"Long rush distance" shenanigans?

[Jaeger]

Can someone explain this to me? I don't get why the length of the map has any relevance, if you rush you just build FB close to them anyway. The only downside is that your FB vills have to walk slightly more, but let's be real here that will cost like max 15 food and that's not game changing. I can see how a map being big might allow the enemy to hide some vills in odd places on the map, but I don't really see how a long map affects your ability to rush.

[Aizamk]

Hi,

Military shipments.

[Jaeger]

Hi,

Military shipments.

True forgot to mention that but casterz sai that all the time with civs like russia or something with shooting barrax

[gibson]

Hi,

Military shipments.

True forgot to mention that but casterz sai that all the time with civs like russia or something with shooting barrax

Not really relevant for lower level players, but more settler walking = more more idle time. In a low level game it doesnt matter because everyone makes so many mistakes anyway, but in a high level game 2 settlers being idle for ten extra seconds plus one miss click could result in loosing a battle than steamroll into loosing the game.

[Jaeger]

True forgot to mention that but casterz sai that all the time with civs like russia or something with shooting barrax

Not really relevant for lower level players, but more settler walking = more more idle time. In a low level game it doesnt matter because everyone makes so many mistakes anyway, but in a high level game 2 settlers being idle for ten extra seconds plus one miss click could result in loosing a battle than steamroll into loosing the game.

Lets be realistic 20 vill seconds is like 15 or so food and thats not gamechanging at any level. It COULD be a big deal if you get out like 1 less unit because of 15 food but the chances of that impacting the game are so small compared to many of the other variables, like finding 20 more resources in treasure, slightly closer hunts, etc.

[fei123456]

raid

[cowhax]

Bigger maps affect rushes because the player playing more economical is taking that much less of a risk. More travel time = more preparation for the other player's eco and counter to rush. Hence, rushing is less effective. Like rushing on a large map compared to an islands map are equal in how bad/risky it is.

[Garja]

I don't know what is with "shenanigans" these days.

Anyway ye,shipmnents, walking distance for vills, more exposure to raids, less control of the map in general since the map is normally as wide as long.

[Mimsy for President]

I always read sharingan...

[gibson]

Not really relevant for lower level players, but more settler walking = more more idle time. In a low level game it doesnt matter because everyone makes so many mistakes anyway, but in a high level game 2 settlers being idle for ten extra seconds plus one miss click could result in loosing a battle than steamroll into loosing the game.

Lets be realistic 20 vill seconds is like 15 or so food and thats not gamechanging at any level. It COULD be a big deal if you get out like 1 less unit because of 15 food but the chances of that impacting the game are so small compared to many of the other variables, like finding 20 more resources in treasure, slightly closer hunts, etc.

No that one thing is highly unlikely to make or break a game, however it is knowledge of and avoiding a culmination of small things like this that makes a top player a top player

[_venox_]

I always read sharingan...

lol me too

It is that the enemy can spread more and a contain won''t work as good' most rushes can be dealt with but it''s the rusher keeping map control and containing the enemy which hurts imo.