.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)
-   -   standard ulm in multiplayer.... (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=18277)

Truper March 12th, 2004 09:08 PM

Re: standard ulm in multiplayer....
 
Ermor may have no gold ecomomy, but its gem economy is important. A valid target for raiding.

Norfleet March 12th, 2004 09:17 PM

Re: standard ulm in multiplayer....
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Truper:
Ermor may have no gold ecomomy, but its gem economy is important. A valid target for raiding.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, but unlike gold economy, a gem economy is not disrupted by putting the fort under siege. Raiding a gold economy forces your opponent to expend more gold defending his gold economy, by having to rally forces to retake the lost land, then suppress the unrest created by the raiding. Ermor, however, does not really need to "rally" forces. I'll just redirect the next blob heading for the front line to take a drive-by into the province and reflag it easily. Raiding is not nearly the inconvenience and nuisance it is to Ermor as it is to a living opponent. The undead always pay their bills in full.

mivayan March 12th, 2004 10:43 PM

Re: standard ulm in multiplayer....
 
Condors - the main advice I have for you after the marathon we both played in a few weeks ago is to expend much more than you did then. Much much more. Send out armies in all directions to get lots of provinces => gold => armies and mages. It is often more profitable to capture indies than fighting other players.

Norfleet March 12th, 2004 10:45 PM

Re: standard ulm in multiplayer....
 
Quote:

Originally posted by mivayan:
It is often more profitable to capture indies than fighting other players.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, I adhere to this as well: On a map where you're not claustrophobically packed together, Indies are often easier, and more profitable, than trying to attack another player to expand your territory. Attacking another player also has the unpleasant side effect of provoking a war, which may not necessarily be to your advantage.

Mardagg March 13th, 2004 06:15 AM

Re: standard ulm in multiplayer....
 
As far as I understood these marathon games are played on a really huge map with quite a few players only.This is just a paradise for Ermor!
I am sure,that Norfleet is a very experienced player with ermor,but it is more than 100% clear to me,that Ermor is by FAR the strongest nation with such settings.

No chance for most other nations IMO.
Even if they ally together against Ermor...on such a huge map with few players that will be difficult to do.

I recommend using R`lyeh.
Nearly all undead troops are mindless but all commanders are not mindless...which means that mind bLasts do target the commanders..and that means that you dont have to deal with the insanely huge number of undeads he will have for sure in these type of game, as these just disappear without commanders.

Norfleet March 13th, 2004 06:42 AM

Re: standard ulm in multiplayer....
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mardagg:
and that means that you dont have to deal with the insanely huge number of undeads he will have for sure in these type of game, as these just disappear without commanders.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Surprisingly, the enormously huge numbers of undeads I have are very rarely the source of actual punch. In fact, by that point in the game, they're often more of a burden than an asset, as nearly every player I've run them into can cause armies 800 strong to basically come apart in a total wipeout with few or no losses. The undead hordes are by far more intimidating early in the game.

[ March 13, 2004, 04:43: Message edited by: Norfleet ]


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.