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.85 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » RM vs DM Who shall be the victor?
Bottom
Topic Subject:RM vs DM Who shall be the victor?
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 04:22 PM EDT (US)         
No Flaming or Trolling. Only a peaceful debate.

Which should the ES people concentrate more on? There will probably be problems making a game that balances both types of games equally.

So which is better, RM or DM? Lets have a fun little debate.

I say RM(random map).
Requires more economic management abilities.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
AuthorReplies:
petard_rusher
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 04:36 PM EDT (US)     1 / 85       
Well, they are both very similar, jsut in DM you get more starting resources. I would think that ES would spend most of its time doing RM, since that is what most people play, DM is more of a fast paced RM setting for people who like fast gmaes, or newbs who don't like economy.
Yamato
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 04:39 PM EDT (US)     2 / 85       
Random Map by a mile. I never play Death Match. Some of the reasons why RM is better:
-Scouting and surprise attacks are much more of a factor
-I love the gradual buildup from careful management to big climactic battle
-Territory seizure/control plays more of a role

H, C, C, H, C, C, H, C, C, H, C, C
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 04:48 PM EDT (US)     3 / 85       

Quote:

Well, they are both very similar, jsut in DM you get more starting resources. I would think that ES would spend most of its time doing RM, since that is what most people play, DM is more of a fast paced RM setting for people who like fast gmaes, or newbs who don't like economy.

The fact that DM starts with a ton of resources is a significant difference between the two. It means you can basically ignore the economy for the first part. The first rushes are different, there are different tactics.

DM seems to me you just create a bunch of military as fast as you can, and send them at the other player.

Its AOM, without much Economy.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
JackalRat
HG Alumnus
(id: BrandNewCar)
posted 22 May 2002 04:57 PM EDT (US)     4 / 85       
RM. Hands down.
Last_Knight
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 04:58 PM EDT (US)     5 / 85       
I prefer RM, for the economic part.


The Last Knight
Grasshoppers are cheap, nutritious, tasety,Kosher and easy to dissect
Dagobert
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:02 PM EDT (US)     6 / 85       
I prefer RM which is a more complete game.

Still, it's not bad to practice DM once in a while. The fast action is fun and it practices your military strategies.


************
la guerre comme la guerre
Stormboy
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:13 PM EDT (US)     7 / 85       
RM all the way

Without the economic part it becomes a tactics game, rather than a strategy game.

I hope ES doesn't waste too much time balancing every single game variant. Otherwise the game won't be released until September 2003

SoR_Anarchy
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:18 PM EDT (US)     8 / 85       
I play both but i tend to be better at DM. IMO RM has gotten the bulk of the attention in AoE and AoK with DM getting little to none. I don't mind RM getting most of the attention, but i don't like DM being forgotten.

God Bless America.

I am the state.

vladimir87
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:23 PM EDT (US)     9 / 85       

Quote:

Well, they are both very similar, jsut in DM you get more starting resources

Uh, that's a big diference. DM and RM are as different as night and day. In RM it could be a battle of 10 units max, in DM, sets of 200 pals come clashing...

Not similar I'm afraid... And ES obviously will need to spend more time on the RM

-Vladimir87

Immhotep
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:39 PM EDT (US)     10 / 85       
No doubt in my mind the game balancing will be done for Random Map, since it's the foundation of the game, IMO.

Quoted from petard rusher:

DM is more of a fast paced RM setting for people who like fast gmaes, or newbs who don't like economy.

Well excuse me, but I think your over generalization is based on your own ignorance and nothing more. Is it fair that I say RM is setting for "home makers" who can only play SIM CITY, and when it comes to real fighting, all you do is wussy skirm-scout-spear-villager rush? Is it fair that I say RM'ers are players who like to herd sheeps, hunt deers, and chase pigs around?

Let me tell you something, RM and DM are two totally different games of their own. RM is more micro econ and military based, while DM is more MAcro econ and military based. Micro econ is managing econ at a level where you need to click on a sheep to see how much food it has left, whereas in MAcro econ, you are more involved in maintaining the rate of incoming resource at a steady balance that would sustain the outcoming expense of 100+ military units. A good "micro economist" player (RM'er) is one who is good at placing farms in neat rows, so that it would minimize the gathering time, thus maximizing gathering rates. A good "MAcro economist" player (DM'er) is one who is good at assessing the rates of his food income vs outcome, and make quick adjustments to balance them.

Next time, if you like to put down something or some one, try to get the facts right before you even jump to conclusion...

BiggN
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:39 PM EDT (US)     11 / 85       
Ok, I've got to step up into this topic again.
I'm going to try and debate, rather than just say "stfu rook"

So sorry in advance if this upsets anyone.

Quoted from petard rusher:

"DM is more of a fast paced RM setting for people who like fast gmaes, or newbs who don't like economy."

DM requires Far Far more Economy skill than RM
When you think you need to have resources pouring in, and i mean all resouces pouring in within 5-10 min you can kind of get the jist of who hard DM is to manage resources and a army at the same time, its somthing that i doubt ever happens in RM.

Quoted from Yamato:

"Random Map by a mile. I never play Death Match. Some of the reasons why RM is better:
-Scouting and surprise attacks are much more of a factor
-I love the gradual buildup from careful management to big climactic battle
-Territory seizure/control plays more of a role"

The fact that you never play DM lets your arguement down
Territory seizure / control is far more important in DM and happens again, within the first 5 min.
Scouting is also just as important in DM because, you need to find his Farms & Tree chopping and check to see what his defences are around the resources just as much in DM as you do in RM.

Quoted from deadlydentures:

"The fact that DM starts with a ton of resources is a significant difference between the two. It means you can basically ignore the economy for the first part. The first rushes are different, there are different tactics.

DM seems to me you just create a bunch of military as fast as you can, and send them at the other player.

Its AOM, without much Economy."

Those DM resources you start with runout within about 5 min of the game starting, don't forget, Its not only you that has those resources, and you arn't only creating those army's both sides are, and you arn't only fighting at the start with 10 Skirmishers, you are fighting with hard solid gold costing units with 9/10 civs you need the gold, you need the resouces and you need the practice and skill to learn how to manage it all.

Quoted from Last_Knight:

"I prefer RM, for the economic part."

Again this is ment as no *place opposite word for compliment here* but DM takes far more economic skills and micro managment.

When someone says they prefere RM, what they are really saying is they prefere slower paced games.

Quoted from Stormboy:

"RM all the way
Without the economic part it becomes a tactics game, rather than a strategy game.

I hope ES doesn't waste too much time balancing every single game variant. Otherwise the game won't be released until September 2003"

Without the Economic part in DM it becomes game over.
If you make 1 mistake in DM it can cost you the game, its about skill, micro mangament, concentration and iron will to be able to make that choice that might cost you the entire game.

As for "i hope ES doesn't waste too much time balancing every single game variant" how would you feel if it was RM that they didn't balance?

Ok I think i'm done.
Thanks for reading, and I hope i didn't offend to many people or make to many spelling mistakes.

-BiggN


ENGLAND
ENGLAND
ENGLAND
Seaman, Mills, Cole, Ferdinand, Campbell, Heskey, Beckham, Scholes, Hargreaves, Vassell, Owen, Butt, Sinclair, Dyer
England 1 - 1 Sweden, England 1 - 0 Argentina, England 0 - 0 Nigeria, England 3 - 0 Denmark, England 1 - 2 Brazil
:: Roll on 2006 C'Mon England ::
AM_Alexander
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:41 PM EDT (US)     12 / 85       
RM

Although DM is fun for a change...

BiO
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:45 PM EDT (US)     13 / 85       
Biggn and Immhotep summed up what i was gonna say...although i think they should spend more time on dm than in the previous games i highly doubt that will happen.
BiggN
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:49 PM EDT (US)     14 / 85       
I missed the original topic

Quote:

"I say RM(random map).
Requires more economic management abilities."


As its you who made the topic, i'll give you a chance.
In what way does RM take more Economic Management Abilities?


ENGLAND
ENGLAND
ENGLAND
Seaman, Mills, Cole, Ferdinand, Campbell, Heskey, Beckham, Scholes, Hargreaves, Vassell, Owen, Butt, Sinclair, Dyer
England 1 - 1 Sweden, England 1 - 0 Argentina, England 0 - 0 Nigeria, England 3 - 0 Denmark, England 1 - 2 Brazil
:: Roll on 2006 C'Mon England ::
Immhotep
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 05:56 PM EDT (US)     15 / 85       
It is a pseudo generalization that most random map players make about RM and DM is that, "RM requires more econ skill."

The reason that it is false is because there are two types of econ skills: Micro econ (random map) and MACRO econ (death match). Read my earlier reply regarding the difference between Micro and MAcro econ managements

Cloudchaser_Eagle
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:04 PM EDT (US)     16 / 85       
Okay, something needs to be said on behalf of DM and all the DMers out there (like me, although I can also say for myself that I am experienced in both RM and DM). Unfortunately, DM has been the target of many false stereotypes, some of which I am sad to say have been written in this thread, and so far only two people have rebutted these ridiculous arguments. So I will fight the good fight for the DeathMatch!

Petard Rusher: Econ plays a very important role in DM (econ not being a major part in DM is one of the most common false stereotypes about DM). Go to MFO and read the (rather old but still informative) interviews with Sam Deathwalker and Devil Baron. Both of them recommend building over 100 villess in a DM game. How can you say that econ doesn't play a big role? DM games often have more villies than RM games!

Yamato: Territory control plays a far bigger role in DM than it does in RM (have u even played a good DM?). You'd be amazed at how fast those starting resources go. Gold mines are much sought after and are often well-protected with TCs, Castles, and soldiers. If you run out of gold in DM, you are dead, which makes territory control all the more important. And for what it's worth, if u want a truly climactic battle, DM is the place to find it. RM battles are mere skirmishes compared to the massive DM wars.

DD: See my reply to Petard Rusher. You are half-right-- early on in DM, economy plays second fiddle to military. But as the game goes on, the opposite becomes more true.

Last Knight: See my reply to Petard Rusher. Next!

Stormboy: *sigh* Read my reply to Petard Rusher.

Anarchy: I understand what u mean, but I personally wish DM recieved more time in the spotlight. I'd say a third of the Agers who play on the zone are DMers, and based on that, DM really recieves a disproportionate amount of attention. Just my thoughts on that.

Vlad: DM armies are big, but not THAT big, and certainly not made entirely of Pals. Any idea of how much gold that would cost? Yeah, that's right...

Immhotep and BiggN: Very well said, both of you. I agree with you both 100%.

Bi0: They said a lot of what I wanted to say, too. So I decided to focus on repelling arguments on a person-by-person basis.

Whew! I think that about does it.


29th Greatest AoMH Forumer ever, former (and proud) FPH Templar
Winner of CC_Straight_Og's "Most Humorous Reply" award (though I still have no idea why ).
Winner of AgeofMe's "The Site Jerk" title (and I do have an idea why )
"Character is destiny." -Heraclitus
Official Mascot of the Age of Mythology Heaven forums!
BiggN
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:16 PM EDT (US)     17 / 85       
Well i hope this has taught all you RMers out there a lesson or two about DM.

ENGLAND
ENGLAND
ENGLAND
Seaman, Mills, Cole, Ferdinand, Campbell, Heskey, Beckham, Scholes, Hargreaves, Vassell, Owen, Butt, Sinclair, Dyer
England 1 - 1 Sweden, England 1 - 0 Argentina, England 0 - 0 Nigeria, England 3 - 0 Denmark, England 1 - 2 Brazil
:: Roll on 2006 C'Mon England ::
BiO
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:24 PM EDT (US)     18 / 85       
One can only hope they will grasp even a bit of it
vladimir87
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:24 PM EDT (US)     19 / 85       
OK, I agree with what Immhotep said. I also agree with mostly what Biggn said. I think a few points you made were just a little off however. Just in fairness to RM players,

Quote:

DM requires Far Far more Economy skill than RM

Although economy is vital in many, and probably most, DM games, there is no way you need to have more economy skill in the DM than the RM. The RM basically is an economy game. You might send 5 archers in and take the other guy out. Its all about managing resources so you can advance quickly, and can minimize your vills' idol stages... In DM (I know I am simplifying it) you can build 4 mills and build 8 farms around them all, and there your food is for now. Thats because you dont have to worry about wood.

Stone you eventually have to start mining but only after you have built a dozen castles...

The only times I need wood in a DM are naval maps and when it has become a scorpion on scorpion onslaught... (trebs too) In many cases I never have to concentrate on it...

Gold is a problem much of the time, but its not too hard to build some mines and put 10 vills around each gold patch. Relics too...

What I am saying is that DM is NO WAY more economy focused than the RM. Economy is important but when it comes to the point in the game when you need a strong one, thenits not hard to assign your 50 villagers to the right places.

At least it never has for me. I have low food? Put 30 vills on food. Its not nearly as complicated as in RM IMO...

Ah, the deer has only 30 food left so if I only take one villager to finish it more food will "deteriate" and I will not have enough for feudal so the delay will undoubtedly lose me the game...

Complicated I would say...

Quote:

i mean all resouces pouring in within 5-10 min

Not really. You couldnt have even built enough villagers to "pour in" every resource. In the first 5-10 minutes actually you are constructing barracks for halbs, stables for pals, and casltes to rush... The only thing economic is perhaps you have started mining gold, and you have built a market...Not sure where you got these figures. You might have a small economy at 10 minutes... Not enough to "pour in" "all resources" though...

Quote:

Territory seizure / control is far more important in DM and happens again,

I agree...


Quote:

Scouting is also just as important in DM because, you need to find his Farms & Tree chopping and check to see what his defences are around the resources just as much in DM as you do in RM.

Just for the sake of arguing, scouting is vitally important of course in the deathmatch...

Not particularly for finding his economy though. Your scout gets there 30 secs into the game. Not even you has an economy by then. His vills are all busy building stables, and hopefully you can kill one or two with your hussar before his halbs/pals come out...

He, if hes rushing (which every player is), will not have much defense anyway. And there is no economy to guard lol...

Quote:

Those DM resources you start with runout within about 5 min of the game starting

I'm sorry, my friend, but they do not. I have yet to see, in all the rated zone games I have played, I have yet to see someone run out of resources in five minutes. Its impossible. And NO one has an economy up by then...

Quote:

Again this is ment as no *place opposite word for compliment here* but DM takes far more economic skills and micro managment.

Again, this is meant for no *insult*, but it really does not. I explained it above...^^^

Quote:

When someone says they prefere RM, what they are really saying is they prefere slower paced games.

Oh dont go there. Thats sort of like petard rusher calling DMers newbs. I play RM because its how the game is meant to be played (IE, that is the standard game. I play DM alot too.)...

I play RM because yes, it has more depth than a DM. Even if it is predictable, its not as predictable as a DM...

I could just as easily say DMers are just people who want to push their ranks by beating up on people who cant frankish rush with the same speed they can. Because that is all DMers seem to do (note seem, I am not saying that is the only strategy. It is the most common though)

Quote:

If you make 1 mistake in DM it can cost you the game, its about skill, micro mangament, concentration and iron will to be able to make that choice that might cost you the entire game

True, but I really think RM is even more so. It is a matter of having 499 food or 500. A matter of your sheep having 8 food left of 12...

I'm not saying RM is better dont get me wrong. I just am arguing in a friendly matter what I consider the differences to be...:-P

-Vladimir87

vladimir87
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:29 PM EDT (US)     20 / 85       
I will just let my post stir up hatred *j/k* but I need to reply to eagle (this may be the first time I disagree with ya lol*

Quote:

Vlad: DM armies are big, but not THAT big, and certainly not made entirely of Pals. Any idea of how much gold that would cost? Yeah, that's right...

I didnt mean 200. More like 15 pals for 8 stables... Thats 120 I believe. I say that is about right, but they die before this sum is reached...

If you built this many if I remember correctly you have about 2500 gold left...

Thats for scorpions and trebs...

Then you use that virutally untouched wood and food and build halbs to counter his pals... Its the way it goes...

So of course their are never any all pal armies, but their are lots of pals in almost every DM army...

-Vladimir87

In teh sagely words of Eagle,

Quote:

Whew! I think that about does it.

Remember I think DM and RM are both great and I'm in no way insulting DM...

[This message has been edited by vladimir87 (edited 05-22-2002 @ 06:49 PM).]

Stormboy
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:30 PM EDT (US)     21 / 85       

Quoted from BiggN:

Well i hope this has taught all you RMers out there a lesson or two about DM.

Nothing I didn't already know

To me, DM has always felt like the "wrong" way to play the game.
Like reading a book and skipping to the last chapter to see how it ends.
The early economic build-up is an integral part of the Age games. I feel that if you skip that aspect and the decisions on upgrade paths and the decisions on whether to fight in this age or move to the next, you're missing out on a fun and strategically challenging part of the Age games.

Cloudchaser_Eagle
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:41 PM EDT (US)     22 / 85       
Well, if it's nothing that u didn't already know, then how can u hint that econ isn't important in DM? Don't talk outta ignorance.

And DMers do study the game a lot, and the decisions that you make in the game. DMers study which buildings to build the same way that RMers study which techs to get, and DMers study which civ to play much more than RMers do, period. In competitive DM games, it isn't uncommon for a game to be delayed cuz players are jockeying for civ advantage. RMers really don't study the game like us DMers do.


29th Greatest AoMH Forumer ever, former (and proud) FPH Templar
Winner of CC_Straight_Og's "Most Humorous Reply" award (though I still have no idea why ).
Winner of AgeofMe's "The Site Jerk" title (and I do have an idea why )
"Character is destiny." -Heraclitus
Official Mascot of the Age of Mythology Heaven forums!
izzy
Mortal
(id: Ballista_Turtle)
posted 22 May 2002 06:46 PM EDT (US)     23 / 85       
How about they equally focus on both?

~Izzy|HG Angel |Since August 2000~
~INTL|HeavenGames~
<('.')>
Stormboy
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:51 PM EDT (US)     24 / 85       
Cloudchaser_Eagle, I was obviously referring to the early part of the game. I didn't think I had to spell that out. I assumed (wrongly?) that most people here realize that even in DM you have to start gathering resources at some point.

Even though I've hardly ever played it, I've been reading DM strategy articles (the few that there are) since the early days of RoR, so I do have at least some idea what I'm talking about

Cloudchaser_Eagle
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:52 PM EDT (US)     25 / 85       
*whispers* Psst! Izzy! That isn't what we are debating about right now!

ES really should focus on both equally, and I hope they do, cuz in AoE it was really bad. AoK was better, but when AoC came out, they really goofed with the Koreans. So I hope they do a better job this time around.


29th Greatest AoMH Forumer ever, former (and proud) FPH Templar
Winner of CC_Straight_Og's "Most Humorous Reply" award (though I still have no idea why ).
Winner of AgeofMe's "The Site Jerk" title (and I do have an idea why )
"Character is destiny." -Heraclitus
Official Mascot of the Age of Mythology Heaven forums!
Immhotep
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:53 PM EDT (US)     26 / 85       

Quote:

I play RM because its how the game is meant to be played (IE, that is the standard game...

Just because ES decided to make it a default setting doesn't mean it is how the game should be played . That's not very logical, wouldn't you agree, Vlad? Standard victory and 100 pop are the standard settings, but do players nowaday ever play with these settings? Do you play with these settings? I think not .

Quote:

I play RM because yes, it has more depth than a DM. Even if it is predictable, its not as predictable as a DM...

Before I response, I'd like to say that I was a 1850+ rated Random map player before I went to DM . Regarding your comments, "RM has more depth... DM is predictable," - I'm sure you have heard of build-orders in Random maps . It cannot get any more predictable than that. In Death match, the fightings are almost totally different for every single game. Players must fight multiple fronts at the same time, while maintaining econ and rading the enemy's econ, and sometimes, players must go on the defensive if an ally is double rushed.

Improvision and quick adjustments are big parts in DM; build-orders is a staple in RM. I'm a rated 1850+ in RM, so I know what I say when I speak about RM

Yamato
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:54 PM EDT (US)     27 / 85       
Good post Stormboy and also vladimir

BiggN and Cloudchaser, I am not getting interested in a debate and this "Don't talk out of ignorance!" crap, I hate that on bulletin boards. All I will say is that the DMs that I HAVE played have either been on Black Forest or Oasis, and in both cases it was just a straight-ahead war and there was no factor of surrounding an enemy... or expanding to rare resources before he could... or any of that lovely territory stuff. While I will believe that other DM games do involve seizing strategic territory much more so than BF or Oasis DM games... on Random Map it is always a factor... a lot of times you are making a decision between claiming territory (which requires resources and some of your precious microeconomy-generating villagers' time) or building faster in your own town.


H, C, C, H, C, C, H, C, C, H, C, C

[This message has been edited by Yamato (edited 05-22-2002 @ 06:58 PM).]

Cloudchaser_Eagle
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 06:58 PM EDT (US)     28 / 85       
Stormboy: Reading articles is good, no reading can replace first-hand experience. Gathering resources begins VERY early on in DMs (not as early in RM, true). My own rule of thumb is that I use my 4th villie out of the TC to begin my resource gathering while my initial six villies take care of all my building needs (which is a lot ). If u start gathering resources earlier, u stunt your civ growth. If u start later, then all the gold will be gone later on. The point at which u gather resources is VERY important.

I apologize for mis-interpreting your post, Stormboy, but the way u worded it was quite ambiguous, at least to me. However, there are some here, I'm afraid, that don't understand the way u do.

If u ever do wanna play a DM and put some of those strats u've learned in articles to use, then I'm always willing to play some DM (AoC or AoK, though. I've lost my AoE cd )


29th Greatest AoMH Forumer ever, former (and proud) FPH Templar
Winner of CC_Straight_Og's "Most Humorous Reply" award (though I still have no idea why ).
Winner of AgeofMe's "The Site Jerk" title (and I do have an idea why )
"Character is destiny." -Heraclitus
Official Mascot of the Age of Mythology Heaven forums!

[This message has been edited by Cloudchaser_Eagle (edited 05-22-2002 @ 06:59 PM).]

vladimir87
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 07:01 PM EDT (US)     29 / 85       
I must be in an argumentative mood... Here we go lol

Quote:

Well, if it's nothing that u didn't already know, then how can u hint that econ isn't important in DM? Don't talk outta ignorance.

It is more important in the RM. When you have to focus on it at all (in the longer games), you have the resources to get enough villagers to give you all the stuff you want...

Whats more, its automatic. You dont have to think what to use the resources on. Just build more pals, more halbs, more scorps, more trebs.

Click another 30 times. I have so much gold I dont have to worry about it! How bout a few more castles down there to prevent his retreat? Heck, why not? Hey how bout I just replace the 150 guys I just lost with the rest of my stockpile? Its all given to me!

Quote:

DMers study which buildings to build the same way that RMers study which techs to get

Its easier than you think. Take two vills build stable. Take one build two dozen houses in lines. Take new vill build stable. Take two vills tell them each to build a stable. Build more stables. Build market. Take 5 vills go to enemy and build 2 castles. Build another castle. Build barracks...

It didn't take too many games for me to get the hang of it at least. And when you play dozens and dozens, it is automatic...

Quote:

DMers study which civ to play much more than RMers do, period.

OK. Who should I be? Franks, huns or goths? Maybe in some games the saracens to counter the frankish rush?

Delay? Most games I play everyone just picks his favorite and rushes til they drop. Franks on franks. Goths on Goths. Whatever, just build quickly...

Quote:

RMers really don't study the game like us DMers do

??!!!?!?!?!? I'm sorry but that is completely false. DM its just (and I still like DM)

a) Goth rush
b) Frank or hun rush
c) Smush to prevent Frank or Hun rush...

In RM people debate over civ all the time. Should I be lame and rush Chinese? Should I boom with the Britons? Every civ has its own delicate advantages...

In rm its about the vills having the extra few yards to walk when they kill a sheep. Its about luring the boar in to save a few precious seconds. It's garrisoning the archer in the tower, taking the vills to get a few hammer strokes, garrisoning again, etc. Everything must be perfect. A matter of seconds, a wrong click of the mouse could mean defeat. It must be rehearses and rehearsed... It literally must be perfect...

Both are excellent though, rememeber that!

-Vladimir87

[This message has been edited by vladimir87 (edited 05-22-2002 @ 07:02 PM).]

Immhotep
Mortal
posted 22 May 2002 07:11 PM EDT (US)     30 / 85       

Quote:

All I will say is that the DMs that I HAVE played have either been on Black Forest or Oasis

Yamato, do you know what the DM players who played in Black forest are called? They are called ROOKIES (I'm sure they're called the same in RM black forest).

As I have been a 1850+ Random map player, I say that RM is ALL about perfecting and executing build orders at the expert level; nothing more. At the rookie/low inter level, players might think they're making "strategic" decision by researching a tech or doing some other trivial things. Reality check: if you think "stategy" is what decides a win or loose in RM, you are:

1) a rookie
2) a player who has never been to MFO ([w]if you don't know what MFO is, see number 1 )

Once again, RM is *not* about strategic decision; it's about better execution.

« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames