PDA

View Full Version : Turtle?


crex719
08-06-2008, 11:35 AM
Do you guys consider extreme defenses annoying? One of my favorite aspects of any RTS is building. Pretty much as soon as this game comes out I am going to make my defenses as strong as they can be. I never feel comfortable in an RTS without a powerful defense.
I know many people frown upon "turtling" but I really do not see anything wrong with it. Can beat their defenses? spend as much time as they did to build up and make a large army instead. Still can beat them? eventually your going to have to deal with it and move on.
How do you guys feel about the "turtle" strategy?

Esculas the Mighty
08-06-2008, 12:23 PM
always balance it out

u wanna be skiled in both areas of the field much easier but a players playing style is his style gotta except that rather its rushing booming tower and archer spaming laming ( respect? not so much ) but mastering them all makes u a flexible player able to handle any situation something i learned on aom im not the best but i can get the pros to say gg instead of spaming laughing taunt which they do when they clean up

i think i got my point

The Witch King of Angmar
08-06-2008, 12:39 PM
I like it to mess around and build stuff but in a regular game I never do it.

ash12181987
08-06-2008, 01:13 PM
Nah, Go turtleing IMO. It's the way of the byzantium empire, and it worked pretty dang well if you ask me.

Esculas the Mighty
08-06-2008, 01:26 PM
Nah, Go turtleing IMO. It's the way of the byzantium empire, and it worked pretty dang well if you ask me.

till the turks came of course

but its also true that all u need is a really big wall and archers ( troy) if they had just omega super locked thier gate the world may look a bit different

reminds me of carthage :( carthage should have pwned rome but nooooo they got lucky them numidian traitors D:

crex719
08-06-2008, 02:58 PM
woah woah im not saying I suck! I know the other strategies very well. I respect people that use them but the only strategy I like is turtling. I can send out a massive army if I wanted to but I feel like im not enjoying the game enough that way.

frankein_fish
08-06-2008, 03:22 PM
till the turks came of course

but its also true that all u need is a really big wall and archers ( troy) if they had just omega super locked thier gate the world may look a bit different

reminds me of carthage :( carthage should have pwned rome but nooooo they got lucky them numidian traitors D:

numidians didn't save rome the biggest reason why Rome survived was their war philosophy: nothing execpt Victory can be accepted in war
And therefore where other nations would seek peace after some defeates the Romans just came back for more till they'd win

Esculas the Mighty
08-06-2008, 04:09 PM
numidians didn't save rome the biggest reason why Rome survived was their war philosophy: nothing execpt Victory can be accepted in war
And therefore where other nations would seek peace after some defeates the Romans just came back for more till they'd win

wow how stuborn were they lol

yea but the numidians played a role in their final battle

the 3rd punic war was stupid tho =\ the romans were afraid that carthage would use the army and navy it raised to defend itself against pirates and raiders to attack again so roman declared war again it makes sense tho with carthage out of the picture rome can just step on everyone

and carthage prob would have seeked revenge if given another 2-3 years with that army it was raiseing and hannibal would be ready for another go with a book of strategies and counter-strategies that africanus could not stop

but isn't it weird theres also 2 lone super omega powers and everyone else is allways really weak at that time so weird

ash12181987
08-06-2008, 05:10 PM
Er... Hannibal wouldn't have done much good by the time of the third punic war... you know, considering he'd been dead about 40ish years?

The second Punic war was Carthage's last time of greatness. But, even then, Hannibal's forces by the time he shipped off the Italian Peninsula were not capable of doing much more than pestering the romans. He had already come to the conclusion he Couldn't take Rome, which was the only thing that could have overthrown the empire, or at the very least coming close to disrupting it.

The army the Carthigian's had at the time of the third war was heavily depleted, not a significant force. But as to WHY the romans wanted to attack Carthage in the third war, it didn't have anything to do with Carthage's army... but more to do with the city itself. The city of Carthage was Always a center of trade in the Mediterranean, taking it was beneficial for the Roman empire, more beneficial than leaving the ailing Phoenician port city alive much longer.

As for the "Defection" of the nummidians... One of the Numidian tribes had always been aligned with the Romans, even in the second Punic war. Now even if the the third war, all the tribes decided it was best to attack the Carthigians.... it's kinda like vultures around a dead antelope. They saw a chance to expand their empire, so they did, it was taking Candy from a baby, a baby with a Very nice position in terms of trade routes.

Jean=A=Luc
08-06-2008, 06:47 PM
Rome >>>>> Carthage

Mrdash
08-06-2008, 08:22 PM
This thread just became my history lessons.......

Esculas the Mighty
08-06-2008, 08:43 PM
http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=7464

i think u need to know more about this general if you need even more i have another much longer article

ash12181987
08-06-2008, 10:04 PM
Nice article. Now, Why didn't Hannibal take Rome then? He had all this power, the league of the Mediterranean...?

By the time he reached the city, he didn't have the men, supplies, or willpower to take the City of Rome. So while he gets a big shiny gold star for being the greatest general in history, which I don't argue, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It mentions in your article he sieged Rome, yes, but the romans ignored him for a reason. To an extent, Hannibal was so good that he was too good, like Wallenstein and Napoleon. The Roman's realized this and Stopped fighting him. They knew they couldn't beat him on the battlefield, so they attacked that which held him up, infrastructure. It notes in your article that His brother was attacked in reinforcing him. That was part of the plan laid down by Rome to deal with Hannibal. They attacked Iberia, they attacked the supply fleets, and more importantly, they attacked Carthage. Carthage was in shambles when he returned because of Roman sea attacks, which choked the city until it wasn't capable of defending itself. When this happened, Hannibal was Forced to return.

Also, between the second and third punic war, the League that Hannibal formed (Syracus, Greece, Macedon, ect.) All fell to the romans, one by one.

Was Hannibal Great? Yes. Was he good enough? No. This same thing happened to Napoleon 1900 years later. You cannot win a war by yourself. You can come close, but a great general is only as good as the nation that holds him up, supplies him, and reinforces him. If Hannibal had faced facts and become Roman, he would have conquered more area than Alexander the Great. Instead, he fought as a freedom fighter, and ultimately killed himself.

Hats off to you, you crazy Carthaginian, but horseshoes and hand grenades bro.

Esculas the Mighty
08-06-2008, 11:10 PM
Nice article. Now, Why didn't Hannibal take Rome then? He had all this power, the league of the Mediterranean...?

By the time he reached the city, he didn't have the men, supplies, or willpower to take the City of Rome. So while he gets a big shiny gold star for being the greatest general in history, which I don't argue, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It mentions in your article he sieged Rome, yes, but the romans ignored him for a reason. To an extent, Hannibal was so good that he was too good, like Wallenstein and Napoleon. The Roman's realized this and Stopped fighting him. They knew they couldn't beat him on the battlefield, so they attacked that which held him up, infrastructure. It notes in your article that His brother was attacked in reinforcing him. That was part of the plan laid down by Rome to deal with Hannibal. They attacked Iberia, they attacked the supply fleets, and more importantly, they attacked Carthage. Carthage was in shambles when he returned because of Roman sea attacks, which choked the city until it wasn't capable of defending itself. When this happened, Hannibal was Forced to return.

Also, between the second and third punic war, the League that Hannibal formed (Syracus, Greece, Macedon, ect.) All fell to the romans, one by one.

Was Hannibal Great? Yes. Was he good enough? No. This same thing happened to Napoleon 1900 years later. You cannot win a war by yourself. You can come close, but a great general is only as good as the nation that holds him up, supplies him, and reinforces him. If Hannibal had faced facts and become Roman, he would have conquered more area than Alexander the Great. Instead, he fought as a freedom fighter, and ultimately killed himself.

Hats off to you, you crazy Carthaginian, but horseshoes and hand grenades bro.

true true but he swore to never be a freind of a roman

very true about u can only be as good as the nation holding u up imagine if the british empire had hannibal at its prime

or if hannibal were to fight america during our revolution would of been a wipe out dunno if i should laugh or be sad of that since im a hannibal barca fan and a american citizen =\

or if Abraham Lincoln was reincarnated and elected president instead of bush lol bye bye dept

Esculas the Mighty
08-06-2008, 11:15 PM
SORRY FOR MAKING UR POST ABOUT CARTHAGE

nay way every strategy comes down to how well u control ur military no matter if u have a city with 20 layers of walls if you think archers counter ligth cavalry

Sharku
08-07-2008, 07:58 AM
The only thing I love more than building an impenetrable city is besieging my enemies impenetrable city. Some games make it far too annoying though, but Dawn of Fantasy seems like the right type of game for it.

Esculas the Mighty
08-07-2008, 10:45 AM
The only thing I love more than building an impenetrable city is besieging my enemies impenetrable city. Some games make it far too annoying though, but Dawn of Fantasy seems like the right type of game for it.

i rather have a series of land battles before i even make it close to my enemies if i march right too him and destroy him ill be disapointed and would prob give them resources to build back up

Mrdash
08-07-2008, 02:28 PM
i rather have a series of land battles before i even make it close to my enemies if i march right too him and destroy him ill be disapointed and would prob give them resources to build back up

Wow thats what im like if I pwn some1 too fast I usualy give them a break and let them build back up. Funner for both of us. I mean come on if the game lasts any shorter than an hour its a bit too short.

LONG GAMES FTW!!!!

Sharku
08-10-2008, 01:20 PM
i rather have a series of land battles before i even make it close to my enemies if i march right too him and destroy him ill be disapointed and would prob give them resources to build back upOf course, I doubt they would yield the Pelennor unfought after all, or whatever they call the land around their cities :-P

nickson104
08-11-2008, 11:57 AM
Wow thats what im like if I pwn some1 too fast I usualy give them a break and let them build back up. Funner for both of us. I mean come on if the game lasts any shorter than an hour its a bit too short.

LONG GAMES FTW!!!!

My thoughts exactly :) if a game lasts shorter than at least an hour and a half it generally is way too short and cuts the enjoyment down majorly

Esculas the Mighty
08-11-2008, 08:00 PM
i wanna have a cold war with someone afraid to figth each other but enjoy flexing muscle at each other ( conquering kingdoms around them setin up bases around them u know the cold war stuff untill 1 of us falls economically

nickson104
08-12-2008, 01:03 PM
i wanna have a cold war with someone afraid to figth each other but enjoy flexing muscle at each other ( conquering kingdoms around them setin up bases around them u know the cold war stuff untill 1 of us falls economically

Sounds like my style when i want to be agressive, usually i am on the recieving end just turtling and expanding slowly but always making sure i have a backup or shock attack force

kronlc
09-28-2008, 07:22 PM
Im always the expansive type
preffering to send my troops raiding
and conqouring. for me its all about how
much territory I own and how much more
I can get. conqour then consolidate.I dont very much like the thought of
a enemy ravaging or plundering my
land then having the temerity to
attack my city :)

saying that I'll always leave a staple
garrison in my city just incase something does
arrise while Im away purging orcs or
slaying dragons.

Im more of a offensive player.

Onebadterran
09-29-2008, 06:26 PM
I actually prefer to turtle myself. It's not that I do not like to attack or even fight, I just prefer to build up an economy and just hang out.

Off topic:
I absolutely hate having mercy given upon me. If I get defeated and if they destroyed my city I would rather them finish me off then giving me resources to rebuild. If I lost I lost, but I rarely lose. I do love long games, so long as they are not drawn out to extremes.

To those of you who contest that; I only lose to people who have done as much research as I have or if I have no clue what I am doing in the game. I have studied every battle, every aspect, every single possible situation. If anyone else has studied the best and the worst of all war generals as I have my hat is off to you and I hope to face you in combat.
Call me a freak of war strategies cause thats what I am. If you try to reconstruct a stronger Constantinople (one of the most fortified cities in the ancient world) I will tear it down, stone by stone if I must. If you charge me with a huge army I will cut them down with few. I could be hopelessly outnumbered or outgunned and yet still come close to winning if not win the battle through sheer tactics.

You can say I am gloating, you can say I have a big ego; both are probably true, but what I am saying is that I have put a massive amount of time into researching, studying, and memorizing war strategies as well as figuring out why the greatest civilizations of them all fell and not making those errors myself, only to meet no challenge at all.

Most of my knowledge lies within offensive capabilities since I have found that all defenses can be easily crushed.

Jean=A=Luc
09-29-2008, 07:03 PM
but what I am saying is that I have put a massive amount of time into researching, studying, and memorizing war strategies as well as figuring out why the greatest civilizations of them all fell and not making those errors myself, only to meet no challenge at all.

I don't see why this would help you win at computer games. While strategy games strive to simulate actual battle conditions and incorporate them into their game play mechanics, the difference between commanding clusters of pixels via a digital interface and actually leading a real army is practically beyond compare.

Most of my knowledge lies within offensive capabilities since I have found that all defenses can be easily crushed.

Didn't you say you like to turtle?

Onebadterran
09-29-2008, 08:31 PM
What I actually said was that I prefer to build econ. Though I did mention that building econ. requires turtling I am not afraid to go out and fight.

Leading a real army and leading a virtual army are actually very similar. The tactics are almost the same on all RTS's and thats what I use. Many of the great generals have created tactics for real combat, real combat tactics can be utilized for simulations.

Take, for example, chess. It was originally created as a way to predict what the enemy was going to do and how to counter that. Granted chess is much more limited than an actual battle and it only simulates field battles, but the same principles apply.

crex719
09-29-2008, 09:17 PM
Am I a decent general if I want to secure a strong defense before I go out and attack?

Puppeteer
09-30-2008, 11:39 AM
What you actually said is you prefer turtling.

You can say I am gloating, you can say I have a big ego; both are probably true, but what I am saying is that I have put a massive amount of time into researching, studying, and memorizing war strategies as well as figuring out why the greatest civilizations of them all fell and not making those errors myself, only to meet no challenge at all.
Real-life mechanics and RTS mechanics don't always match up. Studying real-life tactics won't automatically make you good at this game. I don't believe that the same principles apply from Chess to Real-life as RTS does. In Chess, each piece can take out another fair & square one-to-one. RTS? Doesn't.

Darvin
09-30-2008, 01:43 PM
In RTS, there's been a long-standing tradition of being a glorified game of rocks-paper-scissors. Pikes > cavalry > swordsman > pikes, for instance. Well, the same thing applies to turtling;

Turte > Rush > Boom > Turtle

Like anything, the game comes down to boring rocks-paper-scissors if this is a mutually exclusive notion. It's not; instead, much as you build an army that contains a balance of pikes, cavalry, and swordsman, your strategy should encompass some combination of turtle, rush, and boom. This adds depth to the game while keeping the behavior of the game logical (after all, no one is going to turtle if a good rush will beat you anyways)


I feel that "pure" turtling should be suicide. If you choose to simply sit in base and refuse to participate in the other aspects of the game, I should have several options to gain a more powerful economy than you and then crush you a few minutes from now. In this sense, turtling on its own should not be viable, it should be used as part of a larger strategy.

I'd like to elaborate on the above to show why the game must be this way. In many ways, all strategy comes down to cost and risk versus gain. How much does it cost to undertake a strategy, how risky is the strategy, and how much do I gain through its success? Going out and fighting battles is risky, hence to encourage actual battles (otherwise the game would be boring) there must be some benefit to doing so that is appropriate to the level of risk. If you choose to hide in base and refuse to fight me, I gain all that benefit without ever having to take the risk or expend any cost in doing so. I have gained a massive advantage by default. Clearly if there is to be any reasonable benefit for fighting early-game field battles over resources, pure turtling is suicide, since that will just give your opponent a free victory.

I'm sure the AI will be stupid enough that you can turtle and get away with it (most AI's are quite stupid, relying on cheats or exploiting common newbie mistakes to look good), but the game would be very boring multiplayer if this was totally viable. While the idea of building a castle and then having someone try to tear it down is an interesting game mode, in a RTS where both players are simultaneously battling over land and resources it makes for slow and boring gameplay.

kronlc
09-30-2008, 06:34 PM
hell, If people want to turtle I
say let them. Just makes it easier
for an attacker to set up his seige gear/camps
ect.

Esculas the Mighty
09-30-2008, 10:27 PM
hell, If people want to turtle I
say let them. Just makes it easier
for an attacker to set up his seige gear/camps
ect.

lol turtles arent stupid

besides i think thats called an aggressive turtle the red kind lol

nickson104
10-01-2008, 01:34 PM
hell, If people want to turtle I
say let them. Just makes it easier
for an attacker to set up his seige gear/camps
ect.

And then the turtle sends out a few battalions of units to raze these camps to the grounds...

Yes turtling is generally suicide as he gives the advantage of land control to the enemy however it can extend the time period of a game, and gives both sides a rush of adrenaline by seeing the massive invading army attacking the heavily defended but outnembered defenders. It can be quite exciting at these points, but so can skirmishes for land control...

A variety of tactics should be used, and all tactics should be able to be counterable with a fair amount of skill.

Mrdash
10-01-2008, 05:31 PM
Oh come on how many of you think its funner to see a small battalion of 5-10 guys fight another battalion rather than a huge army at the doorstep of a big castle. Imagine...*1k men marching towards the gates....the defenders start launching the cats....guys fly as the rocks hit the ground.....ladders go up on the side and guys start pouring in... then the defenders drop bunch of boiling oil on the offenders...then an archer lights it...fireworks...the castle comes down...then it starts all over again.

SCREW SMALL SKIRMISHES UNLESS YOUR SCOUTING!

BLOWING HALF THE MAP FTW!!!

If you preffer skirmishes play LoTR or AoE.

Jean=A=Luc
10-02-2008, 03:46 AM
And then the turtle sends out a few battalions of units to raze these camps to the grounds...


Lol, those camps won't be empty you know and because you gave the map to your enemy (along with the resources that go along with it) you're going to be severely outnumbered.

Esculas the Mighty
10-02-2008, 04:40 AM
Lol, those camps won't be empty you know and because you gave the map to your enemy (along with the resources that go along with it) you're going to be severely outnumbered.
unless your elven or have more than 1 city

kronlc
10-02-2008, 05:20 PM
I hope there battalions do come out to meet me
for I would rather face them on the ground then on the walls.

Esculas the Mighty
10-02-2008, 05:33 PM
I hope there battalions do come out to meet me
for I would rather face them on the ground then on the walls.

o they will come out they have too

nickson104
10-03-2008, 07:52 AM
Lol, those camps won't be empty you know and because you gave the map to your enemy (along with the resources that go along with it) you're going to be severely outnumbered.

Lol i know :p its generally a kamikaze mission to do as much damage as possible and delay the attackers while the defenders increase their defenses

Yes huge battles are a lot more fun than the small skirmishes, but small skirmishes are necessary to a battle :p
Scout groups
Ambushes
Delaying or severing trade routes and such
Testing your opponents battle style
And then just for fun :)

Puppeteer
10-03-2008, 10:58 AM
All of the above are "just for fun", else you shouldn't be playing it.

nickson104
10-04-2008, 05:43 AM
All of the above are "just for fun", else you shouldn't be playing it.

Lolol of course, you know what i meant :p when i said just for fun i meant to toy with your opponent :p

Esculas the Mighty
10-28-2008, 04:57 PM
Rome >>>>> Carthage

:( sadly true

Jean=A=Luc
10-28-2008, 07:32 PM
That post was like 3 pages ago but nwm. :p

Why is it sad? Carthaginians were greedy bastard expansionists while Romans were greedy bastard expansionists with courage, vision and competent leaders who were able to adapt to tackle a major crisis.

I'm still in awe of Rome's steadfastness after the battle of Cannae. To make a long story short the better greedy expansionists won.

Esculas the Mighty
10-28-2008, 08:09 PM
That post was like 3 pages ago but nwm. :p

Why is it sad? Carthaginians were greedy bastard expansionists while Romans were greedy bastard expansionists with courage, vision and competent leaders who were able to adapt to tackle a major crisis.

I'm still in awe of Rome's steadfastness after the battle of Cannae. To make a long story short the better greedy expansionists won.

true im just bitter cause my history teacher praises rome to much and i love any nation who steps to rome now

and she ****ed me off on how she explained the punic wars D:

kronlc
11-02-2008, 03:24 PM
and she ****ed me off on how she explained the punic wars D:

Next time she decides to ramble and rant, punch her in the back of her head when she is not looking. Okay?

Esculas the Mighty
11-02-2008, 03:59 PM
Next time she decides to ramble and rant, punch her in the back of her head when she is not looking. Okay?

brilliant ill do that next time

Puppeteer
11-02-2008, 04:09 PM
Hehehe there we go, now people can understand him :p

nickson104
11-03-2008, 11:06 AM
Hehehe there we go, now people can understand him :p

You retyped his words for him taking away all the 'I aM a CoMpLeTe MoRoN' text im guessing :p

Puppeteer
11-03-2008, 11:10 AM
Pretty much, but he misspelled "complete"...
And "am"...

Esculas the Mighty
11-03-2008, 07:16 PM
Pretty much, but he misspelled "complete"...
And "am"...

id rather you not spell check it that way i may look back on it and maybe ill pay more attention to my spelling

Jean=A=Luc
11-04-2008, 12:18 PM
id rather you not spell check it that way i may look back on it and maybe ill pay more attention to my spelling

...coming from a guy who spelled his name wrong. :p

Mrdash
11-04-2008, 01:44 PM
...coming from a guy who spelled his name wrong. :p

Ha rofl. Have you guys noticed how offtopic you are. Spelling and teachers and etc. You guys are pitiful. jk jk =D

Esculas the Mighty
11-04-2008, 04:48 PM
...coming from a guy who spelled his name wrong. :p

i cant ask in peace can i

Jean=A=Luc
11-04-2008, 07:09 PM
i cant ask in peace can i

Silence wrong name speller! Go spend a fortnight in the Temple of Linguistics in deep prayer to the Grammar Gods. After that you will be ready for the Trial of Letters. Until you pass the Trial you must uphold a wow of silence and a rigorous fasting ritual living on nothing but bread and water. Only once your mind has been cleansed from the illiteracy deamons will you be able to rejoin humanity. Now go...

Esculas the Mighty
11-04-2008, 07:35 PM
Silence wrong name speller! Go spend a fortnight in the Temple of Linguistics in deep prayer to the Grammar Gods. After that you will be ready for the Trial of Letters. Until you pass the Trial you must uphold a wow of silence and a rigorous fasting ritual living on nothing but bread and water. Only once your mind has been cleansed from the illiteracy deamons will you be able to rejoin humanity. Now go...

I have returned and i have succeeded in ridding my self of the demons.

My newly acquired spelling skills forbid me to overlook your misspelling of demon.

THIS CAN NOT GO UNPUNISHED!!

NOW you shall go forth to the Temple of Linguistics for your trial.

I have decided to leave my misspelled name as a marking to remember my past ways of misspelled words and incorrectly used periods and commas.

Jean=A=Luc
11-04-2008, 08:28 PM
Glory to the Grammar Gods!

ps: daemon is simply a more archaic form similar to "maedieval" etc. :)

Andy Joslin
11-04-2008, 08:33 PM
Glory to the Grammar Gods!

ps: daemon is simply a more archaic form similar to "maedieval" etc. :)

You said deamon though, not daemon. http://www.staredit.net/images/smilies/1/shifty.gif

Jean=A=Luc
11-04-2008, 08:34 PM
Noooooooooooo, I'm meltiiiiing!!1 *melts*

Puppeteer
11-05-2008, 11:26 AM
I have decided to leave my misspelled name as a marking to remember my past ways of misspelled words and incorrectly used periods and commas.
Shame that you spoiled your post with the word "marking"...

Mrdash
11-05-2008, 01:29 PM
Silence wrong name speller! Go spend a fortnight in the Temple of Linguistics in deep prayer to the Grammar Gods. After that you will be ready for the Trial of Letters. Until you pass the Trial you must uphold a wow of silence and a rigorous fasting ritual living on nothing but bread and water. Only once your mind has been cleansed from the illiteracy deamons will you be able to rejoin humanity. Now go...


Rofl @ your imagination....you also said wow instead of vow...not sure if it was intentional but ya...who really cares bout spelling as long as it's not anoying and you can understand them....for example a certain person (not using names) spelling and talking like this: "hWo CAr3S 4B0uT Sp33lIng"
Is a definate no no. =D

nickson104
11-05-2008, 05:53 PM
Rofl @ your imagination....you also said wow instead of vow...not sure if it was intentional but ya...who really cares bout spelling as long as it's not anoying and you can understand them....for example a certain person (not using names) spelling and talking like this: "hWo CAr3S 4B0uT Sp33lIng"
Is a definate no no. =D

ReMiNd5 M3 oF Kr0N :p

dont penalise me noooooo :p i wish to also point out the vow - wow mistake :) totally different words... :p

Jean=A=Luc
11-05-2008, 05:55 PM
ReMiNd5 M3 oF Kr0N :p
i wish to also point out the vow - wow mistake :) totally different words... :p

screw you guys...screw you all to hell. :p

Esculas the Mighty
11-05-2008, 06:31 PM
Shame that you spoiled your post with the word "marking"...

i don't see how thats wrong

yes there are other words to use instead of ''marking'' but i decided to use that one

please don't give me an answer like ''its just wrong'' cause i sense that

Puppeteer
11-06-2008, 10:20 AM
It's not just wrong; I'm led to understand that it is wrong. I do believe that "marking" is not a noun, but a verb. If it is a noun, I've never heard it used; it would appear a very muddled noun. Trying to give a poor example, most people would think that "lanceolate" was a verb by it's very pronunciation and look. It's not. So you can't use "lanceolate" as a verb, when it's an adjective, akin to not using "marking" as a noun, when it's a verb.

Back on topic, anyone?

Jean=A=Luc
11-06-2008, 02:33 PM
You never heard/read a sentence like "There are strange markings on the wall"? Marking can be a noun. Although Esculas used it in a pretty weird way. :) It would make more sense as a verb in his sentence.

The Witch King of Angmar
11-06-2008, 03:00 PM
Back on topic, I think maybe if you stay in your base for a certain time with a certain amount of units that they should get some kind of defense bonus.

nickson104
11-06-2008, 03:08 PM
Back on topic, I think maybe if you stay in your base for a certain time with a certain amount of units that they should get some kind of defense bonus.

Fighting in your own territory should give you a bonus, guerrila tactics and the will to fight for freedom and all...

Puppeteer
11-06-2008, 03:29 PM
(Ah, that's true Jean. Forget about that. So in context, it doesn't work.)
What could you class that as then? Morale?

Jean=A=Luc
11-06-2008, 04:39 PM
I think the huge walls and wall mounted siege weapons are enough of a "defensive bonus".

Esculas the Mighty
11-06-2008, 04:52 PM
Fighting in your own territory should give you a bonus, guerrila tactics and the will to fight for freedom and all...

nah i don't want a bonus cause it would be pretty OP for the best defenders

yea I'm known for using words in weird ways actually but puppeteer please answer my question are you a English major or a perfectionist

Andy Joslin
11-06-2008, 08:02 PM
Defensive Bonuses besides the obvious aren't gonna happen. Your men's 'morale'/'fighting' ability will depend almost solely upon you, the commander. So I guess you could say that the defense has a bonus if the defending commander is better.

The Witch King of Angmar
11-06-2008, 08:39 PM
I know the defense thing isn't going to happen now but if tactics are used correctly for the attacker like a flank or something, they should receive a bonus even though they won't be in the game.

crex719
11-06-2008, 10:15 PM
One negative aspect of turtling is you need at bare minimum 2 hours to pull off a successful assault. Most likely the other person will quit in fustration before that.

Puppeteer
11-07-2008, 10:58 AM
How would you know in this game? It may be 2 minutes! :p Hehe
I like that comment... the defences are proof enough of an advantage. Besides, we know archers on the ramparts will get a bonus from their elevated position, so we don't really need the bonus.

yea I'm known for using words in weird ways actually but puppeteer please answer my question are you a English major or a perfectionist
Neither :D Being 15 discounts the first, and seeing as this only started when I corrected kronlc abhorrent posts, I don't care for the rest. Even the best make mitsakes...

nickson104
11-13-2008, 03:02 PM
How would you know in this game? It may be 2 minutes! :p Hehe
I like that comment... the defences are proof enough of an advantage. Besides, we know archers on the ramparts will get a bonus from their elevated position, so we don't really need the bonus.


Neither :D Being 15 discounts the first, and seeing as this only started when I corrected kronlc abhorrent posts, I don't care for the rest. Even the best make mitsakes...

and kronlc is definitely not the best... :p hehe english major? that would be cool major puppy XD

Darvin
11-14-2008, 02:21 PM
As I've said before, "pure" turtling should be non-viable. If a player simply sits around in his castle all day, his opponent should get free reign over the rest of the map's resources and be able to launch a decisive attack to finish his opponent. Simple as that.

I'm tired of people viewing strategies as purely "rush, turtle, or boom". All strategies incorporate aspects of each of those. The game must strive to encourage a certain degree of balance, or it can get very boring very fast.

In BFME2, "rush" was so overpowered that games just ended in 5-10 minutes because you could neither defend nor build an economy successfully. Alternately, in RoL it was so easy to defend yourself early game that everyone just boomed and the game was a race to the high end units. Without a good balance, the game just degrades into a simple formula very quickly.

nickson104
11-15-2008, 05:20 AM
As I've said before, "pure" turtling should be non-viable. If a player simply sits around in his castle all day, his opponent should get free reign over the rest of the map's resources and be able to launch a decisive attack to finish his opponent. Simple as that.

I'm tired of people viewing strategies as purely "rush, turtle, or boom". All strategies incorporate aspects of each of those. The game must strive to encourage a certain degree of balance, or it can get very boring very fast.

In BFME2, "rush" was so overpowered that games just ended in 5-10 minutes because you could neither defend nor build an economy successfully. Alternately, in RoL it was so easy to defend yourself early game that everyone just boomed and the game was a race to the high end units. Without a good balance, the game just degrades into a simple formula very quickly.

Exactly. That is one reason i dont like LOTR much :( i would get obliterated early by a rush, im more of a slower player, i take my time and try to get an economy first not rush to be the first to own a unit and then terrorise the opponents with that one unit before they have chance to develop their own :( fair fights dont exist anymore :P

I am a much slower person economy first, then defense then spread then more defense... then i might decide to attack but never large scale just a small skirmish like with a scouting party.


I hope the other players of DOF wont go purely one strategy because as you said it bores the other player so much and pretty much destroys the point of the game

Esculas the Mighty
11-15-2008, 06:35 AM
Exactly. That is one reason i dont like LOTR much :( i would get obliterated early by a rush, im more of a slower player, i take my time and try to get an economy first not rush to be the first to own a unit and then terrorise the opponents with that one unit before they have chance to develop their own :( fair fights dont exist anymore :P

I am a much slower person economy first, then defense then spread then more defense... then i might decide to attack but never large scale just a small skirmish like with a scouting party.


I hope the other players of DOF wont go purely one strategy because as you said it bores the other player so much and pretty much destroys the point of the game

being an mmo will change these strategies

turtle for example say I'm elven which I will be
i can generate every resource turtleing but slowly I'm also on the coast where i fish for food to no end and i have allies in the human lands willing to trade wood for food and another human ally wiling to trade gold for food this way i can successfully stay in my base without worrying about enemies coming to my outskirts and cutting off supplies

now not everyone is lucky enough to be near water and im not sure 1 can trade like this but its just an example

p.s this would also require a strong navy

Andy Joslin
11-15-2008, 09:21 AM
Keep in mind that in MMORTS, turtling is a terrible way to get resources. You get so many resources just from doing one of the single player quests, and doing a PvP quest or attacking someone for fun gives even more.
So guy one turtles for 2 weeks. He gathers a few armies of say 100 soldiers each, and sends them out to plunder the lands.

Guy two starts the game, and races through the quests. He'd have tons more resources in a week or so, pwning guy one.

The Witch King of Angmar
11-15-2008, 09:53 AM
You can turtle for 2 weeks!? Lol, how fast do the days go? I'd turtle for like a year and make an impenetrable castle.

Esculas the Mighty
11-15-2008, 11:23 AM
Keep in mind that in MMORTS, turtling is a terrible way to get resources. You get so many resources just from doing one of the single player quests, and doing a PvP quest or attacking someone for fun gives even more.
So guy one turtles for 2 weeks. He gathers a few armies of say 100 soldiers each, and sends them out to plunder the lands.

Guy two starts the game, and races through the quests. He'd have tons more resources in a week or so, pwning guy one.

o i see so its all about quest?

so 1 cannot hope to simply build a nation without quest or at least a powerful one

this brings up a question how are the quests ?

The Witch King of Angmar
11-15-2008, 12:53 PM
Lol the quests would just bring pretty good bonuses. I wonder if you will do quests while playing online. :confused:

nickson104
11-16-2008, 09:53 AM
Lol the quests would just bring pretty good bonuses. I wonder if you will do quests while playing online. :confused:

i think that was just clarified? :confused: :p will it be proper quests? or just things like - we have had reports of an orc presence in _____, go and clear out this infestation (10/10 groups remaining)

Andy Joslin
11-16-2008, 10:22 AM
The quests are very fun, and story-driven; much different for each race. They are all encompassed by one story, and it's not completely lame like the ones in some MMOs. :)

Esculas the Mighty
11-16-2008, 11:59 AM
The quests are very fun, and story-driven; much different for each race. They are all encompassed by one story, and it's not completely lame like the ones in some MMOs. :)

good :D

i played a ''mmorts'' awhile back and it was horrible with quest like

zomg enemy kill them

Jean=A=Luc
11-16-2008, 12:22 PM
Story driven or not it's still a RTS game so at least 95% of quests are going to be combat based.

Jean=A=Luc
11-17-2008, 10:49 AM
edit: Umm, I was responding to Andy's post that seams to have disappeared. Anyway...

I meant to say you'll be killing stuff. Now types of missions can be different of course, for example: "defend for X amount of time", "capture", "hold area", "kill X enemies", "escort", "kill boss" etc. I just get the impression that some people are expecting something radically different, I'm just pointing out the missions will still be in line with the genre of the game.

Some were complaining about quests in MMOs but you can't really escape the nature of a given game.

It's simply the sad truth. :)

Andy Joslin
11-17-2008, 11:16 AM
edit: Umm, I was responding to Andy's post that seams to have disappeared. Anyway...
I deleted it beacuse I decided I was going into too much detail, but apparently I didn't delete it soon enough. :p

Anyway, I see what you mean now.

Darvin
11-17-2008, 01:42 PM
Jean=A=Luc has basically summarized my greatest gripe with MMO's (and why I won't pay monthly fees for 'em). No matter how well designed, they ultimately come down to everyone repeating the same predetermined quests over and over. I feel that the MMO genre will never really mature until we actually have a dynamic world; right now the world is static, never changing. The player is given an objective, which will be the same one three weeks from now. I feel the player's actions must make a change upon the world, so that players that come after will experience an entirely different environment.

The Witch King of Angmar
11-17-2008, 03:19 PM
I agree with you there Darvin. Personally, I just won't pay for them no matter how good they are. :D Anyways, if some quests are online, I guess you'd have to do them with other players. I could see them being especially useful for clans for resources and maybe territory bonuses.

Jean=A=Luc
11-17-2008, 03:21 PM
Of course the quests are online, that's the point of quests. For sp you have campaign + skirmish.

Esculas the Mighty
11-17-2008, 05:01 PM
edit: Umm, I was responding to Andy's post that seams to have disappeared. Anyway...

I meant to say you'll be killing stuff. Now types of missions can be different of course, for example: "defend for X amount of time", "capture", "hold area", "kill X enemies", "escort", "kill boss" etc. I just get the impression that some people are expecting something radically different, I'm just pointing out the missions will still be in line with the genre of the game.

Some were complaining about quests in MMOs but you can't really escape the nature of a given game.

It's simply the sad truth. :)

they always want you to kill something or gather x amount of useless drops

or even both

nickson104
11-18-2008, 09:45 AM
they always want you to kill something or gather x amount of useless drops

or even both

Now thats a bit unfair.... they occasionally ask you to run to places ;)

Puppeteer
11-18-2008, 02:09 PM
Was there any need to quote the whole picture?...

Esculas the Mighty
11-18-2008, 09:35 PM
Was there any need to quote the whole picture?...

does it bother you that much 0.o

should i go get a gigantic sig? nah

well the mmo's ive played always wanted em to get 1000 of a item that the monster drops 0.5% of the time for a hat that doesn't do anything but looks cool

so i did about 4 quests in my entire mmo career

kronlc
12-07-2008, 09:17 PM
does it bother you that much 0.o

should i go get a gigantic sig? nah

well the mmo's ive played always wanted em to get 1000 of a item that the monster drops 0.5% of the time for a hat that doesn't do anything but looks cool

so i did about 4 quests in my entire mmo career

Esc did that walrus want to sex the man?

Konstantin Fomenko
12-07-2008, 11:08 PM
There should be a preview of MMORTS quests sometimes around holidays with more details about the quests.

Our MMORTS quests are radically different and on an epic scale. Here`s one example:


This is one of the mid-game human quests.
You travel to a capital city of Dagbor, go into the keep, to talk to the King and his advisors, get another hero there to join you. Next you travel to the Orcish region, fight with some Orcs there who ambush, run-away and force you to chase them. After you get information from captured Orc captain, you set-up a camp on the world map, recruit mercenaries - with some funds you just acquired. Next you travel to the Orcish capital city of Makkada, set the forest near the city on fire, break into the city while Orcs try to put out the fire, rush to free imprisoned wizard, after you free him - u fight your way out of the city with Orcs chasing you. You escape and travel back to Dagbor, after that a shipment of stuff will arrive to you Homecity several minutes later - your reward.

And lets not forget about Player vs Player quests - there is a whole bunch of them with specific targets, all tied into a continuous epic storyline - the progressive mmorts campaign:)

The Witch King of Angmar
12-08-2008, 05:55 AM
Wow, that sounds awesome! I like how it brings a kind of RPG feeling into the game.

Jean=A=Luc
12-08-2008, 06:45 AM
That sounds like a pretty good quest I must admit. :)

AvengingEvil
12-13-2008, 10:04 PM
hi do we get new quests every few months or is there a set of quests that once you finish thats it? if we are gonna be getting quests every few months are they going to be huge expansion packs or are they going to be small minipacks that are free to download?