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:
Ekanta
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 03:49 PM EDT (US)     31 / 49       
Why are u babbling about all kinds of things? was the post about this?

Quote:

there's a few points I'm not sure have been considered in here.

well of course there always are. and as usual u bring up something what fits your need. there are "a few points" both here and there, in all the civs. Trying to make a fair point out of this would require u to post all bonuses there are in the game, if not, dont even try. It just ends up in a mess.

Also, as a matter of fact torden started the bad words war, get your facts straight.

Finally: as a known norse hater your words mean nothing.
no surprise you showed up in this thread also.

Tordenskiold
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 03:59 PM EDT (US)     32 / 49       
This is the 107th and final time I tell you, Ekanta, I play Random Civilizations. I am not a Norse hater. I play all civilizations equal. I just do not play Norse exclusive and want them to dominate the range from 1600-1800 as they did before with an unbeatable RC/TA combo.

I can remember back then, when you and your followers called FutureHermit, Mokon and several others, Greek whiners because they complained about RC beating Hippikons.
Just build Hoplites, you all said, disregarding they would loose the race to heroic and thus have the Norse builing army claim all settlements.

Now that things have changed with the ability to build TC in classical, all I hear from the same Norse playing guys, are whining instead of solutions.

That is the real thing I do not like. I actually find Thor to be my overall most favorite God to play and I think Norse are just fine as it is

In fact, the whole game is more balanced now than it has ever been, some guys just do not like it that way


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
jwj442
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 04:37 PM EDT (US)     33 / 49       
Torden, Ulfs do not work against Cheiros. They get slaughtered both pop and cost effectively. And while murms don't totally own ulfsarks, they definitely beat them. Even against katapeltes, they only have 10 HP left! So how exactly do ulfs own Atlanteans?

Quote:

Now that RC are even harder to beat, but TA don't utterly massacre spearmen, it's actually a more fair match-up


Actually, unless you're referring to 1.02, RC are weakened. They take 20% longer to train now. A slight nerf was needed, but they should have just taken off 5% hack armor and *maybe* 1 more second on the train time.

Quote:

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.


Yeah, turmas and cheiros might have low hack armor - but TAs also have low pierce armor! 10 on 10, the turmas have 7 guys left. I don't really think turmas are a problem though for the Norse - raiders and ulfs can kill them. However, to say that TAs do decent against cheiros is ridiculous. With 8 TAs vs. 3 cheiros, the cheiros win with 2 left! What I really don't get is how the TAs will do so great those two units with a meatshield, considering that both Turmas and Cheiros outrange TAs. Unless your opponent is one of those idiots who just spams nothing but turmas, but why would you build TAs in the first place in that case?
Quircus
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 04:48 PM EDT (US)     34 / 49       
TA are generally a soft coutner. Because they deal Hack Damage, they do OK vs. Cavalry, and good vs. Infatry.

Now if they did very well against Infantry, AND OK vs. Cavalry, then they'd be WAY OP.

TA would beat everything except archers, which Raiders excel at!


Ulfs/Raiders is a great combo.

Remember Ballistae are good vs Infantry. Norse have 2 main infantry units (that no other civ has except Atlantean - Murmillos, Fanatics AND Katapeltes). They have GREAT cavalry in the Classical Age - which no other civ has (Greek Hippikons are more suited as meatshields rather than raiders/archer killers).

Norse also get ONE building to produce main units from - Greek/Atlantean dont have this.

Their Heroes are good vs. EVERYTHING except archers, and they get good Classical MUs AND can forward build VERY EASILY in Classical!!

ALL of this AND you want a better Infantry Counter?!?!

LOL!

Ekanta
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 04:52 PM EDT (US)     35 / 49       
sounds like, when u cant argument anymore about the units, u want to bring in civ bonuses. Well guess what? The other civs have those also.
City_Of_God
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 06:09 PM EDT (US)     36 / 49       
But ekanta you are arguing about weaknesses. I have pointed out to you that all civs have their weaknesses, just like they all have their strengths.
Ekanta
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 06:59 PM EDT (US)     37 / 49       
Exactly and thats how it should be.
The question is if Norse only should a soft infantry + a soft infantry counter and no archers the whole game.
Mark_Aurel
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 08:22 PM EDT (US)     38 / 49       

Quote:

Finally: as a known norse hater your words mean nothing.
no surprise you showed up in this thread also.

Oh, good. I'm a 'norse hater.' Warms my heart, it does. I'm wondering who died and made you the objective and impartial judge of who is a 'norse hater' and not, though.

I guess that means you won't even try to reasonably address, as you said, 'the big picture' or any of the reasonable arguments made against you with anything but a 'the experts agree' as you've been fond of stating in this thread. I'll take Kraken's word over Hope's or Rahl's any day. He's pretty much always been a pretty fair voice of reason, and one of the all-time greats of the Age community.

Quote:

Also, as a matter of fact torden started the bad words war, get your facts straight.

You may well be right - but then, why would you want to stoop to his level? I didn't see him calling you any names in this thread, and I haven't seen it in other threads you've .

Quote:

Yeah, turmas and cheiros might have low hack armor - but TAs also have low pierce armor! 10 on 10, the turmas have 7 guys left. I don't really think turmas are a problem though for the Norse - raiders and ulfs can kill them. However, to say that TAs do decent against cheiros is ridiculous. With 8 TAs vs. 3 cheiros, the cheiros win with 2 left! What I really don't get is how the TAs will do so great those two units with a meatshield, considering that both Turmas and Cheiros outrange TAs. Unless your opponent is one of those idiots who just spams nothing but turmas, but why would you build TAs in the first place in that case?

To get a ranged unit yourself so he can't dance all over you? To prepare just in case he actually pops out some infantry? You should take note of the full context of the post also - I'm not saying that TA will match up greatly against either unit by any means - simply that, under the right circumstances, they can do okay. You did note the bit about leading and how the cheiros in particular require a lot of micro to be effective against mixed armies?

Quote:

Exactly and thats how it should be.
The question is if Norse only should a soft infantry + a soft infantry counter and no archers the whole game.

I guess Bragi or Tyr ulfsarks are 'soft infantry.' I guess ballistas don't counter infantry at all - doing massive pierce damage from a huge range, and all. I guess being the best spammers of shooting buildings in the game, along with infantry counters that can sit behind those buildings and mow down infantry doesn't count for anything either. Especially against Atlanteans - whose siege unit is either an infantry, or has a pretty short range and a humongous pop cost.

futurehermit
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 09:41 PM EDT (US)     39 / 49       
man, ma and torden are pwning ekanta and he just keeps dancing in every direction other than addressing the issues that are being raised.

ekanta, i got a news flash for you. norse are no longer op'd at the 1600-1800 level. now you actually have to have skill to win.

fh

Ekanta
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 09:52 PM EDT (US)     40 / 49       

Quote:

I guess Bragi or Tyr ulfsarks are 'soft infantry

they are heavy alright! fully upped they can even spank hoplites with thor. But how many upgrades do u need and how much does it cost? And in what age and after what time do u get em? I didnt mention them on purpose as odin dont get them and the cost of resources for upgrades/ and the time in the game they start to work is enormously late. Late mythic that is. and by then we both know alot have happpend.

Quote:

along with infantry counters that can sit behind those buildings and mow down infantry

great, so I do that without gold and no hunt? (cause that will be cut off).
Is this supposesed to be norse play style? hide out behind buildings forever?

Norse was hardly designed for that, the buildings are weaker and worse towers/forts.

Thing is that norse used to be ok. but there has been endless nerfes. the whole point of playing norse was mostly that u could advance fast and rush, nowdays this has become nerfed too. rc sucky train times, atlanteans advancing faster, garrisoning of fishing boats in docks, ta nerf after nerf, greeks stealing the dock bonus and making norse pay the price (lol dont take that litteraly). The whole point in playing norse has gone.

greeks got the better units, eggies the better defence, atlanteans the fastest rush. what is norse good at nowdays?
Norse have lost the things that was unique to them, they have become more or less obsolete. There is nothing they are best at anymore. Or maybe this is they way it should be to some, as they seem utterly content.

Ekanta
Mortal
posted 12 February 2004 09:56 PM EDT (US)     41 / 49       
futurehermit:

Just because there are mainly anti-norse people here at the moment dont get the idea u are right. Over at age of aotsanctuary the poll stats are as follows:

What do you think of the current state of TA?
ES needs to boost them [ 329 ] [57.52%]
They are ok [ 181 ] [31.64%]
Nerf...Nerf...!!! [ 62 ] [10.84%]
Total Votes: 572


(ps: u dont have to sign your post u know, we can see your name in big black letters to the left of your post)

[This message has been edited by Ekanta (edited 02-12-2004 @ 10:27 PM).]

Tordenskiold
Mortal
posted 13 February 2004 02:32 AM EDT (US)     42 / 49       
Ekanta,

Dont get startet on statistics

You do remember your own protests against them whenever somebody brings on winning statistics, right ??

That poll is worthless - nothing prevents anybody from voting 50 times in a row (if you log in on different computers etc..).


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
TheSlinger
Mortal
posted 13 February 2004 07:05 PM EDT (US)     43 / 49       
Ok here we go, too bad FH, looks like we're on opposite sides of the debate. Keep in mind I play random civs 100% now; both rated and unrated, unless I'm trying out a strat.

Ta's can beat infantry. They can actually mow them down quite well. But to do this, you have to completely out-micro your opponent. Quite frankly, to win, you have to be much better than your opponent, or there's another large variable, like a gold/tc/hunting screw.

The main problem is that TA's take TOO LONG to kill infantry, so by the time their heavy (Hop/Myrm/Murm/Fanatic) infantry can be killed, your meatshield is slaughtered and you'ore being run over.

I think one of the main problems with TA's is that they are infantry. But, they are countered by Counter-infantry, RC, Archers, and counter-archers. Everything except Infantry and some cavalry counter them. TOO MANY UNITS BEAT THEM.

You can make the argument that they are a hard counter, and so everything except infantry SHOULD beat them, but a hard counter is also supposed to slaughter what they're countering. TA's do not. They beat them, but not very well, therefore they are more of a soft counter, except that they do not do well against anything except infantry. Whew.

And I really don't know how you people can say hersirs beat everything except archers. They do ok vs. Cavalry because they are technically infantry, and obviously counter MU's. But they are also massacred by classical units cost-effectively and training time; I believe they are the slowest-training classical unit in the game. They also cost the same as a Hippikon, who beat them pretty easily.

If you say that Ulfs/RC are supposed to be the Norse's main combo, try explaining how they are supposed to afford that, and also take TC's, keep vill production, and get any sort of military upgrades. Also your opponent can get to heroic and run over you with forts and heroic units.

Vote YES for a Norse boost in 1.03 :P

City_Of_God
Mortal
posted 13 February 2004 08:37 PM EDT (US)     44 / 49       

Definition of a hard counter: A unit that gets a bonus vs the unit type that it counters.

Definition of a soft counter: A unit that does well vs the unit that it counters simply based on its stats.

There is some misinformation going around this thread so I thought Id clear this up.

The norse's standard combo should be RC/TA/hersir/myth, in some form or another. This does absolutely fine vs any combo other than perhaps an atl, however I have had no problem vs Atl as norse so do not really know what peeps are on about.

TheSlinger
Mortal
posted 13 February 2004 09:09 PM EDT (US)     45 / 49       
I know that's the TECHNICAL definition, but since TA's don't fare too well vs. Infantry it's hard to count them as hard counters.
Ekanta
Mortal
posted 13 February 2004 10:15 PM EDT (US)     46 / 49       
Why do Norse players complain actually? This is my view:
Norse got 1 good unit and 2 mediocre in classic, all other civs got at least 2 good and one mediocre (atlantis got 4 good). Does this matter? Yes it does, alot. This because it leaves norse weak in 2 areas, where other civs only have 1, and atlanteans zero.
(well ok atlanteans are weak in getting heroes later on, when valor runs out. But lets focus on this for now)

Norse:
rc- good vs archers
ulfs - mediocre vs cav
ta - mediocre vs infantry

egypt:
spears - mediocre vs cav
axmen - good vs infantry
slinger - good vs archer

Greeks :
Hipps - good vs archers
hoplites - good vs cav and stands up to all other infantry
tox - mediocre as an infantry counter

atlantis:
Turma - good vs archers
katapeltes - more than good vs cav
murmillo - as hoplites
Cheiro - good vs infantry

To summaries:
U cant have weak infantry and a weak infantry counter untill late mythic (where the uber-ulfs can make an entrance for thor, loki, but not for odin, and gives mentioned civs a hardcore infantry).

What to do?
2 options (but dont do both, or it will be over powered):

1: boost ta infantry-bonus tiny bit.
2: boost ulfs hitpoints.

(Especially ulfs are funny, rather weak at start and so many upgrades! this is needed alot earlier).

So norse can build with infantry, ok! But what can the other cultures do? This is NOT an argument for keeping norse weak, its just one of the bonus ALL the cultures get, and it sucks when u want a titan.

[This message has been edited by Ekanta (edited 02-13-2004 @ 10:17 PM).]

Mark_Aurel
Mortal
posted 13 February 2004 11:19 PM EDT (US)     47 / 49       

Quote:

Ta's can beat infantry. They can actually mow them down quite well. But to do this, you have to completely out-micro your opponent. Quite frankly, to win, you have to be much better than your opponent, or there's another large variable, like a gold/tc/hunting screw.

The main problem is that TA's take TOO LONG to kill infantry, so by the time their heavy (Hop/Myrm/Murm/Fanatic) infantry can be killed, your meatshield is slaughtered and you'ore being run over.

Two things:

1. The Norse classical army requires the least micro of any classical army to be used with full efficiency. TA automatically aim for infantry; the ranged units of other civs automatically aim for cavalry. In a battle, that should give you a little more time to micro. The Norse classical army also has the fastest unit in classical - RC. If you micro things properly, you can have enemy infantry chasing your RC and not scoring many hits, run circles about them, and whatnot. The only situation Norse don't fare all that well in is chokepoints, but you're rarely forced into such a situation - if you are, you're being outplayed anyway.

2. While TA don't make armies of infantry fall over instantly, nor does armies of infantry make Norse cavalry fall over. RC stand up well to all basic infantry. They beat spearmen popwise, pretty much draw with ulfs, and while they lose to hoplites and murmillos, those are fairly expensive units (and TAs get an extra bonus against hoplites). To simply go on about how TA 'don't kill infantry fast enough' without considering that RC are extremely resilient to most of their classical counters is really missing the big picture, IMO. The problem, if there really is one, isn't tied to TA - they're about balanced against Egypt, Greeks, or other Norse now - but one specifically dealing with Atlantean infantry.

Quote:

I think one of the main problems with TA's is that they are infantry. But, they are countered by Counter-infantry, RC, Archers, and counter-archers. Everything except Infantry and some cavalry counter them. TOO MANY UNITS BEAT THEM.

Oh, really? This, again, is ignoring some pretty common sense realities of the game. While TA theorethically have a lot of counters, in practice, most of them don't work all that well. Cavalry and counter-infantry have to get at them first. That means getting through whatever meatshield the TA had. If they can do that, and you don't have a building or chokepoint to run and hide behind, or in, well, harsh. As for archers, they SHOULD beat TA. When it comes to counter-archers - that's the ONLY thing they really do agaisnt Norse in terms of battle ability. Peltasts and slingers are USELESS against Norse except for beating TA, which they don't really do all that much better than regular archers anyway - and regular archers do MUCH better against everything else Norse has.

Quote:

And I really don't know how you people can say hersirs beat everything except archers. They do ok vs. Cavalry because they are technically infantry, and obviously counter MU's. But they are also massacred by classical units cost-effectively and training time; I believe they are the slowest-training classical unit in the game. They also cost the same as a Hippikon, who beat them pretty easily.

While I wouldn't say hersirs are all that good in general, either, they cost more than a hippikon, given the expensiveness of food. In a unit for unit battle, hippikons barely beat them - the win is by no means easy. Against Atlanteans, though, hersirs (especially for Loki and Thor) shine. Cheiros don't counter hersirs all that well - they need big numbers to do that. Hersirs generate more favor for Norse, which means more MUs, which means the Atlantean must eventually spend more to get heroes, which are weaker per pop in battle against everything but MUs, and the Atlantean gets an overall unfavorable exchange of resources.

Ekanta
Mortal
posted 14 February 2004 00:43 AM EDT (US)     48 / 49       
I really dont see how the civ with the shortest range and rc having to flank requires least micro?

Quote:

TA automatically aim for infantry; the ranged units of other civs automatically aim for cavalry.

This is new to me, how do u know this?

Mark_Aurel
Mortal
posted 14 February 2004 05:34 AM EDT (US)     49 / 49       
It's quite simple, you know - units automatically aim for the units they can hit that have the highest armor. That's why MUs or siege can make for great meatshields against archers. It just so happens that TA do hack armor, and infantry has higher hack armor than any other regular units around.

It's more complicated than that, with proximity being a factor, movement going on and not switching targets until the first target is dead, etc, but given otherwise equally viable targets, a TA will pick an infantry over a cavalry, and an archer will pick a cavalry over an infantry.

And, with how well RC stand up to most of their counters, flanking isn't necessarily 'required' - it all depends on the unit mix.

« 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