The Cheapest Trick in the Book! - Page 5

Executor · #1 April 7th, 2009, 03:22 PM

Hm, I just tried something very interesting, but unfortunantly it doesn't work, nice idea doe.
I've put a few charmers with penetration items along with 10 PD, and cast ghost rider on my own army. The mages all aim only the commander since the horsman are mindless but he doesn't stick around after the battle, sadly...

vfb · #2 April 10th, 2009, 09:48 AM

Good idea! Or play a Rand game. I think the decision about who to fight should be based on the nations and the circumstances of the game, not on who is playing the nation.

ano · #3 April 10th, 2009, 04:02 PM

Whom to attack first is in most cases the question that may cost you the game. The reasons are simple - difference between nations may not be big initially so you need to consider many points before attacking.
Personally I nearly always try to attack weaker (or at best - AI controlled) nations. If I swallow them then I will grow and increase the difference between me and the others.
I will attack a powerful nation/player early on only if I see that he is expanding and growing faster and I can't help it. In this case diplomacy should be used to convince other people that this nation is a threat (and it is almost always true).
One of the biggest mistakes that can be made in MP is failed early attack on someone. This will surely put you to the end of the caravan and most probably cost you the game. Even if you succeed in killing that nation at last you may be too far behind to hope for something so if you see you made a mistake better don't aggravate the situation and suggest peace.

DonCorazon · #4 April 10th, 2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ano

Whom to attack first is in most cases the question that may cost you the game. The reasons are simple - difference between nations may not be big initially so you need to consider many points before attacking.
Personally I nearly always try to attack weaker (or at best - AI controlled) nations. If I swallow them then I will grow and increase the difference between me and the others.
I will attack a powerful nation/player early on only if I see that he is expanding and growing faster and I can't help it. In this case diplomacy should be used to convince other people that this nation is a threat (and it is almost always true).
One of the biggest mistakes that can be made in MP is failed early attack on someone. This will surely put you to the end of the caravan and most probably cost you the game. Even if you succeed in killing that nation at last you may be too far behind to hope for something so if you see you made a mistake better don't aggravate the situation and suggest peace.

I'd agree but its probably safe to see that a failed attack can often cost you the game whether early or late if its a competitive game. Which is why the winners of many games are the ones that always manage to stay on the right side of the dogpile and only attack if they can win quickly and decisively. Usually because they have some temporary edge, be it an awake SC, national match up, or a set of strong allies.

AreaOfEffect · #5 April 10th, 2009, 07:13 PM

Don, Losing armies, even in the early stages, almost never determines my victory or defeat. Troops are disposable. There loss means nothing to me. Its a loss of magery and gems that always concerns me most. So long as I have land, castles, and mages, I never count myself out.

Baalz, I will grant you that it seems a bit hasty and unwarranted to rush a player simply because they have a high profile. I personally don't mind giving some of the vets a little breathing room, so long they aren't a real threat and I'm keeping up the pace. I suppose I play more for the challenges that others have to offer.

AreaOfEffect · #6 April 11th, 2009, 06:49 AM

If we are talking about your chances at victory, well then yes, you will likely be unable to win. Exceptions will exist. Possibly more often then you think. I just didn't like the absoluteness of your quote.

I'm personally not a big fan of the whole choke point thing by the way. In most cases I'd rather out maneuver my opponent then hold him in some Mexican standoff. That's why my castles are more likely to guard magic sites then they are to guard a worthless canyon. If an opponent uses castles at choke points against me and the castle doesn't protect anything worthwhile, I generally move on. It always surprises them that I don't behave exactly like the AI.

Executor · #7 April 11th, 2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreaOfEffect

I'm personally not a big fan of the whole choke point thing by the way. In most cases I'd rather out maneuver my opponent then hold him in some Mexican standoff. That's why my castles are more likely to guard magic sites then they are to guard a worthless canyon. If an opponent uses castles at choke points against me and the castle doesn't protect anything worthwhile, I generally move on. It always surprises them that I don't behave exactly like the AI.

If you're being double, triple, 5 vs 1 teamed (

), it's best to sit back in your forts and wait until the enemy tries to storm you. After that, you make a counter offansive.
Or/and hold the line on one side, while eliminating the weakest enemy on the other side. Always try and concentrate all the fire power you can spare on one single enemy.
Works best from my experience, and I had a lot of those situation.

archaeolept · #8 April 11th, 2009, 03:48 PM

I've prevailed in a 5 v 1 set-up; but, in general, of course, being double teamed should at least knock you out of the running.

Executor · #9 April 11th, 2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeolept

I've prevailed in a 5 v 1 set-up; but, in general, of course, being double teamed should at least knock you out of the running.

I think I'm the winner here, 9vs1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeldor

Executor:

I have a practice in that now. I somehow got into me vs. everyone else situation.

Me and you both my friend.

Err, Baalz, correct me if I'm wrong but you gave me an ultimatum, you won't do diplomacy with me unless I attacked Don Corazon, and I did try and contact Atlantis in order to revise my option but he went AWOL, and as strong as Nehekhara is, going solo against Rlyeh from the start would result in a total disaster, or a very long and hard victory that would probably cost me the game.

Zeldor · #10 April 11th, 2009, 04:51 PM

Baalz is right, being a vet gives you a red flag. There will surely be other ones that will do diplomatic attempts to try and organise smth againt a vet

Well, unless you are llamabeast

Also behaviour in old games means a lot. If you tend to go AI when things start to go bad, you may be sure that you will get attacked only for that reason in one of the next games. It's really basic psychology. And invader will prepare nice big show of fireworks, to try and convince you to go AI and let him win fast. Same goes the other way round - someone who fights till the end has smaller chances of being attacked, unless he is really outnumbered.

Executor:

I have a practice in that now. I somehow got into me vs. everyone else situation. Some people went AI, including those that had to be my vassals and blockers from other players. I wasn't really prepared for that and it will be tough job. Map really doesn't promote small controlled fronts [and there were some bugs that complicated my situation].