You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.14 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » I think we lost the meaning of strategy
Bottom
Topic Subject:I think we lost the meaning of strategy
MaDsTer
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 00:33 AM EDT (US)         
Well i read everyones opinion tha anything that canot "rush" is'nt good.Well let me tell u something playing strategy game doesnt mean tha we rush.I have play and win many "rushers" who (if they can't win by rush) they do not know how to control a proper army.Anyway i think that we lost ,somewhere,the meaning of playing a strategy game
AuthorReplies:
c r e e z y
Mortal
(id: Hairy Scary Man)
posted 19 January 2003 00:35 AM EDT (US)     1 / 14       
I never rush, and I can win all the time.

ArmorPierce
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 00:48 AM EDT (US)     2 / 14       
I used to hate rushing, but now that I am good at it I don't know how I would play a no rush game although it would be fun to have myth units running around the map which I'm not usually able to do because of the concentration on rush.

ESO nick: NerVe_Pierce
Proud member of NerVe Clan
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
MaDsTer
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 00:56 AM EDT (US)     3 / 14       
Playing Greeks most of the time (zeus), although hades is better for killing the rushers. I mean usually i can overcome the rush , if this happen and i ll keep andvantage in ages and tech then usually i win,since i think Greeks after a point they unbeatable (nothing is unbeatable,but in anyway they have the chances with them after a certain point)
Zasten
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 02:11 AM EDT (US)     4 / 14       
I *used* to hate "rushes".

Until I really thought about it.

What's a rush? Its an attack. Isn't that the object of the game? Why does the number on the clock mutate an "attack" to a "rush".

*shrug*

Just seems like semantics.

And really, a rush IS a strategy. Some players may only be good at that strategy but it is one none-the-less.

I play a lot of chess so I compare strategies in chess terms. A "rush" is really just one type of "opening". There are a lot of chess players that are only good at one or two openings but that doesn't alter the validity of the strategy.

MaDsTer
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 02:32 AM EDT (US)     5 / 14       
Heh i used to play chess too,and be good at it.chess and rudh never go together as u might well know.Also an opening in chess can take quite a long while u can go to heroic ages in about ten minites in aom (lol thats not a good one comparison but what the heck).And if rush is an "opening" u should have the counter opening,which usually u dont as i read.In anyways one thing exists,lossing the fan tha a game provides
dragons89
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 03:17 AM EDT (US)     6 / 14       
"Rush" isn't really the "rush" it was in AoK. You were meant to attack early, and that's how the game was designed.

Give me money, and I might feel generous enough to say something kind.
--My The Ultimate AOK Guide--
--My The Ultimate AOM Guide
polaris_crd
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 04:02 AM EDT (US)     7 / 14       
"Rushes" in AoM are a lot like "Opening Traps" in Chess, both are fast attacks or moves that are desined to take down a player that doesn't know how to defend against them. Remember, if you survive a fast rush 9 times out of 10 you have the advantage because the other player had to invest a lot to launch the attack. We all use to complain about the rush, but ironicly enough we now complain about boom strategies like the RA Fast Heroics.

My hobby is playing video games, and my dream is to someday get paid to do it.

[This message has been edited by polaris_crd (edited 01-19-2003 @ 04:12 AM).]

The_Avenger772
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 04:06 AM EDT (US)     8 / 14       
Wow, you attacked early. Meanie!

<_<

There is nothing wrong with rushes. Anyway, AOM is designed for a 7-8min battle, then a whole lot more from there. The first thing to do is know that a pre-6min attack is a rush, not anything after; the second thing to know, is that there is nothing wrong with rushes, I really enjoy 7-8min battles, where the smallest things can make a difference, and you have lots of tactics moving your units around, not 30 lumbering around and you struggling to micro them all.

Toastabal
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 05:58 AM EDT (US)     9 / 14       
a rush is an attack which you have to sacrifice econ to do. Advancing to classic in 5-6 mins is not sacrificing econ, since you don't need anymore vils at that point, and you'll gain more by going classic and getting upgrades. However, what is interesting is how a lot of players seem to call a 7-8 min attack a rush. It isn't. Just cause you hit faster than you did in aoc, doesn't mean you sacrifice econ in the same way. An attack at 4 mins though is a rush, and a massive econ sacrifice. The players that do these, are usually good enough to adapt and can do a lot of other things as well. I can do a few attacks, but a rush in aom is hard to pull off without a lot of practice (anyone think a 4 min rush would own a RaFH? I know it's OT, but I just thought of it...).

quite a lot of rambling there, just take what you want

TheShadowDawn
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 06:06 AM EDT (US)     10 / 14       
MaDster...if you remember when rushing didn't exist, then you must've been playing a long time before people ever began to look at how to seriously win RTS games. Attacking before your enemy is ready to try and do more damage is a staple concept to any RTS game. There's nothing wrong with it at all. If you don't like it...then play in advanced setup jotunheim rookie games...

TheShdwDwn
If you're like me, then it's possible you're a clone generated from my stolen DNA. I suggest you turn yourself in for destruction immediately.
Hrolf the Reborn
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 07:40 AM EDT (US)     11 / 14       
I can rush pretty good if I want to but I find that if you stay in classical till about ten or nine min mark you get a very large army il chose Odin, Hiemdall this gives me Clasical age rams Einherjars and your army of RC and TA

Strategist, Age fan, owner of AoM beta, and future game devolper.
aCCoUnT INvALiD
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 09:17 AM EDT (US)     12 / 14       
I never lose. I unplug the modem.
c r e e z y
Mortal
(id: Hairy Scary Man)
posted 19 January 2003 09:55 PM EDT (US)     13 / 14       
*tops*

The_Avenger772
Mortal
posted 19 January 2003 10:58 PM EDT (US)     14 / 14       

Quote:

Well i read everyones opinion tha anything that canot "rush" is'nt good.

You dont have to rush. But make sure you don't die to rushes.

Quote:

Well let me tell u something playing strategy game doesnt mean tha we rush.

We don't have to, but we can, and it's a good thing to do. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

I have play and win many "rushers" who (if they can't win by rush) they do not know how to control a proper army.

Maybe they do.. controlling rush armies, when there are only a few units and one unit could make all the difference, is HARDER than having 60 units on each side. Rushers are better microers, normally, than non-rushers, because rushing with little units teaches you how to micro wel.

Quote:

Anyway i think that we lost ,somewhere,the meaning of playing a strategy game

No, strategy games simply evolved. Nothing wrong, cheap, lame, gay, stupid, or dumb about rushing. Don't look at it with disdain.

You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames