This is very true although there are some games where you like to battle it out longer and therefore for some people it means more fun, but then blowing your opponent's brains into mush is also fun so i have no complaint about rushing.:fett: :deathstar :deathstar
Ill put it this way: If I am playing against an opponent in a serious game, I am gonna try and wipe them out as fast as I can. If I want a long game, Ill play the comps in a long battle with 4 on 4 or Ill play with some guildmates in a fun game where we just play without being that serious. I dont usually rush, but what I do is systematically take over land by my enemiy's base and close in for the kill.
If the host states specifically that there will be no rush, there won't be one. Voting between the players before a game is also a good idea. If there is a favor against rushing, then don't rush.
I still stand by my comment earlier but rushing can be a very useful tactic in crippling the enemy's economy. I'm starting to think that rushing tactics are better than none because if you take TOO long the enemy will gain the upper hand so please dont flame me but i stand for rushing. (I hope that didnt sound to corny)
:deathstar
Rushing is ok in my book hehe. But the rusher usually gets hammered if his/her first rush gets erradicated. Then all their resources they spent on creating the first wave has just become worm meat and now the opponent has all their resources still. Now your base is open for a counter attack and you are going to be too busy trying to get your resources back you just lost =P So in rm, rushing is very risky. In dm, its almost a must.
Like Many have said Rushing is a tactic that has always been used in RTS games. What I find however is that there are a lot of people who mis interpet what a rush actually is. Can soeone elaborate that for me? What is the defeinitions of the rush. I'm too tired to look it up.
;)
Its definitely a very good tactic, and at the same time it can come back to haunt you. If people dont think it is fun they should just put no rush on game settings. Unfortunately what we typically see is people losing to someone using a rush tactic and then complaining about it saying it is cheap.
Rushing cant be pinned down to one defination =P I think each person has their own interpretation as to what a rush is. Generally, imo, rushing is an early attack either with towers or mass military units or both at an early stage in the game where the opponent is hardly ready for such an attack (unless he/she knew they were going to be rushed). If the opponent does not have enough skill yet, the game will be over quickly. If they do, then they have a good chance of defeating the rush and launching a counter-attack.
When i know my opponent is good, i either try to defend against a rush or rush his workers myself.
I don't like rushing as the be-all-end-all strategy, but it almost always slows down an opponent, leaving me to wander free with a big army.
I always send a few Troopers in to take out all there workers......I favour a longer game, but I also favour an upper hand ;)
I'm sorry but if you don't have adequate defense at your base to fend off an initial rush, you deserve to loose the game.
That's not always true. Just because you don't have a defense doesnt mean you're not a good player. You could just be going for tons of resources, not thinking that an enemy will rush you.
You should always expect to be attacked, Eets'chula. But you're right, I guess I'm just too used to playing StarCraft and having to plan for drops.
Yeah alot of players are rescource mongors so rushing will not happen often to him and he'll get used to it. Therefore knowing nothing about rush tactics. If your enemy is always eager to get started go no rules at all he will most likely rush you. Either that or he's an idiot.:naboo:---:deathii:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA-Bye (Walks out of room)
Depends what kind of game u want. I like long games, but if I rush my opponnent early in the game or he rushes me, we won't have nice, long battles.
If u like short games (like some other people), then u rush:
Attack early ---- opponent isn't prepared---- cut out the power supply and resourse proccesing facilities ---- retreat, heal/repair units, build more units---- go for the kill.
As said before, I like long games, so I don't rush.
Originally posted by Eets'chula
That's not always true. Just because you don't have a defense doesnt mean you're not a good player. You could just be going for tons of resources, not thinking that an enemy will rush you.
True, but a good player prepares for every sort of attack. if you dont prepare for rush, and just try to build tons of resources, you are a very one-dimensional player
Mucho Resources = Good defense and offense.
Nuff sed.
You can gather all the resources you want in the world but that does not qualify you as a good player. Its how you spend it. And not only that, where you place your units, buildings, and towers. You can be filled with resources and pump out tons of Stormtroopers only to be shelled by your enemy who made tons of Dark Troopers or Jedi/Sith. If you place a tower too far away, your enemy can mosey right on by and wreak havoc on your workers, meanwhile all your towers are out of range because you blundered.
Originally posted by Eets'chula
Mucho Resources = Good defense and offense.
Nuff sed.
Really? Its that simple?? I hope to get a chance to play you!!
Workers= Resources= Army
Knock workers out a soon as possible so their production of units would slow down.
I would only destroy the workers, but it depends on the situation and what mood i am in.:D
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
If the host states specifically that there will be no rush, there won't be one. Voting between the players before a game is also a good idea. If there is a favor against rushing, then don't rush.
If you don't ever rush...what do you do??? You just SIT there...just building up your economy...this isn't a big economy game with all the frills of politics...no this is a WAR GAME. You use WAR TACTICS in a WAR GAME. A real WAR TACTIC is rushing the enemy. Sorry if you can't accept that...to bad. I'm rushing unless there is a set rule against it...
I am not a big rushing fan. Personally I find it more enjoyable to build up slow and have big battles to determine the outcome. All of these little rush the other person to get a quick win games seem boring to me. I wonder if the rushing strategy is really just a defense for those who can't play the long game well. What do you guys think? Rushing=not as good long game skills? Just a thought!
General Theros
Play Tirion and see what you think:rolleyes:
Does tirion have a good long game? Or does he rush? Or both? I would love to play him but alas...the demo no longer resides on my comp. I took it off because I was afraid too much of the same thing would lessen my enjoyment of the game when it comes out. This way I havent' played too much and I'll be fresh when it ships. :) Besides....if this Tirion guy is as good as you say then I'm sure I can't win....since I haven't played much. Gotta pick the fights I think I can win.... ;) That ....is the ultimate in warfare strategy.....despite any thing anyone else says...you can have an awesome offense or defense.....but if you don't pick the fights you can win....then you will lose. simple....but it works.. ;) hehe Happy gaming!
General Theros
I hope im not copying someone else but
Rushing+Destruction=Crippled economy=Probable win.
Definately the long game. I don't know about everyone else but after studying the tech tree, the civs are more distinctive in the later techs. Aside from the small bonuses the naboo (+10% nova collection) and rebels (+5% farmers cpacity) get, All civs seem rather balanced in the beginning. So you don't get all those short game civs like the Chinese and mongols in AOK who both had early bonuses. All the unique techs are researched in the fourth age thus bringing the distinctiveness of each race/civ in tech 4. (Also their unique unit in tech 3 from the fortress). Don't you think the game would be more fun if you played through tech 4? I think it would be more fun rather than going for the quick kill. Always hated seeing recorded games from AOK where the game is over within moments that they reached the feudal age. I know it's still prevelant in GB.
All in all I guess it's a matter of taste.
Yes there are new tech levels that you could get to if you played longer but this is a RTS for crying out loud. It would be challenging if you take the long game but it's harder if you rush. I think that people should earn to get to the later tech levels, I mean if you can't defend a tech level one attack then u my freind are sad. You've gotta use rescources to make rescources, and if you don't you won't survive tech level 2.
:slsaber:
GIR I understand your point. I consider myself an above average player but I did not have fun fighting against people who constantly rush. I know the basics of defending against the rush/Flush but it was nearly impossible to win against those civs that everyone keeps playing. (Example mongols chinese and mayans aztecs) I loved playing the civs that are more interesting like the Turks, Byzantines, Sracacens and all the othere civs that have later tech bonuses. They were much harder to use as a viable civ.
I've had games in GB that were a blast to play. Noone rushed and everyone got to tech 3 without to mush worry. The true fun came when each of us where trying to find awa to breakthrough the others defenses. Grant it the pop limit didn't help but it was fun trying to see what each other was trying to bring at each other. I brough some jedi's pummels mechs and artillery. he countered with some bounty hunters and mech destroyers. I brought in some air support and grenadiers mounties. He then brought in some troopers it was a see-saw battle but is was GASP! Fun.
I'm not saying that the rush/flush is a bad tactic. I've used it myself and won handedly. But It wasn't ;to my surprise!- Satisfying. I'm here to have fun. TO the unkown defender there is almost no way to stop it.
I on the other hand expect a rush to come. Sure there are defenses for it but it seems too much of a chore. (Espescially in AOK) It seems easier in GB than in AOK to defend and early rush. Most likely because of all the ranged troopers out there. There are no skirmisher type unit that counters the trooper other than the jedi in tech 2. Sure it maybe a challenge for the defender to get thruogh the tech trees, but what's the harm of just wanting to have a good game with nice big battles?
I mean if you can't defend a tech level one attack then u my freind are sad.
Tell me how would you know I can't defend a tech 1 attack?
Most of the time i was talking about you but that time i wasn't. I was talking about people in general and how rush games usually end in the 1st tech level so im not making fun of your post all im just trying to make a point.
Rushing is apart of this game...if you don't have it in the game it would be slightly less interesting to me...I don't necessarily want to play a 5 hour long game just because someone wants to play a long game...that would take up a bit to much of my time...
I like long battles too and they can be fun when your marching armies across a flat plain, i find that very cool, but since this is rush topic im trying to send my point to both kins of players. (Note: I am not discriminating players from each other), and yes i do believe you can fend off lvl 1 attacks but there are some people that are just plain sad and can't. (I hope that didn't sound too corny).
:bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2:
General: I play a mixture of every strat and tactic. It all depends on what my scouts pick up from my oponent and the type of map. But mainly, I try to drain my opponent's ecomony systematically closing him/her in and then finally going in for the kill.
I don't necessarily want to play a 5 hour long game just because someone wants to play a long game...that would take up a bit to much of my time...
Again I guess it's a matter of personal taste. 5 hours?!?!?! I couldn't imagine playing that long. agood 1:15 (Gametime of course) Is ideal for me.
By the way isn't actual gametime faster than normal time?
5 more days!!!!
I hate to break it to some of you but this isnt a WAR GAME its a Real-Time STRATEGY Game, if you dont believe me look it up on every site, ites Catagorized as Strategy, and Rushing isnt exactly a Strategy its a Instant Death Move more, Strategy envolves moving your armies around the map, getting the Strategist position launching strikes at the enemy, not sending waves of Storm Troopers in Tech 1 to annilate the Enemy. I know alot of people have trouble seeing this but thats how it is, everyone I've talked to seem to agree and i know many people.
Then the people you talked to must be wrong. Rushing is a tactic.
You can use rshing in many different ways not just letting all hell loose on your enemies. Any idiot can do that. When you rush you can always hide your units in the trees or something. You're still rushing your units there your just not attacking. You see there are many ways to rush, not just one.
:naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo:
Also, If Rushing is what RTS is all about, why dont you see Developers of all these RTS games making the AI Rush en masse in Tech 1 like some of you so claim is the best way to go? The AI seems to always Adhere to what Strategy really is, Aquiring Resources, getting the Strategist points and so on. People who just rush in every MP game they play just ruin the game unless all players involved are into it.
Sure everyone plays how they like no one could stop that unless your in a league or Tournement but can any of you honestly say building millions of towers all over the map or sending tons of Storm Troopers into a persons base in Tech 1 and wiping them out that fulfilling? Especially if you do that to Newbies? If the answer is yes then you pick on newbies and that is pathetic. They pay money for the game to enjoy it just as much as Experts.
I don't pick on newbies. I don't consider wiping somebody else out quickly fullfilling, but it is always good to have the upper hand on somebody early on. The answer to your question on why the developers dont include rushing in the AI is because of the scenarios. Thats why.
:naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo:
rushing's good
it separates the men from the boys:D
Rushing doesn't really separate anybody except people who know how to rush and who doesn't, but people need to stop whining and learn to cope with it.
:naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo:
this is a good debate, I've seen this type of debate on many RTS game forums, people are as opinionated on this as the "abortion" topics. I dont think anyone is ever going to Really come to any conclusion on this though so most everyone seems to have good points in favor or not in favor of rushing.
Well in any Tournements or leagues for RTS Games have they banned Rushing Tactics? or are those legal? I've never been in one so im curious
Most tournaments they don't care, but iv'e played in some AOE tournaments and they've banned rushing so it depends on the person. I for one am cool with it, i already know hosw to defend one so iv'e won many games.
:naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: