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.49 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Throwing Axemen vs Atties
Bottom
Topic Subject:Throwing Axemen vs Atties
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Liquid_
Mortal
posted 10 February 2004 10:50 PM EDT (US)         
Why do the TAs do so poorly vs murmillo and kates. i mean murmillo really own them by alot. Kates might not do aswell, but have enough armor to survive alot.

and

Do the turma get a bonus vs TAs sicne slingers do(dont ask me why, for cryingoutloud the axemen own them) that means that tehy have 2 untis that get a bonus vs them, cherries, which is natural, and turma, which isnt.

AuthorReplies:
Pug
Mortal
posted 10 February 2004 10:53 PM EDT (US)     1 / 49       
your missing the meatsheild. Ulfs tear them apart now, especially with a few pierce armor upgrades. To get the cheirs, flank them with ulfs. they are so damn slow. One of the biggest keys to this is multiple rax and by that i mean at least 8. Click, click and you have units in route.

R.I.P Shiva
Liquid_
Mortal
posted 10 February 2004 10:58 PM EDT (US)     2 / 49       
ya

when i hit classic i lay 3 rax, then i hit 6 more near there base, so i have a lot of units when sum die. but i still wanna know y do Ta suck vs attie inf and do turma get a bonus.

futurehermit
Mortal
posted 10 February 2004 11:26 PM EDT (US)     3 / 49       
read the 10,000,000 posts on the forums about this. there is no need to start another. everyone basically agrees taxmen need a higher modifier vs atln infantry.

fh

IamDominique
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 06:49 AM EDT (US)     4 / 49       
Yes, Turmas and Slingers both have a bonus vs. TA - the difference is infantry get a bonus on turmas already from classical whereas they don't get a bonus vs. slingers.
Einstein_006
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 08:08 AM EDT (US)     5 / 49       
TA don't get a boost vs turma. Turma beat TA because turma are anti-archer; if they didn't, then peltasts and slingers wouldn't kill TA either as they are also anti-archer.

And yes, TA suck vs attie infantry.

Pascal9872
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 09:15 AM EDT (US)     6 / 49       
Your post confuzzles me Einstein. Where did

Quote:

TA don't get a boost vs turma

come from?

Now it is true that slingers get a rather large bonus (X4 I think) against TA. Turma also get a X2 bonus against TA.


Guide to Debugging RMS
Download my RMS here
Help improve RMS reviewing here
A monk I need a monk.
I thought therefore I was.
L_Clan_Kraken
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 03:50 PM EDT (US)     7 / 49       
Why do you think TA are bad vs murmillos? They do alot better then toxotes or arcus in straight tests. Actually they tear murmillo apart in larger battles. Without meatshield tox loose hottible vs murmillo and nobody complains about them. Even without meatshield TA can hold their own vs murm and win in large number figths (around 15?).

Since katas are weaker then murm ill just assume here that they die miserably vs TA.

Kraken

Ekanta
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 03:59 PM EDT (US)     8 / 49       
well greeks got hoplites dont they? norse got ulfs. Try running ulfs vs murmillos and its gg. Do the same with hoplites and u win. thats the difference.

The problem with norse is double. Bad infantry counter and no heavy infantry of their own.

City_Of_God
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 04:02 PM EDT (US)     9 / 49       
The only thing that TA need a bonus against is flying MU, especially those damn atl flying birds :@. TA are fine vs all inf, they do there job well, better than tox. Im not trying to be patronising but you really cannot send a TA to fight a murm/hop/whatever and expect to win. They are a ranged unit, take adv of this i.e. Near buildings/en mass/with a meat shield and most importantly micro .
Ekanta
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 04:04 PM EDT (US)     10 / 49       
the experts have agreed, ta needs a boost, we dont need more noob opinions.

Actually let me edit that:

problem with norse is as said above:

A soft infantry counter in ta that needs a meat shield.
A weak infantry of their own (ulfs, huskarls, yes they are rather weak vs heavy infantry so dont try anything). So its gonna be one helluva weak meat shield + a weak infantry counter.

Its more than obvious this aint gonna work.
dont compare ta to tox as greeks got heavy infantry in hoplites for a meat shield.

Quote:

but you really cannot send a TA to fight a murm/hop/whatever and expect to win

Then tell me wtf u are supposed to do vs someone going all murmillos or all hoplites?

All u can do is mass myths, towers, raid, guerilla war etc. But sooner or later u have to face the opponent, then its gg.

A weak infantry line and a weak infantry counter, these 2 dont go well together.

[This message has been edited by Ekanta (edited 02-11-2004 @ 04:22 PM).]

jwj442
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 04:20 PM EDT (US)     11 / 49       
Kraken, compare the stats of a murm to those of a hoplite. Basically the same, right? Now look at the bonuses TAs get against them - 2.75x vs. hoplite, 2.25x vs. murmillo. Is that really fair? I'm almost positive this was an oversight. Ulfsarks and raiders don't do too well as a meatshield because they both die to murmillos.

And the reason that people don't complain that toxes lose to murmillos is because they are a "soft" counter - Greeks also have hypaspists available in heroic, and hoplites can fight evenly with murmillos as well. TAs by comparision, are the only infrantry counter the Norse get - except ballistas, which aren't available till mythic.

[This message has been edited by jwj442 (edited 02-11-2004 @ 04:21 PM).]

Tordenskiold
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 04:23 PM EDT (US)     12 / 49       

Quoted from Ekanta:

the experts have agreed, ta needs a boost, we dont need more noob opinions

L_Clan_Kraken is +1800

City_of_God is +1700 (with Norse).

But as usual, anybody who doesn't agree with The Norse Whining Choir, is per definition a noob

Quote:

Quote:

but you really cannot send a TA to fight a murm/hop/whatever and expect to win

Then tell me wtf u are supposed to do vs someone going all murmillos or all hoplites?

Use a meat shield - how hard can that be ?? Or fight between/behind buildings like Toxotes does.


TORDENSKIOLD(1690-1720)

During the Great Nordic War (1700-1720), he was commander of the danish navy, which defeaded the swedish army at Kristiania (modern Oslo). After the war, he was killed in a duel on Nov. 12, 1720 just outside Hamburg, Germany, during a travel to England.

ESO: TORDENSKIOLD
City_Of_God
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 05:55 PM EDT (US)     13 / 49       

Quote:

the experts have agreed, ta needs a boost we dont need more noob opinions

Exactly who are these experts btw, please explain who you mean and quote them if at all possible, not just 'well these guys say this'. Is kraken not troy??? Hmmm.

Ekanta, you are again looking at attributes of a civ in isolation. We do not here Gaia players complaining that they cannot counter MU's effectively. You do not here Atl players saying that they cannot counter buildings effectively. You do not here Eggy complaining they have seriously limited raiding options in classic, the list goes on. It is highly debatable whether TA are UP but imo they are not. Those are my sentiments on the issue. I have seen very little or no evidence to lead me to believe that your complaints are warranted.

Quote:

Then tell me wtf u are supposed to do vs someone going all murmillos or all hoplites?

*slaps head* Mass TA with a small meat shield of ulfs/hersir/RC/myth whatever you like but just enough to stop the murms getting to your TA immediately. TA counter murms fine when in reasonable numbers and have a small meat shield, like any ranged unit.

The TA bonus vs murm is debatable, it probably should be the same as vs hops but I see no real problem myself so see no cause for complaint.

If you know that TA are weak vs inf, given the factors I have mentioned (mass, meat shield etc) then do some editor tests etc and actually prove your case.

[This message has been edited by City_Of_God (edited 02-11-2004 @ 05:56 PM).]

Ekanta
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 06:00 PM EDT (US)     14 / 49       
+1700? , lol, what is that? (no offence city, im just 1730 myself in titans).

And what I know of Kraken dont play norse, at least not under this name.

Is that all u have to come with?

Another splendid post Torsken!

L_Clan_Kraken
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 06:06 PM EDT (US)     15 / 49       
True, ulfs get hammered by murmillo. The difference between hoplite/murmillo and spearman/ulfsark is huge. You are almost better of fighting axeman with your spearman then murmillos.

But straight murmillos do get killed by straight throwing axeman. Granted that this needs some number to work, but you can hardly expect armies not to be over 10 units.

There might be other problems with an atlantean vs norse matchup, but my statement is that it isnt as much in the TA, but more that there is something screwed with the atlanteans (egypt and greek dont fair much better in classical vs attie).

"And the reason that people don't complain that toxes lose to murmillos is because they are a "soft" counter - Greeks also have hypaspists available in heroic, and hoplites can fight evenly with murmillos as well. TAs by comparision, are the only infrantry counter the Norse get - except ballistas, which aren't available till mythic."

Yet toxes are considered a good counter vs murmillos. At least if someone would go heavy on murms vs me, i would mass tox. It is not just that the greek do get a tougher meatshield, being ranged is a big advantage on itselve. Also why are TA not a soft counter? If you compare axeman/hyaspist and tox with TA there are certain simularities. In general it seems that the melee counters are the real hard counters, they suck vs what they dont counter. The TA and tox do much better vs cavalry and other archers though (TA sucks vs archers, but at least is more usefull then axeman). If you look at how the TA does vs all units my conclusion would be it is a bit of a mix, it can be seen as a much stronger tox in most situations, except when facing archers, in which case tox would break even and axeman obviously are bad. I would put them in the soft counter category because even though they can hold their own without any meatshield, they fair better with it and they do comparitivly good vs non-counter non-countered units.

On the original subject of why atlanteans get two counters for TA, this is an atlantean problem as far as i am concerned. Egypt axeman get owned by cherio and turma as well. Actually most attie units seem to do great vs more then 1 unit. This isnt just norse, egypt classical units have the same. Combinations of atlantean classicla units are just hard to crack. Greek got its hoplite that can be used vs atlanteans and do well. Both norse and egypt just get screwed since egypt has nothing to counter cherio well, and there is no possible norse combination that beats kata+cherio. Imo this is a problem with the atlanteans and not as much with norse.

Kraken

futurehermit
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 06:13 PM EDT (US)     16 / 49       
yeah, the atties are too strong in classical and norse fair the worst in this respect. basically when anyone cites a 'taxmen problem' it has to do with how poorly taxmen fair against atlns. vs eggy and greek a norse player can play for heroic and go jarl/husk/taxmen. vs atln the pressure is too hard and too fast to do this. no eggy or greek is going to come at you with that kind of pressure early in the game and if they do a norse player can handle it without the headache they receive from atlns.

fh

Ekanta
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 06:30 PM EDT (US)     17 / 49       
lets look at it this way:
u dont need to be to bright to understand that ta have to work if u dont have any heavy infantry of your own, cause infantry beats cav.

The human counter system is 3 fold, infantry/cav/archers.

the norse infantry u can almost foget (ulfs/huskarls)
the norse cav is good
the norse archers dont exist, but might be called ta. and its a soft counter.

so u basically end up with one good unit and 2 that aint very good in classic.

now in which other civ do u find 1 good unit and the rest rather sucky in classic?

U DONT!!!

Quote:

We do not here Gaia players complaining that they cannot counter MU's effectively. You do not here Atl players saying that they cannot counter buildings effectively. You do not here Eggy complaining they have seriously limited raiding options in classic

Well gaia players have all right to complain, judging from stats over 1800+ the civ sucks.
Altantean siege? might be an issue, I seriously havent tested this yet/ dont wanna debate with my current knowledge.
Eggies raiding? get rid of their towers first, then they have the right to complain. in heroic they get the best raiders there are, chariots.

Pascal9872
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 08:14 PM EDT (US)     18 / 49       
Well all you have to do is look at the stats of the hoplite and murmillo and katapeltes and then look at the multiplier that TA get against each to conclude that they are too weak against the Attie infantry. Why else would the TA get a larger bonus against hops unless they need it to successfully counter a hoplite?

As far as Ta countering katapeltes, beating a unit is not the only issue at hand it is also how fast you can beat said unit. And it takes a very long time for TA to kill katapeltes. Comparatively katapeltes kill RC in seconds (in fact they can almost win 1v2 against RC).


Guide to Debugging RMS
Download my RMS here
Help improve RMS reviewing here
A monk I need a monk.
I thought therefore I was.
aom_conqueror1
Mortal
posted 11 February 2004 11:18 PM EDT (US)     19 / 49       
Turma have bonus againt TA?!?!
wow i never knew that. I mean, I knew they killed them because turmas do pierce damage but do they get a bonus too?? Turmas are anti-ARCHERS, TA are not archers, they are infantry with range and hack damage obviously.
Tordenskiold
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 01:11 AM EDT (US)     20 / 49       

Quoted from Ekanta:

lets look at it this way:
u dont need to be to bright to understand that ta have to work if u dont have any heavy infantry of your own, cause infantry beats cav.
The human counter system is 3 fold, infantry/cav/archers.

the norse infantry u can almost foget (ulfs/huskarls)
the norse cav is good
the norse archers dont exist, but might be called ta. and its a soft counter.

so u basically end up with one good unit and 2 that aint very good in classic.

now in which other civ do u find 1 good unit and the rest rather sucky in classic?

U DONT!!!

Would you like some cheese with that Whine ??

Most everybody else (besides the Norse Whining Choir) agrees that ulfsarks owns Atlanteans in Classical - especially Thor.

They train in 9 secs
They are cheap
They get a bonus against Turma
They get a bonus against cheiros (siege)
They beat katapelts
They almost beat murmillos (certainly do with a few TA's)
They are faster than anything atties have (except turma and they beat those easy)

Still you claim people should just forget about them.

Care to explain ??


TORDENSKIOLD(1690-1720)

During the Great Nordic War (1700-1720), he was commander of the danish navy, which defeaded the swedish army at Kristiania (modern Oslo). After the war, he was killed in a duel on Nov. 12, 1720 just outside Hamburg, Germany, during a travel to England.

ESO: TORDENSKIOLD
Pug
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 01:30 AM EDT (US)     21 / 49       
I play norse and yes ulfs do rip turms apart, especially with some microing. Its almost pathetic.

R.I.P Shiva
L_Clan_Kraken
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 04:56 AM EDT (US)     22 / 49       
"so u basically end up with one good unit and 2 that aint very good in classic.

now in which other civ do u find 1 good unit and the rest rather sucky in classic?

U DONT!!! "

I guess that is talking about playing atlanteans? Not that i totally agree anyways, but isnt that the same for the other civs?

Egy gets no real archer, they get a slinger that doesnt work out well vs cherio or turma or kata or murmillo. They get a spearman that is even weaker then ulfs!! Their only use could vs atties could be catching crappy microed turma raiders. And luckely they do get an axeman, an axeman that just like the throwing axeman can kill murmillos (and kata) and dies to turmas and cherios. I dont see the difference. axeman are better then TA in small numbers but assuming we talk larger armies of murmillo TA do better....

Kraken


Ekanta
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 05:19 AM EDT (US)     23 / 49       
Kraken:
axmen perform better than ta against infantry 1-1 or in large numbers. dont believe it, go do some editor testings.
I was talking about norse of course.

And as for Torsken? (about ulfs)

Quote:

They almost beat murmillos


What have u been smooking?
futurehermit
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 09:32 AM EDT (US)     24 / 49       
ekanta, wtf is up with your sig and the docks thing. greeks got a cheaper dock because norse rape greek on water and greek need to save some wood somewhere in order to compete.

wth to you want dude to just be able to win every game you play? you're like a 3 year old that cries when he doesn't get his way.

fh

Tordenskiold
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 09:47 AM EDT (US)     25 / 49       

TORDENSKIOLD(1690-1720)

During the Great Nordic War (1700-1720), he was commander of the danish navy, which defeaded the swedish army at Kristiania (modern Oslo). After the war, he was killed in a duel on Nov. 12, 1720 just outside Hamburg, Germany, during a travel to England.

ESO: TORDENSKIOLD
poppy123
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 11:02 AM EDT (US)     26 / 49       
Greeks still have a hard time on water maps. Like having 25+ on wood and still losing to an Eggy guy with 15 on wood sucks ass. Norse still have it easier than Greek on water

I hear this internets pretty good. I was thinking of buying one
Ekanta
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 12:56 PM EDT (US)     27 / 49       
lol, I also think its silly as hell, but it reflect alot of what is happening to norse at the moment.

wtf is up really?
seriously, what is up with lowering greek dock price and keep the hitpoints? And at the same time make norse pay full price and keep the nerfed hitpoints?

thats silly.

greek get the building bonus free and norse pay the price for it. seems fair doesnt it?

Its not about greeks on water (I know they had a bit of a hard time), its about the big picture.

Quote:

you're like a 3 year old that cries when he doesn't get his way.

I guess I can live with that

[This message has been edited by Ekanta (edited 02-12-2004 @ 01:21 PM).]

futurehermit
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 02:06 PM EDT (US)     28 / 49       
the big picture is that greeks suck on water.

fh

Mark_Aurel
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 03:13 PM EDT (US)     29 / 49       
Greeks had a 'bit' of a hard time? A 'bit?''Norse pay the price?'I mean - what the... ? The fact that Greeks got a boost on water has nothing to do with making Norse 'pay the price' and everything to do with making Greeks somewhat competitive. As for dock hit points - who cares much? It's more of a flavor thing than a real balancing element in this case. If your dock is getting ripped apart, a Greek dock won't last that much longer anyway. For longhouses, you might have a point, but Norse longhouses remain the cheapest military building in classical, which they have been since early AoM.

The 'big picture' in this case is that Greeks used to get run over hardcore on water maps in AoM. All things considered, I'd probably still rank them as the weakest on maps like medit, but it's by a much, much smaller margin. The 'big picture' is that Norse OWN on water maps, thanks to a superior economy and superior classical age vessels - though other civs have somewhat better odds now than before, courtesy of shooting docks.

As for TA against Atlanteans, there's a few points I'm not sure have been considered in here.

1) Atlanteans have no cavalry in classical. That's fairly significant in terms of how well their overall army stacks up. If their frontline infantry gets hosed too fast, they die miserably. Their army is also overall not very mobile. Egypt vs Norse prior to TA getting the attack reduction would be a good example. Norse would absolutely steamroll Egypt in classical, because the spearmen wouldn't last long enough, and didn't counter the RC well enough. Now that RC are even harder to beat, but TA don't utterly massacre spearmen, it's actually a more fair match-up. Against Atlanteans, the likely problem isn't that TA are too weak - it's that katapeltes are too good. TAs just might need a boost against fanatics too, but that's much later in the game, and Norse players might just want to consider some ballistas then - and lots of hill forts. Atlanteans have real issues dealing with lots of shooting buildings. To place fanatics vs TA on an open battlefield and proclaim 'look! Atlanteans are too good against TA!' just doesn't cut it.

With Greeks, hoplites are slightly better than murmillos, but Greeks also have cavalry as an alternative meat shield-type unit in classical.

2) TA actually fare pretty well against ALL Atlantean units in classical under the right conditions. They beat murmillos and katapeltes. Turmas and cheiros have pretty low hack durability overall. They own TA, of course, but if the TA have a good meatshield they'll still do very well. You might want to argue that that would be relying on inferior micro from your opponent - which is about half right. Still doesn't make it any less true that TA have the potential to do pretty well against all Atlantean classical units.

3) The Norse classical army requires less micro at a basic level than any other in a straight fight. RC stand up excellently to everything but katapeltes, and TA automatically aim for the units they counter - infantry - since infantry has the highest hack armor. Compare that to Atlanteans, where cheiros and turmas by default will aim for RC, since RC have the highest pierce armor around. What does that mean? First, ES were wise to make cheiros so powerful and take up so much pop, because using cheiros efficiently against a mixed army takes a hell of a lot of clicking. Second, a Norse player might theorethically have more time left over for finesse micro - though, in reality, Norse compensate by requiring more micro elsewhere.

4) Balancing the game isn't simply a matter of straight-up unit comparisons. In regards to Atlanteans vs Norse, there's a lot of other factors to consider as well. Like the Norse ability to build stuff everywhere. A bunch of TA can easily throw up a few walls around the map, severely restricting an Atlantean player's mobility (which, at a basic level, is already lower than that of a Norse player). Same goes for towers. Atlanteans even have issues dealing with them. Norse have an easier time countering MUs than Atlanteans do, Valor notwithstanding. Norse also have more powerful and hard to counter MUs. Atlanteans have a pretty rough time dealing with hersirs, barring massed cheiros. That makes Loki rushing very, very powerful against Atlanteans. At the same time, you should consider that using hersirs against Atlanteans will give you more favor, which means more MUs, which means that the Atlantean will ultimately have to spend more resources converting units to heroes, which is pretty much a losing game. There's always the issue of running interference, of course. Ever try disrupting an Atlantean player's econ early on? They're pretty vulnerable to it, whether by villagers, priests, ulfsarks, or even hersirs. Just hit and run. It can be quite annoying. Norse even have the good ol' lamo 'build a wall tile on their hunting' thing if you want to play it out real lame, and deprive them of food (which in turn means less infantry for them, which means your RC will utterly own). Then, there's always the general Atlantean difficulty of dealing with buildings - while their destroyers stand up pretty well to villagers and can fight in a pinch, Atlanteans still have problems overall with mass shooting buildings - while their own palaces and TCs are by no means sturdy.

You might just want to consider doing things a bit differently and thinking outside the box, rather than trying to pretend that you should play against Atlanteans the same way you do other Norse, Greeks, or even Egyptians. Because, you know, Atlanteans have their weaknesses too - it's simply a matter of exploiting them.

Oh yes - calling Tordenskiold 'Torsken' is a real sign of maturity. Maybe you'd enjoy having your screenname creatively rewritten in a childish fashion too? Like Icanta or Ekunta? There's no need to resort to childish insults just because you're running out of substantial arguments.

Tordenskiold
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 03:32 PM EDT (US)     30 / 49       
He can call me whatever he wants.

I couldn't possible care any less just as long as the intelligent Forumers can see that he is just desperate and out of arguments.

Seems like it is actually so


TORDENSKIOLD(1690-1720)

During the Great Nordic War (1700-1720), he was commander of the danish navy, which defeaded the swedish army at Kristiania (modern Oslo). After the war, he was killed in a duel on Nov. 12, 1720 just outside Hamburg, Germany, during a travel to England.

ESO: TORDENSKIOLD
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames