Fav. # of players

[Skomatth]

Due to the lack of good topics right now:

What's your favorite number of players?

I used to liek 3v3 best when I was a newb cause I thought it was most fair. Then I liked the massive # of heads in 4v4. Later I moved to liking 1v1 cause of the more tactics you could do when you're not responsible to anyone. I've played that so much I'm a little sick of it. Now, as long as andy's my teamate I love 2v2 cause we got some pretty sweet moves together.

[andy119]

Sushi gets my vote. I h8 clan tounreys though points and at sko Me and Sko doing well 2v2 atm and me and Mo. add Ale for a 3v3 and u have a real force

[Monk]

2vs2 is my fav # of players. just the right amount of people for tactics and fun

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

2v2, 3v3, 4v4. No vote though.

I play 1v1, but only 'cos Glorf likes to, and because one day I know I will beat him with The Danes.

But I prefer teamplaying, which means when the team plays together that is. Sometimes it can be spoiled if someone chooses say 16 catapults ...

[Kongamato]

I like playing 3v3 and 4v4.

2v2s are troubling because in a 2v2 I truly am reliant upon another guy's skill, because a lot of hosts are two clan members who wish to test their team tactics. A random ally simply wont suffice.

1v1s are ok, but it just becomes too decisive in terms of victory. I dont ever want to have an enemy conclude that he is more intelligent than me. Also, due to my attitude, if I lose to a guy who charges his 10 Byz inf straight at me and says "GG", I tend to feel like killing somebody. I have a problem with the use of gg, many times the game wasnt close and no advanced tactics were used, the only thing that made the game good was the fact that he won. I used to host them a lot, but I wound up stopping because of the reason above, and the fact that mostly newbies picking the English would enter. I assume that they only knew of the battle of Agincourt and thought that Longbowmen were invincible. I think I also picked up the V&V "Expert Mangonel Destroyer".

[Alastair II]

I like all of them, but 4v4 is my fav b/c a) headcount b) feature of how if you defeat your opponent you can use your cav like in a Napoleonic battle and roll up the other parts of the line, c) with more ppl, there's probably at least one who's capable of directing competently.

[Edit: typo]

[CBR]

I still prefer 4v4 but 3v3 and 2v2 are fun too. As long as I can send my 8 cav to hit Mo's flank hey Mo

CBR

[baz]

well i voted 4v4, i think 2v2 has a lot of potential because of the space available to move into .. 3v3 is a bit boring sometimes when it turns into 2 long lines across middle of the map (esp on steppe) but still can be very good .. obviously 4v4 does this aswell but i like the games where the action starts at the beginning and in 4v4 there is often some action to start things off because of the middle left and middle right starting positions being close to the enemy ideally we would like some slightly bigger maps so 4 armies can fit across with some room still available at the edges

[Tera]

I like 3v3/4v4 best for fun purposes. The more the merrier...

But as for skill in teamplay etc I don't think anything can replace the "bond" between two allies in a 2v2.

Tera

[LRossaLordJimi]

I choose 2vs2,i think is the best mix of tactics and team fun.
I like also 1vs1 against some friend.
The 4vs4 is massive fun if is between people you know,otherwise i don't like to play vs some caotic rusher or some like this
Ave

[baz]

that is true jimi sometimes the fun in a 4v4 can be destroyed if your allies do not play as a team

[Kansuke]

Hi,

Nice to see a topic about the game Skomath, well done m8, rather this than a topic addressing peoples egos and vanity.

Anyway, I prefer 2v2, two good allies can act as one army and the tactics can be deeper, having said that I'll not turn my nose up at any game.


Kansuke.

[Skomatth]

Thats true. Some games can be ruined by people you don't know. Especially 2v2. Maybe I should have included a any game with friends options.

[baz]

thats what i would of voted although it can be rewarding to play with an inexperienced player and win

[andy119]

sushi wins every time for me bcoz u know u have a good host and it will be a good game but after that well 2v2 Cmon we need more sushi votes Btw kansuke thats a damn nice avatar

[Skomatth]

Hey where's the sushi support? Of course ever since I joined Kenchi I've had more drops than in my whole time playing TW. I used to wonder what everyone was talking about...

btw what's up with Mo always hosting 3v3? You'd think he'd want to have good allies, there's always some riffraff in his games. Once I asked Mo to practice 1v1 with me. He said sure and then hosted a 3v3. He then told me to play across from him...jk but it would have been funny.

[andy119]

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOOO sushi pls

[ichi]

Skomatth:

Until last night I would have said 1v1, but . . .

after having my a$$ handed to me in the Tourney yesterday, I played a 2v2 and my ally got dropped. I hid behind his men-turned-statues atop a small hill and BEAT the two opponents (over 1,000 kills to my 500 losses). Granted, my long-gone partner got about 290 kills (mostly from his archers and impetous cavalry), but still, I felt DAMN GOOD.

So now I'm a big fan of 2v2

ichi

[ElmarkOFear]

You guys have never played in an UglyElmo 4v4. woohoo
lots of fun on hillyinland maps. Takes very good teamwork to win as attackers. The secret is to let one person decide the initial avenues of attack and everyone follow his lead. Must have somebody that knows how to win on hillymaps and also the trust of his teammates. If the maneuvering of 8 large armies tends to cramp your style, try playing on small unit size and it opens up the map to more flanking etc. . yet the units still play out the same, just half their normal size.

[tgi01]

Very good topic to begin with

And the options should only include the 1vs 1 up to 4 vs 4
.. that everyone liked playing with friends is not really relevant i think ...Its like asking the question what you prefer sex with some1 you know or sex with strangers

Hmm let me think was that a good example ???

From my experience the chance of terrible things happening ( dropping crashing etc is very high in 4 vs 4 ) so its not really an enjoyable experience most times ....

1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 are my favourites ... i voted 2 vs 2 in the end as it allows more creativity and 2 decent players
can cooperate really well in a 2vs 2 even if they havent met be4 ...( special thanx to the Elites who got me an all archer ally yesterday )

3 vs 3 is really a who doubles on who issue far 2 often ....


kind regards

tgi01

[ErikJansen]

4v4

The more Ravens we can squeeze into the nest, the better

The sole downside with a 4v4 is the increased probability of an in-game drop.. so everyone;

Check Ping before joining

[Alrowan]

heh.. 4v4 all the way. the nest seems to be full as well erik... so i guess we just have to make another

[Sir Black Raven]

According to the fun we have been having last weeks playing 4x4 i must agree to a well done 4x4 as long u have your clan m8s to back u up.

[ShadesWolf]

4 v 4 always...

Hopefully within a month Broadband will find it way into my area and then I get host 4v4's