King of the Hill

[anymapkoku]

I'm interested in possibly starting a King of the Hill series for MTW, and making some game reports which will include 1vs1's and possibly 2vs2's between the best players MTW has to offer. Different players will get the chance to challenge the reigning King of the Hill Champion, and the format will be a best of 3,mutually agreed upon map/florins/settings, and I will observe a KOTH game by hosting the appropriate number of slots and florins, and then withdraw and observe the game, taking screenshots which will be put together to form a game report. The purpose of this is for entertainment and strategical purposes.
I want to know how many people would be interested if I did this.
The differences between viewing replays and reading game reports is:
1) Strategical analysis-I will be commenting on the games and providing in depth strategical analysis of what happened, what they did wrong, what they did right, etc.
2) Any humorous or significant chat during the match will be used in the game report. You can't view chat in replays.
3) A good learning tool for newbies/intermediates because sometimes when viewing replays or playing vs good players, they don't always pickup important lessons or they miss something altogether. My game reports are there to point it out to the them.
--reaverlisk

[Ferocious Imbecile]

Quote Originally posted by anymapkoku:
I'm interested in possibly starting a King of the Hill series for MTW, and making some game reports which will include 1vs1's and possibly 2vs2's between the best players MTW has to offer. Different players will get the chance to challenge the reigning King of the Hill Champion, and the format will be a best of 3,mutually agreed upon map/florins/settings, and I will observe a KOTH game by hosting the appropriate number of slots and florins, and then withdraw and observe the game, taking screenshots which will be put together to form a game report. The purpose of this is for entertainment and strategical purposes.
I want to know how many people would be interested if I did this.
The differences between viewing replays and reading game reports is:
1) Strategical analysis-I will be commenting on the games and providing in depth strategical analysis of what happened, what they did wrong, what they did right, etc.
2) Any humorous or significant chat during the match will be used in the game report. You can't view chat in replays.
3) A good learning tool for newbies/intermediates because sometimes when viewing replays or playing vs good players, they don't always pickup important lessons or they miss something altogether. My game reports are there to point it out to the them.
--reaverlisk[/QUOTE]


That would be fantastic; a much appreciated service for all.

[Earl of Sweden]

A really great idea. This kind of stuff keeps the community together in the long run.

A swedish gamingsite (www.gamingeye.com) have been doing this for a long time especially in Warcraft/Starcraft.

Every week there is an KOTH match together with replays and matchreports and they also host Rivalmat5ches between players that dont like eachother and have been thrashing one another :-)

Great idea Reaverlisk

[Alrowan]

i rekon
XxAMPxX
ShabbyRonin
UglyElmo

[CBR]

Hmm isnt the title misleading?...maybe King of the Wood? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

CBR

[anymapkoku]

Woods make a larger variety of units usefull. Without woods, only chivS,fmaa,ital inf, order, spearmen, and alan mercs are useful. That's 6 units.
With woods only cmaa, ms, fmaa, vikings, fanatics, are useful, that's 5 units. So you are correct in saying that fewer units are useful in the trees than outside of the trees. However, you are incorrectly assuming that there will be a fight in the trees. Both woods units and non woods units is 6+5=11 useful units total. When I am picking my army I have no way of knowing what I need to bring, therefore the pool of useful units I have to choose from is larger as a result. Not only that, but an extra 2 units, pavise arbas and crossbows, become useful. So 5+6+2=13 units useful when considering what to bring in an army. There is one strategy without woods: Get spears and rush. With woods taken into consideration you can rush, or opt not to rush. You can get ranged units to fight a ranged war. You can get all melee to fight a rush battle. You can get cavarly to counter his swordsmen and fight in the open. You can opt to get swords and fight in the trees. You can decide to go spears and shoot the tree army to death causing it to have to come out and fight in the open where it's weak which is exactly what he doesn't want to do. I'm not saying all battles should be fought in the trees. That's not a very smart strategy since it can be easily countered without even having to set foot in a forest. But because trees merely exist, the threat of a tree battle forces players to take a balanced army of spearmen and swordsmen, and ranged units. The actual battle may or may not be fought in the trees, but the existence and possibility of a tree fight balances both players' armies. Without trees everyone should just get all spears.
It's merely one viable strat out of many. The fact that Magyars cav archers were a viable strategy in STW didn't mean that cav archers were all anyone ever did. Simplybecause strategy X exists is no reason to assume it will be used every single time. It merely must be taken into consideration when choosing armies and playing.

[This message has been edited by anymapkoku (edited 10-16-2002).]

[This message has been edited by anymapkoku (edited 10-16-2002).]

[Alrowan]

roflmao

sorry CBR but that was just too tempting...

and as for anymapkoku, you gave him the esonce he wanted.. anyways, im over that whole debate..

[CBR]

Yeah I know heh http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

CBR

[anymapkoku]

I gave him the esonce? What's taht mean?
Anyways, I looked at my old repalys and finally figured out why CBR hates me: It's because I beat his order/ital inf uber spear army. The thing is, if he had not rushed my whole army with 1-2 units at a time, he would have did better. He should have easily won that game, there's no excuse for losing and I'm not to blame. He made his decision to rush when a better strategy would have been to NOT RUSH and instead shoot me to death until I attacked him out in the open. He had the better army, the better advantage, and he still lost. He also had his pavise a million miles away from the battle where they could do no good.
Lessons learned: Attack with your units together.
Keep ranged units near the battle.
Don't abuse spears, instead pick a balanced army.
Learn how to play without rushing.
Learn how to rush if you're going to rush.(ie don't attack with 1 unit at a time until the first 4 die and then send in your other 8-12.)
1-0 raped now keep your mouth shut.

[CBR]

lol

Dont even know if I really should answer this...

Have I ever said I hated you?

If its the battle I remember...can be a bit difficult with your many nicks http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif .. we both had 4 arbs.

But plz put your replay up on a website so I and others can see what happened. I dont mind..do you?

And plz relax a bit... calling people noobs in the MP room just because they dont like your "strategy"..saying I hate you...well lets just say that if you really have a point about spear/swords all that wont help you.

CBR

[anymapkoku]

I was in the trees with swords and 4 pavise crossbowmen. I didn't have 4 arbs at all, although CBR did. This is key to understanding what happened in the game. 4 Arbs should decimate 4 crossbowmen, and then proceed to rain beatdown upon everything else I had in the trees. At this point, with no defense of my own, I can A) stay in the trees and get shot to death and lose or B) leave the trees and attempt to win in a melee fight, which would also cause me to lose as he had an uber spear army with 4 fmaa. So either A or B will cause me to lose. What's he complaining about then? Well he was a rocket scientist and decided to use probably the only strategy he knows: Flat out rush with spears. He did this by first sending his 4 fmaa into the trees 1 AT A TIME and lost these units. He then sent his spears in and made sure to leave his 4 arbas 50 millions miles away where they could be no help. If he had been a better player then not one of his melee units would have had to set foot in the trees at all, and the battle would have actually been in the open where it's to his uber spears' advantage.
This army:
4 arbas
4 fmaa
4 Chi Sergeants or order foot
2 militia sergeants
2 alan mercs
Should have been able to easily destroy the army I had. Oh wait but he wanted to abuse spears instead of taking this balanced army.

[anymapkoku]

What difference does it make if you lose in the trees or in the open? I was feeling experimental because I have fun trying a multitude of different strategies which is what this game is about for me.

[Alrowan]

i meant to say "response"

[CBR]

Ok now Im an abusing complaining rocket scientist too. Well rocket scientist I understand as I have to be one to use long distances as 50 million miles http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Guess I was wrong and you had 4 pav crossbowmen then. I'd still like that replay..

CBR

[CBR]

And another thing:

"He had the better army, the better advantage, and he still lost"

"This army:
4 arbas
4 fmaa
4 Chi Sergeants or order foot
2 militia sergeants
2 alan mercs
Should have been able to easily destroy the army I had. Oh wait but he wanted to abuse spears instead of taking this balanced army. "

So what do you really mean: that it takes a balanced army to defeat your army or that you could do it with the spear dominated army I used just with a better tactic?

As I see it you think spear and swords are balanced and no changes are needed because you have used swords in woods against spears..thats what you have said in other threads and in the MP room..is it a spear only army with no missile support you're talking about or?....

CBR

[anymapkoku]

What I'm saying is that you're upset about having to fight in the trees when you actually didn't have to. By "didn't have to" I mean that the best strategy, using your army in that particular game, would have been what I said above, which is to use your ranged to shoot me to death and smoke me out into the open.
My point regarding spears and swords is that if spears(rock) never have to worry about fighting in the trees, then swords/ranged(paper) are generally worthless. If swords/ranged(paper) are worthless, than other armies which could be invented to counter swords/ranged(paper) such as 4 spears/4swords/4ranged/possibly 4 cav(we'll call this scissors) are likewise useless. In short, if scissors doesn't have to worry about paper ever being used, then no one will ever use paper or scissors. Trees is the key in that it makes swords/ranged(paper) suddenly great units. If paper exists then scissors(swords/spears/ranged) will be used more. So the existence and possibility of fighting in trees ends up balancing rock paper scissors(spears,swords/ranged,all 3).
If spears are counterable, what's going to happen? You are less likely to bring a whole lot of them right? What happens when you have less light in a room? It gets darker. Same with spears and cavalry/ranged. Less spears = more liekly to want to bring cavalry. Since ranged are key to beating spears in that you need to win the ranged war to decide where to fight, this makes cavalry more useful too. More units that cavalry can eat up= more likely to use cavalry. Whether or not a fight is actualy in the trees or not is irrelevent, if I know that a defender even has trees, im going to take a balanced army of swords/spears/ranged, or possibly spears/ranged, or swords/ranged, or all 3, and either shoot him out where my spears eat him alive or whatever. I might not even have to fight him in trees, but I just knew I might and therefore balanced my army in preparation for it.
Now I'm not saying cav and archers(not pavise) can't be made better. But all units don't have to be good in all situations(trees for example) to be considered "worthwhile".

[This message has been edited by anymapkoku (edited 10-17-2002).]

[This message has been edited by anymapkoku (edited 10-17-2002).]

[Cyricist]

Now this is funny.. I have the same arguement in another thread, over the same uber unit gripe, and according to anymapkoku here it's because I would lack skill to beat a maxed out 4 unit uberarmy. I hate uber-army all-one-unit steamroller armies. What I even hate more, is arrogance. Hence, I will gladly take up arms with the spearcarrying horde for once. These guys may have no style (having only 'one strategy'), but you, anymapkoku, are not a general with GOOD MANNERS calling people names and telling them how bad they are all the time to stress yourself being 'so good'. Not a gentleman at all.

[This message has been edited by Cyricist (edited 10-17-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Cyricist (edited 10-17-2002).]

[anymapkoku]

I tried to be as nice to you as possible cyricist. The honest truth is that 4 gallows aren't anywhere near being a good or even "ok" army. I also was trying to make the point that it was possibly your decision not to play to win that caused you to lose, which I thought was what in line with what you had been posting.
Besides for the record, what is on this thread is not the whole story and people reading this have no way of knowing and probably don't care anyways.

[anymapkoku]

I apologize if I came off thinking I was good, for the record I'm terrible. I'm just posting what I believe to be facts, based on experience. If I say "no one good will lose to that army" or something like that, It's nothing personal, just what I believe to be the truth.

[Cyricist]

Righto.. no problem then.. we are on the same side on this matter! Let's not let our personal views mess up a good point we both support (in different ways, but still!).

[CBR]

No Im not upset...

If you buy an army for one purpose: to fight in the wood..meaning no spears as they lose their rank bonus..no cavalry..you could buy some missile units but not thats not needed. What is the best counter to that?

Cavalry is no good in woods. Missile units cant hit much if the targets are in woods. The 2 unit types that people complain about is precisely cavalry and missile(at least archers).

As I said in the MP room..that will just ruin game balance even more and thats why I dont like camping with your whole army in the woods. And specifically buying an army for that purpose.

Any balanced army will still lose if it has to fight in the woods. Missile fire alone will not force someone to fight in the open(depending on the size of the woods ofc)and what if the camper has missile too..the balanced army with cavalry still wont be superior.

I can understand your idea about forcing the attacker to buy some units he might not have bought because of the threat of camping in the woods. I would just prefer a unit choice based on the relationship between spears, swords,missile and cavalry and not based on the risk of facing a whole enemy army in a wood.

My current army I enjoy playing wont have a chance if I meet a camper like that and no I dont have have one spear unit at all in that army. All the missile and very expensive heavy cavalry wont do much good in a wood. And I simply dont have enough swords to do all the fighting alone. I might be able to just sit and empty all my arbs I guess but how much damage will they do?

Does that mean that I dont care about terrain/woods at all? No ofc not. I just think of woods more of a flank protection against cavalry than anything else.

This game is Medieval:Total War and that basically means we are playing with unit/weapon types that excisted back then and therefore I also expect tactics as back then and not something IMO artificial as camping/fighting in woods, as well as infantry rushes that runs around and easily kills cavalry.

CBR

[Cyricist]

I could not agree more http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif