some spears/swords (and some missiles) to support. It needs good timing and creativity to work out...imho the basics of true skill. Horse Archers do more physcological damage than anything else. Encircling and massive flanking manouvers are used...it's difficult to master but satisfying and effective if done well. In STW/MI this style was more effective...Magyar kinda used to specialise in this style and frankly he is one of the few vets if not the only one who uses it consistently.

[Tempiic]

I guess Muslim style is something in between both the European and Mongolian style... Where Almohads is better suited for a style more closer to the European one and the Egyptians more suited towards the Mongolian style

[Alrowan]

i see the muslim style as being a more manouverable one, using thier great archery skills for a lot of skirmishing tactics. Muslims are the kings of the organised retreat, and the ability for most muslim armies (especially turks) to just melt away in front of an enemy makes thier style of play unique. Muslim armies are great for flanking with, a european style attack can be easily defeated with a feigned retreat then a quick turn and strike into thier flanks. Even the units like ghazi and absynian guards were made for fast quick hits, as opposed to prolonged combat. Even last night i managed to stave off two opponents with my heavy hitting nizares army.

[Tera]

Well, arguebly, the Muslim factions (Mamluk Horse Archers especially) (along with Russians...Boyars) are the best ones to use with the Mongolian style...still though, horse archers need to be improved.

I wish to play you Alrowan...never did, I think.

Tera.

[Alrowan]

well tera, when you fight me, dont expect anything and you should do fine, but expecting me to take any particular army with me is where i tend to mess with peoples heads. Im jack of all trades

[Tera]

I don't expect anything, just an a decently enjoyable, close game...

[DthB4Dishonor]

Hail,

The Mongolian style....hehe how many times have I faced it . It is fun to play against and I have taken my hand to play using mongolian style just to have fun and to get a better fuller understanding of it so I can defeat it when I play it in future battles.

Mongolian style usually has 2-4 p arbs or similar shoot out units. These are used to hold off enemy p arbs. With enemy p arbs occupied on the flanks cav archers go with mix of light and HC just behind them. The light and HC are deceptively close usually and attempts to get those CA off your elite units is often meet with your cav being trapped. There are about 100+ more very subtle things mongolian style does. Russia and Muslims do have best suited units for this with there better CA's.

Mongolian style is both fun to play with and against. However the real weakness of it is that it needs wide spaces and usually very treeless maps. Mongolian style IMHO losses effectiveness once you go past 2v2. At this point the room needed to effectively skirmish with your cav is nullified. So Christians are better in 3v3's and 4v4's since its generally more of a head up style.

Aside from these another very distinct style of play is used by Turks. Those who play as Turks alot realize they have a big disadvantage in range battles with there lack of p arbs. Good Turk generals like WolF_CubTurkish who use a "grab you by the belt style" have compensated for this and taken advantage of Turkish good hybrid range units. No time to explain this style right now but it is fun to play against.

Paul

[Tera]

You played STW/MI Alrowan?

If not, I understand your points. In STW the real skill was shown when Magy kicked your a$$ hard with 10 HorseArchers...or when AMP slaughered you with units that nobody in the world used to get because of their apparent useless function. And when I say 'you' I mean the creme de la creme of the skill hierarchy of the community at the time. This is very very difficult to see in MTW, because armies are much more important. That's why we are lamenting, the game still needs skill, but compared to the good ol' days.....

Tera.

[Magyar Khan]

i think i have an old replay somewhere where u were defending totomi tera

promise me the next clan u will be in will be wolves.

the mongolian style is not with any arbs or whatever. mongolian is synonimeous (?) for horsearchery based cav army which requires a full control of the battlefield and yourself and fully understanding of teh enemies thoughts if u want to prevail.

the style u refer too is different, but i admit its fun to play againt. for me its a bit to risky/fast.

[Tera]

Annihilate Kenchi then we'll see

Discussion continued on the skill thread..

[Magyar Khan]

imo i should leave people do what they do best themselves