Optimal play= turtle play in some matchups?

Share and discuss strategies for playing the game, and get help and tips from other players.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
Terrarius
Posts: 3
Joined: August 29th, 2018, 8:41 pm

Optimal play= turtle play in some matchups?

Post by Terrarius » August 31st, 2018, 10:58 pm

Im very new to the game but what i wonder:aren,t there quite a few matchups where if both players play perfect they will never engage because engaing means to lose a few % of victorychance?

For example dwarfes vs dwarfes.Not only are they terrible at offense but they also have the guard skill that doubles their resistances if they defend.So the player who choses to engage is at a disadvantage meaning if i imagine this scenario correctly camping the whole game is the best strat and victory deceided by whoever can wait longer.

For example undead vs undead.Dark adapts score devastating damage.If player 1 attacks the enemy skeletonfrontline first with his skeletonfrontline he will take the adaptfire first with already slightly damaged units while the player who defended can just pull his damaged skeletons back.I could imagine that you could just move your army closer to the enemy without attacking but than you are eventually even worse off...2 adapts can now blow up 1 of your skeletons and move their frontline with them to cover them.If this would play out as i imagine,both players would stay outside of each others attackrange for the whole game until the winner is eventually deceided by whoever loses patience first.

Im tryng to determine if this games metaplay is to my liking to know if its worth getting my *** kicked for hundreds of hours until im finaly good enough to have a chance to win(since the game is complex,the playercount is low and guides lackuster and only explaining the abseloute basics).Would be a waste to go through that much suffering just to discover that oftentimes the metastrat is to wait longer than your opponent.Looking at each others armys for hours without ever engaging is not my definition of fun.

User avatar
max_torch
Posts: 281
Joined: July 31st, 2011, 5:54 pm
Location: Cavite, Philippines

Re: Optimal play= turtle play in some matchups?

Post by max_torch » September 1st, 2018, 5:59 am

Terrarius wrote:
August 31st, 2018, 10:58 pm
Im tryng to determine if this games metaplay is to my liking to know if its worth getting my *** kicked for hundreds of hours until im finaly good enough to have a chance to win(since the game is complex,the playercount is low and guides lackuster and only explaining the abseloute basics).Would be a waste to go through that much suffering just to discover that oftentimes the metastrat is to wait longer than your opponent.Looking at each others armys for hours without ever engaging is not my definition of fun.
This thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=39944 on multiplayer replay analysis can help in getting an idea of the multiplayer meta. The multiplayer meta is very different from the single player campaign meta.

shevegen
Posts: 199
Joined: June 3rd, 2004, 4:35 pm

Re: Optimal play= turtle play in some matchups?

Post by shevegen » September 1st, 2018, 12:44 pm

> For example dwarfes vs dwarfes.Not only are they terrible at offense but they also have the guard skill that doubles their
> resistances if they defend.So the player who choses to engage is at a disadvantage

This is true but you may be able to still find some holes; either due to map layout, and/or by being able to break through
on the same unit surrounding it or using something like poison (though admittedly that's where dwarves lack something).

I myself stuck mostly just playing campaigns, also largely due to time constraints anyway.

enclave
Posts: 885
Joined: December 15th, 2007, 8:52 am

Re: Optimal play= turtle play in some matchups?

Post by enclave » September 1st, 2018, 6:34 pm

not an expert opinion, but yeah it's most of time good at defense.. -> it doesn't mean that you can't win in offense.. most of players win offensive no problem.. if we talk about 1v1 ladder (which i'm quite sure we talk exactly about it, - ladder is a 1v1 games with scores for wins and loses and player ratings - usually if it's mirror - dwarf vs dwarf or any other same vs same race - it's remake). You just form your playstyle... go offensive by either village stealing (hodor - footpads grab empty villas and hope for luck), or first night rush (grunts/adepts go one side and strike *** out of enemy before he can form any defense), find holes in enemy defense and strike there (very annoying for me to move units to new places every turn, so i don't play ladder, i hate back and forth movements with night/day change), basically you aim for villages, to gain economical advantage... if you succeed then enemy's only hope is to gain xp/levelup advantage and retake villas later.. or maybe u can just hide 5 gliders and then suddenly hit enemy undead king at day from all sides... There are tons of ways to be offensive if u want to...

for isar maps like 2v2 being offensive is cool... you just look your ally recruits, time of day, enemy race, your race, and then ideally you try to rush 2v1 on one of enemies... very quick, very efficient... not boring at all and usually winning and definitly more worth than staying defensive for me. So for small 2v2 maps being offensive is no problem and maybe even advantage.

User avatar
Xara
Posts: 270
Joined: December 26th, 2014, 12:23 am
Location: Beijing

Re: Optimal play= turtle play in some matchups?

Post by Xara » September 12th, 2018, 4:59 am

If both sizes choose to turtle, the players would be encouraged to keep their army sizes low, to the point of inviting risks. The dynamic would keep the balance in check.
It pronounces Sha'ha, not Zara.

Feedback Thread of my Add-ons

Post Reply