Which is more difficult?

Rush
106
65%
Treaty
9
6%
Both are different can't be compared
36
22%
Both need equal work although the area is different
12
7%
 
Total votes: 163

No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 04:37

So, I am listing few points which i think make up rush and treaty and trying to prove that both seem equal in their own ways.

Rush :
1) eco+army same time.
2) proper score reading
3) scouting.
4) deciding a build
5) unit micro upto individual level ( sometimes )


Treaty :

1) Proper boom
2) proper start army composition and maintaining unit compostion throughout the game.
3) scouting
4) map control
5) Card order ( after tr ends )
6) unit micro ( of massive armies including art. )
7) making fb's
8) looking out for running mates.
9) handling eco's with certain civ ( brits, iro , china, otto, ger ) while simultaneously fighting.
User avatar
No Flag Good ol Ivan
Howdah
Posts: 1097
ESO: ivanelterrible

24 Aug 2015, 05:47

It's not "rush". It's supremacy.

And sup is more complicated because treaty divides micro and macro. Unless you are making cows you don't even have to handle your eco once the treaty is over. Otherwise both require micro, scouting, unit composition, map control, eco, etc...
Really the only reason we even have treaty is because sup was too hard for noobs. But really you should grow out of treaty/no rush if your rank is above 16.
P.s. even DM >' treaty.
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
ESOC Media Team
Posts: 3679
ESO: DJ_Cometk
Location: California

24 Aug 2015, 06:03

goodspeed had a post about this on the agecomm forums a long time ago, i can dig for it if u want but essentially what he said was that there's nothing tactical about treaty. post-40, it's a game of raw mechanics

if i'm playing treaty, essentially what i do is turn of my brain. i can put up one or two walls at half-map and never have to worry about splitting the fight' everything my opponent might do is in my line of sight. i know what is going to happen where and when, there are no surprises. treaty strategy is very simple' you either push your opponent and destroy their base before you run out of resources, or you out-value your opponent and let them drain themselves of their resources before you're drained of yours. there are a few neat tactics and stratagems in treaty but they are nowhere near as complex as they are in supremacy
sebnan12 wrote:whenever i see a picture of siege elephants i question why they do 40~ dmg when they hit u. that phat cannons probably loading coconuts
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 06:49

after long fight it may become monotonous but at 40 there is so much work to do. you have to take tp nat post build fb make walls manage ur culv etc. during fight as well you have to manage culv maintain proper unit composition have proper push or if u are camping have a proper camping etc. agreed a very small amount of community plays treaty. but if it was so easy all should be major+ how many do you know who are major up ( except noob bashers ) at peak time there is only 1 high level game while abt 10-15 low level games. you need the understand it as a different concept to become good. if you have seen aizank play you know he plays like a robot he knows where his vills are etc. from stream u find it pretty easy but he knows how much work it is same is with dicktator_ years of practice has made him know what to do and what not to do for us it seems easy. but it's not treaty also requires same skill in different sections that is why he is best player and you are not. there are many players like veni_vidi_vici_w kin_ownage2nd dicktator_ who are top level players in tr and sup both why doesnt h20 is top level player in tr? hell he would probably get bashed by 1st lt. its because he doesnt know it and he doesnt have skill to play it.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10000
ESO: Pezet
Location: Poland

24 Aug 2015, 07:01

anonymous123 wrote:why doesnt h20 is top level player in tr? hell he would probably get bashed by 1st lt. its because he doesnt know it and he doesnt have skill to play it.
He said he played some treaty in the past, I''m sure he would be good at it. In my opinion it is easier to switch from supremacy to treaty than from NR to 1v1s. From your list: for example card order is pretty easy to learn.

Cow booming however with 3 FPS while microing a fight is pretty hard...
I see a pikeman and I want it painted grey :geek:
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 07:17

pecelot wrote:
anonymous123 wrote:why doesnt h20 is top level player in tr? hell he would probably get bashed by 1st lt. its because he doesnt know it and he doesnt have skill to play it.
He said he played some treaty in the past, Im sure he would be good at it. In my opinion it is easier to switch from supremacy to treaty than from NR to 1v1s. From your list: for example card order is pretty easy to learn.

Cow booming however with 3 FPS while microing a fight is pretty hard...
yes he played but he mostly he played nr20 ( if you remember his famous match against bridarshy ) and nr10 like very very few max 5 top level nr40 games. and all the time he got wrecked.
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
ESOC Media Team
Posts: 3679
ESO: DJ_Cometk
Location: California

24 Aug 2015, 07:24

h2o is pretty good at treaty homie

however, if there's one thing i've noticed about supremacy players in treaty, it's that they fall victim to the same thing: at some point, too much micro is a bad thing. attack move doesn't maximize their dps, single-unit targetting puts their units in exposed positions, and they muss up unit production and fall to 160/200 unit population. an anecdote: i played a spain mirror with ryan once and it wasn't till a while in the fight that i noticed he was targetting his skirmishers to kill my missionaries. obviously the intent here is to minimize the attack bonus my unit mass gains from missionaries, but in the process of this micro he would put his skirms in an exposed position to my lancers and lose more resources in skirmishers (50f 65c per head) than i would in missionaries (100w 100c).

@anonymous123
and if you don't mind me asking, what is your eso name?
sebnan12 wrote:whenever i see a picture of siege elephants i question why they do 40~ dmg when they hit u. that phat cannons probably loading coconuts
No Flag Mr. Pecksniff
Howdah
Posts: 1648

24 Aug 2015, 07:33

Of course 'rush' is harder than treaty. I'd say one of the major reasons why treaty is popular among new players is because it's so much easier, and you can get to the stage of being able to mass produce buildings and units without having to worry about being overwhelmed. Living the post-imperial wet dream is what draws many people to this game in the first place.
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 08:49

cometk wrote:h2o is pretty good at treaty homie

however, if there''s one thing i''ve noticed about supremacy players in treaty, it''s that they fall victim to the same thing: at some point, too much micro is a bad thing. attack move doesn''t maximize their dps, single-unit targetting puts their units in exposed positions, and they muss up unit production and fall to 160/200 unit population. an anecdote: i played a spain mirror with ryan once and it wasn''t till a while in the fight that i noticed he was targetting his skirmishers to kill my missionaries. obviously the intent here is to minimize the attack bonus my unit mass gains from missionaries, but in the process of this micro he would put his skirms in an exposed position to my lancers and lose more resources in skirmishers (50f 65c per head) than i would in missionaries (100w 100c).

@anonymous123
and if you don''t mind me asking, what is your eso name?
recently i watched a stream where h20 played andes with another rush playe. stream was by dicktator_ ajiv or sergyou7. his team mate was japan. he let japan fight in nats. h20 was spain. his unit composition sucked. he rarely made culv and was fighting into art all the time. he made like 30 lancers at once and then fought with them. next moment he made 80 skirms and got wrecked by cav. you call that good? after he got beaten bridarshy in nr20 british mirror you should have seen him rage. and yes attack move is actually better in nats than you are stating i can explain if you want.

The fun in being anonymous is you can talk freely without caring for anything so no name as of now.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

24 Aug 2015, 08:49

[quote source="/post/43384/thread" author="@anonymous123" timestamp="1440391025"]So, I am listing few points which i think make up rush and treaty and trying to prove that both seem equal in their own ways.

Rush :
1) eco+army same time.
2) proper score reading
3) scouting.
4) deciding a build
5) unit micro upto individual level ( sometimes )


Treaty :

1) Proper boom
2) proper start army composition and maintaining unit compostion throughout the game.
3) scouting
4) map control
5) Card order ( after tr ends )
6) unit micro ( of massive armies including art. )
7) making fb's
8) looking out for running mates.
9) handling eco's with certain civ ( brits, iro , china, otto, ger ) while simultaneously fighting.

[/quote]
proper boom is not a thing, eco control is something you have to do in both modes, its just that in supremacy you have to control your eco while also controlling your army, and you cannot invest purely in one or the other, you usually have to invest in both. In some cases you can forego one for the other for a while, aka doing a fish boom with walls or doing an all in. Its not that the treaty40 is proper, its just different, and there is no reason to suggest that players who are capable of booming while microing army and doing other things are not capable of sending the right cards and booming while not having to do anything on the side. However, there is alot of reasons to assume treaty players will have alot of trouble doing the opposite.

proper army composition isnt a thing either, in both modes you have to adapt to what the other player can make, and on top of that in sup you have to work with what is available in your age, and sometimes with resources are available to you. so good supremacy players will know how to deal with coin mines running out, having to switch to wood, making archaic while transitioning into mills and plants without dieing to the pressure that is still going on. This is more prevalent in team games, because usually 1v1's dont go on so long. But nonetheless its something supremacy players deal with quite often, while treaty players dont have to deal with it.

map control is a thing in both modes, but again, it works just different. One isnt more proper than the other...

same for card order, don't know why you keep listing such things for treaty but not for supremacy, exept to make treaty's list look more impressive. One thing you fail to mention though is adapting and creativity, something for which treaty doesnt allow much, because you simply want to get the most res out and there is an optimal build for that, this is why treaty is just purely mechanical, and doesnt allow for players like boneng or aizamk to display their talents. In supremacy build orders matter alot more, in the sense that you can come up with deviations to the meta to hard counter what your opponent does, in some cases these devations wouldnt make sense and would be inferior to standard play, but sometimes cutting vils or forgoing market or doing a 12/10 or 10/10 rush can mean the difference between winning and losing and in treaty this doesnt exist. so the strategical depth of the game has been removed pretty much, and its just a game of tactics and spamming... kinda why sc2 is so boring, but atleast sc2 has the pace, which treaty doesnt have.

unit micro in supremacy is both on small scale level of 5 musk vs 5 musk as large scale level where you have a full unit composition including cannons and such. But its not yet so big that its just attack move and tasking the right units on the right counter, which is more about positioning and having the right composition than actually controlling the unit. Treaty players actually suck at micro... losing a fight is also less detrimental in treaty, cuz you can just instantly respam.

i guess proper base building is more important in treaty than in supremacy, but for many civ in supremacy walling and base building is also a skill. but i guess ill grant you that point.

what does looking out for running mates even mean, if you play team games in supremacy you have to do the same, and in 1v1 there are no mates, no matter the mode. so again... just trying to make the treaty list look longer.

and point 9 is just a joke... even if you have to do that for some civs, its not on the same level as youd have to do for any civ on supremacy, and that INCLUDES ottomans...

you also forgot that in supremacy people actually play on water and that knowing how to play vs that and how to micro warships etc is something barely any treaty player knows.
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 08:53

ivan wrote:It''s not "rush". It''s supremacy.

Treaty and rush comes under supremacy. Supremacy and Deathmatch are 2 game types. Weather its treaty or rush ( standard/classic =rush, )


PS: you should really get a reality check and stop trolling/arguing on each and every post and behave like you know everything because the truth is you know nothing
User avatar
Russia yurashic
Howdah
Posts: 1140
ESO: Yurashic
Location: Russia

24 Aug 2015, 09:16

How to learn to play treaty?

- Watch a video how to boom properly.
- Wait for the timer to expire.
- Spam units everywhere and build military buildings everywhere.

How to learn to play supremacy?

- Learn all standard build orders for all 14 civs and how to counter them.
- Learn how to adapt to unexpected strategies.
- Learn to raid.
- Learn to scout.
- Learn to play water and against it.
- Learn to manage natural resources.
- Learn positioning and micro.

Difference is obvious.
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 09:21

[quote timestamp="1440406194" author="@umeu" source="/post/43416/thread"][quote source="/post/43384/thread" author="@anonymous123" timestamp="1440391025"]So, I am listing few points which i think make up rush and treaty and trying to prove that both seem equal in their own ways.

Rush :
1) eco+army same time.
2) proper score reading
3) scouting.
4) deciding a build
5) unit micro upto individual level ( sometimes )


Treaty :

1) Proper boom
2) proper start army composition and maintaining unit compostion throughout the game.
3) scouting
4) map control
5) Card order ( after tr ends )
6) unit micro ( of massive armies including art. )
7) making fb's
8) looking out for running mates.
9) handling eco's with certain civ ( brits, iro , china, otto, ger ) while simultaneously fighting.

[/quote]proper boom is not a thing, eco control is something you have to do in both modes, its just that in supremacy you have to control your eco while also controlling your army, and you cannot invest purely in one or the other, you usually have to invest in both. In some cases you can forego one for the other for a while, aka doing a fish boom with walls or doing an all in. Its not that the treaty40 is proper, its just different, and there is no reason to suggest that players who are capable of booming while microing army and doing other things are not capable of sending the right cards and booming while not having to do anything on the side. However, there is alot of reasons to assume treaty players will have alot of trouble doing the opposite.

proper army composition isnt a thing either, in both modes you have to adapt to what the other player can make, and on top of that in sup you have to work with what is available in your age, and sometimes with resources are available to you. so good supremacy players will know how to deal with coin mines running out, having to switch to wood, making archaic while transitioning into mills and plants without dieing to the pressure that is still going on. This is more prevalent in team games, because usually 1v1's dont go on so long. But nonetheless its something supremacy players deal with quite often, while treaty players dont have to deal with it.

map control is a thing in both modes, but again, it works just different. One isnt more proper than the other...

same for card order, don't know why you keep listing such things for treaty but not for supremacy, exept to make treaty's list look more impressive. One thing you fail to mention though is adapting and creativity, something for which treaty doesnt allow much, because you simply want to get the most res out and there is an optimal build for that, this is why treaty is just purely mechanical, and doesnt allow for players like boneng or aizamk to display their talents. In supremacy build orders matter alot more, in the sense that you can come up with deviations to the meta to hard counter what your opponent does, in some cases these devations wouldnt make sense and would be inferior to standard play, but sometimes cutting vils or forgoing market or doing a 12/10 or 10/10 rush can mean the difference between winning and losing and in treaty this doesnt exist. so the strategical depth of the game has been removed pretty much, and its just a game of tactics and spamming... kinda why sc2 is so boring, but atleast sc2 has the pace, which treaty doesnt have.

unit micro in supremacy is both on small scale level of 5 musk vs 5 musk as large scale level where you have a full unit composition including cannons and such. But its not yet so big that its just attack move and tasking the right units on the right counter, which is more about positioning and having the right composition than actually controlling the unit. Treaty players actually suck at micro... losing a fight is also less detrimental in treaty, cuz you can just instantly respam.

i guess proper base building is more important in treaty than in supremacy, but for many civ in supremacy walling and base building is also a skill. but i guess ill grant you that point.

what does looking out for running mates even mean, if you play team games in supremacy you have to do the same, and in 1v1 there are no mates, no matter the mode. so again... just trying to make the treaty list look longer.

and point 9 is just a joke... even if you have to do that for some civs, its not on the same level as youd have to do for any civ on supremacy, and that INCLUDES ottomans...

you also forgot that in supremacy people actually play on water and that knowing how to play vs that and how to micro warships etc is something barely any treaty player knows.
[/quote]Umeu like some people said in previous post you just talk bs because 1) you dont know anything about treaty 2) you are lost in your arrogance
still i will try and address you once again. lets go point by point.


By proper booming, I mean there is some build order which have been tested over years which is perfecrt build for specific civ. But most of the times on andes its mapscrew like you get 2 hunts or sometimes 1 when in reality you need like 3-4 hunts for a perfect a boom. so depending on situation you need to adapt like making early mills or changing card order etc. which sup players obviously have no idea about. so you require skill for that in deciding when to make a transition to mills and plantation deciding card order etc. Germany booms 2600 with top level players while lt struggle to boom 2300 why? skill difference. whole game you also have to look at vills getting stuck in mills/plant.


Army composition is WAY DIFFERENT in rush and tr. In rush if you scout properly you always knows what is comming. like a stable in age 2 is 5 cav is 100% sure. in 1v1 you would usually have both stable and barracks s you just have to see what enemy is doing and know what its counters are. for ex fre mirror age 2 is mostly musk/xbow cav and every rush player knows it expects it. in tr for ex. ports mirror maintaining a proper composition of cass/goon culv/organ/ huss cuz you dont want to make one unit too much where he makes counters and you just lose.tell me maintaining a composition of 20 musk and 10 huss is more easy or 40 cass and 20 goons? in tr you always have to keep making new units so you stay popped in fast paced andes so you don't drain/lose etc.



card order yes you have to make on the go decisions for both modes. ( don't get your point here i was just listing points for both. ) I am not trying to make tr more impressive. tr has 2 stages one is boom second is fight and it has different roles so number of points are naturally high in tr.


Its not about doing once it needs to be done continuously. unit position needs to be maintained. when to move forward/backward managing your culverins etc. its not attack move it actually might be pretty bad in treaty if you use more because except in nats it actually reduces dps of your units. cometk already made that point. Losing a fight is pretty detrimental because 1) you lose lot of pop/you drain fast. 2) you lose your ground wherein your mate may lose his base or you lose nats giving your opponent considerable advantage over you thereby losing game completely.


Hell fuck all this writing and bs because none will go in your head. Why not come and have 1v1 if its so easy and you are already high level rush player so you must feel treaty so easy and you already played with high level treaty players right? so why not come and have 1v1 and i will show you difference between high level treaty and your 2nd lt treaty. or are you just going to be scared cat and say i don't have time? open challenge to you. Accept it or stop talking bs
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 09:24

yurashic wrote:How to learn to play treaty?

- Watch a video how to boom properly.
- Wait for the timer to expire.
- Spam units everywhere and build military buildings everywhere.

How to learn to play supremacy?

- Learn all standard build orders for all 14 civs and how to counter them.
- Learn how to adapt to unexpected strategies.
- Learn to raid.
- Learn to scout.
- Learn to play water and against it.
- Learn to manage natural resources.
- Learn positioning and micro.

Difference is obvious.
booms are different for different civ.
you need to adapt to running, higher pop splits doubling etc.
scouting is important in tr as well.
managing natural resources is important in tr as well for perfect booming.
positioning and micro is as important in tr
its not just spam you need to make proper units and counters.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

24 Aug 2015, 09:32

This topic is pretty sad because there are basically no treaty players around anymore.

I used to argue that treaty was really easy and stuff, but at some point in time I was convinced that it isnt as easy as the arrogant sup players make it seem to be. A pity that more than half of the games lag so badly that you cant actually control your units anymore.
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
ESOC Media Team
Posts: 3679
ESO: DJ_Cometk
Location: California

24 Aug 2015, 09:39

it's actually pretty hilarious seeing supremacy players try to cow boom for the first time ^^ when musketjr played tr20 he always said brit cows were so op haha
sebnan12 wrote:whenever i see a picture of siege elephants i question why they do 40~ dmg when they hit u. that phat cannons probably loading coconuts
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 09:52

cometk wrote:it''s actually pretty hilarious seeing supremacy players try to cow boom for the first time ^^ when musketjr played tr20 he always said brit cows were so op haha
yes it is i had some lt col in sup playing tr brits he made 2 pen for cows apart. and had 4 pen in square formation for sheep. he had all cows and sheeps fatten and he was eating with 3-4 cows and 2-3 for sheeps and i asked him why not eat all cows and sheeps together or with more vills he said no i eat cows with 3 vills and sheeps with 2 vills. otherwise its waste in there walking. he boomed 1900 at 40 -.-
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10000
ESO: Pezet
Location: Poland

24 Aug 2015, 09:58

anonymous123 wrote:Treaty and rush comes under supremacy. Supremacy and Deathmatch are 2 game types. Weather its treaty or rush ( standard/classic =rush, )

anonymous123 wrote:By proper booming, I mean there is some build order which have been tested over years which is perfecrt build for specific civ. But most of the times on andes its mapscrew like you get 2 hunts or sometimes 1 when in reality you need like 3-4 hunts for a perfect a boom. so depending on situation you need to adapt like making early mills or changing card order etc. which sup players obviously have no idea about. so you require skill for that in deciding when to make a transition to mills and plantation deciding card order etc

lol

The only arrogant person here is you, behaving like a master of everything, starting personal attacks.
I see a pikeman and I want it painted grey :geek:
No Flag nightscr3am
Crossbow
Posts: 9

24 Aug 2015, 09:59

the cow boom is literally the only economic optimization that doesn't come naturally to any high level sup player with fuck all else to do for 40 mins. Other than that its about respecting the natives, the amount of walls you need and being bored then you instantly become the best treaty player.
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 10:02

pecelot wrote:
anonymous123 wrote:Treaty and rush comes under supremacy. Supremacy and Deathmatch are 2 game types. Weather its treaty or rush ( standard/classic =rush, )
anonymous123 wrote:By proper booming, I mean there is some build order which have been tested over years which is perfecrt build for specific civ. But most of the times on andes its mapscrew like you get 2 hunts or sometimes 1 when in reality you need like 3-4 hunts for a perfect a boom. so depending on situation you need to adapt like making early mills or changing card order etc. which sup players obviously have no idea about. so you require skill for that in deciding when to make a transition to mills and plantation deciding card order etc
lol

The only arrogant person here is you, behaving like a master of everything, starting personal attacks.
there are some things in rush which tr players have no idea and some in tr rush players have no idae about. its true all agree to it how saying that makes me arrogant? that guy is always trolling and arguing about something he clearly has no idea of just to post something and get attention
yeah it annoys
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 10000
ESO: Pezet
Location: Poland

24 Aug 2015, 10:07

anonymous123 wrote:Army composition is WAY DIFFERENT in rush and tr. In rush if you scout properly you always knows what is comming. like a stable in age 2 is 5 cav is 100% sure. in 1v1 you would usually have both stable and barracks s you just have to see what enemy is doing and know what its counters are. for ex fre mirror age 2 is mostly musk/xbow cav and every rush player knows it expects it. in tr for ex. ports mirror maintaining a proper composition of cass/goon culv/organ/ huss cuz you dont want to make one unit too much where he makes counters and you just lose.tell me maintaining a composition of 20 musk and 10 huss is more easy or 40 cass and 20 goons? in tr you always have to keep making new units so you stay popped in fast paced andes so you dont drain/lose etc.


I feel like your opinion on high level rush players in no rush games is based on some weak performances by H2O. Its freaking obvious that in long games you mix artillery, such as culvs and mortars, especially when you have to fight under the walls. Its not an eureka invented by smart treaty players lol.

anonymous123 wrote:card order yes you have to make on the go decisions for both modes. ( dont get your point here i was just listing points for both. ) I am not trying to make tr more impressive. tr has 2 stages one is boom second is fight and it has different roles so number of points are naturally high in tr.


I dont find card order for treaty that challenging. For Brits I would first send cow cards, refrigeration, royal mint, factories, plantation cards, decrease of training time and then it depends on the composition so LB/AA/cav HP &' attack/musk HP &' attack. Correct me if Im wrong, but if it looks like this, its really easy then.

EDIT:

anonymous123 wrote:
pecelot wrote:lol

The only arrogant person here is you, behaving like a master of everything, starting personal attacks.
there are some things in rush which tr players have no idea and some in tr rush players have no idae about. its true all agree to it how saying that makes me arrogant? that guy is always trolling and arguing about something he clearly has no idea of just to post something and get attention
yeah it annoys

Maybe show some respect to the others and to what they say. Umeu is pretty knowledgable as far as I know and his thoughts are quite logical, and you still say he is arrogant and talks BS.
I see a pikeman and I want it painted grey :geek:
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 10:16

pecelot wrote:
anonymous123 wrote:Army composition is WAY DIFFERENT in rush and tr. In rush if you scout properly you always knows what is comming. like a stable in age 2 is 5 cav is 100% sure. in 1v1 you would usually have both stable and barracks s you just have to see what enemy is doing and know what its counters are. for ex fre mirror age 2 is mostly musk/xbow cav and every rush player knows it expects it. in tr for ex. ports mirror maintaining a proper composition of cass/goon culv/organ/ huss cuz you dont want to make one unit too much where he makes counters and you just lose.tell me maintaining a composition of 20 musk and 10 huss is more easy or 40 cass and 20 goons? in tr you always have to keep making new units so you stay popped in fast paced andes so you dont drain/lose etc.
I feel like your opinion on high level rush players in no rush games is based on some weak performances by H2O. Its freaking obvious that in long games you mix artillery, such as culvs and mortars, especially when you have to fight under the walls. Its not an eureka invented by smart treaty players lol.

anonymous123 wrote:card order yes you have to make on the go decisions for both modes. ( dont get your point here i was just listing points for both. ) I am not trying to make tr more impressive. tr has 2 stages one is boom second is fight and it has different roles so number of points are naturally high in tr.
I dont find card order for treaty that challenging. For Brits I would first send cow cards, refrigeration, royal mint, factories, plantation cards, decrease of training time and then it depends on the composition so LB/AA/cav HP &' attack/musk HP &' attack. Correct me if Im wrong, but if it looks like this, its really easy then.
My opinion is not based on anyones performance. Having 2 canons with 40 musk or goons and having 6 culv 5 horse art 3 mortar in middle of 80 units is different. you have to pull your horse art back and mortars back when enemy culv comes make sure 2 of ur culv (3 in some cases )fires one shot at one enemy culv so his culv dies in one shot then again getting your horse art back in fight manually targeting important buildings with mortar first. also you have to manually target walls because mortars dont auto attack them etc. and unlike rush where if you lose your shipment art you dont make new art this is a continuous process in tr. card order upto boom is same but it changes after that depending on situation like if you play in nats you send native card first then team card or 2 explorer card with ports basically depending on where you fight what civ you fight and weather its team game or 1v1
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

24 Aug 2015, 10:18

its only treaty players concerned with ending the "dispute" about if treaty is as good or superior to supremacy anyway, i never seen a sup player start a thread like this. in any case, its simple logic that a gamemode which splits army and eco, micro and macro management into 2 halves, where strategical depth and decision making has been reduced to picking a civ according to the map, and where tactical depth has been reduced largely to siege and static warfare (I'd like to see treaty players playing treaty without walls, now that would be a challenge) is not equally or more complex than a mode where all of this takes place simultaneously and in depth, regardless if its scale makes it slightly more difficult to handle. you can list a dozen petty arguments about proper this and that.

in any case ill play you treaty if you want, ill be on later today, send me a pm about your eso nick. i got time to waste today so can do a treaty game or 2.
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 10:19

pecelot wrote:
anonymous123 wrote:Army composition is WAY DIFFERENT in rush and tr. In rush if you scout properly you always knows what is comming. like a stable in age 2 is 5 cav is 100% sure. in 1v1 you would usually have both stable and barracks s you just have to see what enemy is doing and know what its counters are. for ex fre mirror age 2 is mostly musk/xbow cav and every rush player knows it expects it. in tr for ex. ports mirror maintaining a proper composition of cass/goon culv/organ/ huss cuz you dont want to make one unit too much where he makes counters and you just lose.tell me maintaining a composition of 20 musk and 10 huss is more easy or 40 cass and 20 goons? in tr you always have to keep making new units so you stay popped in fast paced andes so you dont drain/lose etc.
I feel like your opinion on high level rush players in no rush games is based on some weak performances by H2O. Its freaking obvious that in long games you mix artillery, such as culvs and mortars, especially when you have to fight under the walls. Its not an eureka invented by smart treaty players lol.

anonymous123 wrote:card order yes you have to make on the go decisions for both modes. ( dont get your point here i was just listing points for both. ) I am not trying to make tr more impressive. tr has 2 stages one is boom second is fight and it has different roles so number of points are naturally high in tr.
I dont find card order for treaty that challenging. For Brits I would first send cow cards, refrigeration, royal mint, factories, plantation cards, decrease of training time and then it depends on the composition so LB/AA/cav HP &' attack/musk HP &' attack. Correct me if Im wrong, but if it looks like this, its really easy then.

EDIT:

anonymous123 wrote:there are some things in rush which tr players have no idea and some in tr rush players have no idae about. its true all agree to it how saying that makes me arrogant? that guy is always trolling and arguing about something he clearly has no idea of just to post something and get attention
yeah it annoys
Maybe show some respect to the others and to what they say. Umeu is pretty knowledgable as far as I know and his thoughts are quite logical, and you still say he is arrogant and talks BS.
He basically has no knowledge of tr and he is talking bs in this post as well as previous post as far sup is considered yes i would probably double check facts although if i am 100% sure i am right just because its umeu arguing. he would get respect if he knows his boundaries if he tries to be boss at everything he wont plain and simple.
No Flag anonymous123
Dragoon
Posts: 286

24 Aug 2015, 10:21

umeu wrote:its only treaty players concerned with ending the "dispute" about if treaty is as good or superior to supremacy anyway, i never seen a sup player start a thread like this. in any case, its simple logic that a gamemode which splits army and eco, micro and macro management into 2 halves, where strategical depth and decision making has been reduced to picking a civ according to the map, and where tactical depth has been reduced largely to siege and static warfare (I''d like to see treaty players playing treaty without walls, now that would be a challenge) is not equally or more complex than a mode where all of this takes place simultaneously and in depth, regardless if its scale makes it slightly more difficult to handle. you can list a dozen petty arguments about proper this and that.

in any case ill play you treaty if you want, ill be on later today, send me a pm about your eso nick. i got time to waste today so can do a treaty game or 2.
okay post time in gmt when you will be on so i be on that time.

Forum Info

Return to “General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: edeholland, I_HaRRiiSoN_I and 2 guests