Making Ron Fun

[El_Capitan]

That was a nice attack. You had the game won.

1. Even though it wasn't neccessary, it's good to raid before an assault. Usually a single HA and HC is all you need for the enemy to start building a Tower and some Cavalry. Raid near the Capital. This draws your opponent's attention while you're engaging in your frontal battle.

2. After taking that 3rd City, you could have positioned your units defensively until that city was assimilated and gone up to Gunpowder Age yourself. It's good to start an attack early, but you don't win by staying in that age. You have to keep advancing, because your opponent will. You have to realize that instead of building more Foot Archers and Heavy Infantry, you should start making Light Infantry to get upgraded to Arquebusiers when Gunpowder Age hits.

3. Don't rush in to take City after City in Medieval Age. Like I said, you could have gone up to Gunpowder Age to continue the attack. Instead, fortify your army at the taken City, and then build another Barracks, Stables, and Siege in that city. Once that happens, you can forward build a Tower at your convenience, but usually it's not necessary. This quickly reinforces your army for your next assault. Deleting your old Barracks, Stables, and Siege are optional, but I leave them as a back-up in case I get backdoored with a last ditch Capital attack, or use them to upgrade my troops while my other military buildings make my troops.

Optional Suggestion: When you scouted forward where your 3rd City was eventually placed, you could have placed your 2nd City there instead. For Timber, you build another WoodCutter's Camp in your Capital, and another at your 2nd City, where a 4 or 5 man spot was possible. Usually and early attack consists of 150 or 200, and if you end up needing more, you'll usually have your 4th City up you could place just for the extra Timber. What this ends up doing is enabling a more aggressive border push, so when you start your original attack, you have less distance to travel to reinforce your fighting army.

[HalfLotus]

I say press your military advantage as long as you have it. No reason to sit around assimilating if you can continue sieging his stuff. After taking the third city he was basically even in economy....so he assimilates the city and ends up even...not so great.

If you take the second city you'll be in better shape...but you still want press the attack as long as possible. Why sit around with your seige army if you have the military advantage?

Flash did a good job of pressing his advantage. And he went Gunpowder right around the time his opponent did. It was a gunpowder vs gunpowder fight that decided it, so you can't fault him for slow teching. He (flash) was pretty good about his knowledge and teching, but bad micro cost him in the final battle.

Basically he didn't do enough damage economically to gain an advantage....taking the second city will almost always give you a significant economic advantage; at which point victory becomes quite easy.

edit: one reason why capturing a city and sitting around to assimliate doesn't work is ramping costs. Your opponent can rebuild lost structures cheaper than you can build your advantage over him. Any battlefield advantage you have must be exploited quickly and with maximum destruction, especially when using your seige. Flash did a good job of pressing the advantage, I see many players sit around to assimilate and lose any advatange they might have gained....this replay is a good example of how you can lose a game by not pressing your military advatange.

Do the exact same thing next time and take his second city, I can almost assure victory so long as they aren't Maya or Korea.

[El_Capitan]

It's just argumentative at this point. Of course it's always better to target 1. the Capital, 2. the 2nd City, then 3. the 3rd City. Of course if you have the military advantage, it's good to press the attack. It's just not always neccessary.

At this point, the defensive player is planning ahead on his next execution of counter-attack. He knows he can't take back his city with a concurrent Age army. If you know you can't follow through with your current army, you have to meet that next step with some careful planning of your own.

Flash did do a good job, but for me, I would have waited to set up my new military outpost in that taken city, and gone up to Gunpowder a good 2 to 4 minutes earlier (not at the same time or slower) than the other guy. Once your attack is renewed at that point, most players resign because they know it's over at that point.

Economic damage isn't necessary if your attacks are putting pressure on your opponent. Military strength will overcome any economic advantage in a tight situation.

Edit: Hehe, I can show you a hundred replays against 2k+ players where I wait to assimilate the opponent's outer city and then press the attack an age up, while you can show the same with when you press your attack. I'm not saying your wrong HalfLotus, I just want to point out other options that are just as good. The only difference being preference. I still hold to my motto that earlier attacks hold more risks, but bigger rewards. I guess I'm no Stonewall Jackson, but at least I won't get shot and killed by my own men. =)

[HalfLotus]

Exactly, there are many paths to victory, it's what makes RoN great. =)

Generally if you execute a full scale attack like this (ie- before the standard gunpowder age fighting), you have sacrificed economy and tech (knowledge) to execute it. It's rare that you can tech faster than your opponent with this kind of attack....usually you're lucky to stay even in the tech race because your opponent was booming while you were making an army. If you know how to make a large siege army AND tech ahead of a boomer, please share. =)

Because of this I rely on hurting their economy as much as possible with the initial assault, and pressing the military advantage as long as possible....meanwhile you keep your knowledge as high as possible so you can at least stay even in tech. Against equal opponents its not simply a matter of "teching to gun faster"....you have to work for it.

In this particular game, he had taken the outer city and was basically even in economy, tech, and military (IIRC). He has secured almost no advantage with the attack. What good does that do? By sitting around to assimilate he's basically starting from scratch.

edit: players these days are smart. when they lose a city theyll rebuild quickly and cheaper than you can build on them...taking the third city will give a minimal advantage at best. The BHS game 1 between Shadowz and Frogman is a good example of this.

[El_Capitan]

It would have been nice to have had more aggressive playtesters when playtesting this game. I think there was a good balance of playstyle with the "fab four" playtesters including Axehilt, who was our lead. Out of all of us, I was the most aggressive, though... me! Lol.

Axehilt was the next most aggessive, then CP, Ryan, and Kleitus was the boomer. The "bruise crew" Impossible Creatures team that later joined us were much more aggressive than me, but they didn't have the knowledge of when to be aggressive, and when not to.

Anyways, getting to know the playtesters and have actual conversations with each other day-to-day was great. We all agreed on the problems, but we each had different opinions on the solutions. That was the most difficult thing to agree on. We both share the same knowledge of the problem, but have different solutions on how to amend them.

HalfLotus, if you can see me play in person, I can easily share you how to manage a large siege army and boom ahead at the same time, but via online, it's tough enough to teach people how to even boom, much less build an army.

Even though Military and Economy are important considerations, you must not forget Positioning. Border pushing is just a variation of Positioning, but like Chess, your focus is gaining control of the middle, because that's where the strength of movement lies. It's a war of attrition strategy, not just a war of conquest one.

[HalfLotus]

Yeah I know Axe from Bnet. He's a standup guy and a damn fine RTS player. Oh how I would love to have playtested RoN.

Anyways, as far as booming+seige army. I'm speaking from a resource standpoint. It's simply not possible (afaik) to make decent sized siege army and boom at the same rate as a booming player. It's basic math as I see it. If you start making significant military before your booming opponent, he will have a resource or tech lead. It's up to you to leverage your military advantage in a way that will destroy his economic lead.

I feel like I'm oversimplifying with that statement, but the central notion of early attacking is to close the economic gap with maximum destruction. And ramping costs works heavily in favor of a defender. That's why I've been adamant about a) taking the second city or capitol, and b) pressing military advantage as long as is possible. Going for the third city and/or sitting around to assimilate is a waste of a damn fine siege army.

That's not to say you should stop growing your econ/tech. Use your present military advantage while growing your econ/tech at the same time. It's a resource balancing act at that point. I've written extensively about it here and at RoNU.

And yes, positioning is always important, no doubt about it. Not sure where that came from, but it reminds of something:

I like to push a "bulge" into my opponents territory, like a little thumb. You can apply all of your forces at two separate spots (either side of the bulge) while your opponent must split his forces between the two spots, or run back and forth with his whole army. If you create a bulge between two cities, you can put a lot of pressure on the opponent. That doesn't have much to do with this topic, just thought I'd share.

[Sava]

Re: Making Ron Fun

Originally posted by flash9286
IMO, I think that time in between ages should be longer this way is isnt just a rush to industral or enlightment i think it would allow for alot more startgies too.

nah, I think the age changes are fine... btw, one can simply play a certain age if you want to

[El_Capitan]

In resource terms, just taking an empty 3rd City can cause serious booming disruption for your enemy. He loses 110 Food and 110 Timber, and needs another 110 Food and another 110 Timber for another 3rd City. Add that in to the fact that if he did build... his 3rd University (100 Timber and 70 Wealth) 2 more Farms (around 150 Timber) a Temple (80 Timber), plus the possibility of any Mines or WoodCutter's Camps, it all adds up. Not only that, they can only have 1 Caravan on a trade route and only 2 Universities until their 3rd City goes up.

I guess it's just my personal theory that any attack/raid that causes your opponent to waste resources on un-needed defenses hurt your opponent more. The reason for my Kamikaze Rushes is that even with a slow start, I can cause my enemy to be on the defensive while I micro my small attack army while freely booming. 2 Foot Archers are expensive in Ancient Age, and vulnerable to Slingers. The only thing that keeps them safe is micro-garrisoning them to a further position. If that's the case, you can easily blockade their Capital with Slingers and choose to get their 2nd City instead. It may not be as good as taking the Capital, but it does merit repercussions on the opposition's resource income.

Also, he who builds an attacking army first, has a better chance of getting more ruins from their "travel" towards the enemy's territory. A defensive army has to stay put... and thus doesn't get a good chance to explore.

Lol, it's just me, really. I get excited if I raid and manage to take out a farm with slinger raids using the Aztecs. Remember, you also get raze bonuses and sack bonuses that help you out as well when you're attacking. There are many advantages to attacking, but the major disadvantage is failing.

[HalfLotus]

You already said the second city is a better idea, why are ya still lobbying for the third?

Seriously though, a Classical/Medieval siege army costs well over 1000 in resources. An empty third city costs them 110/110 to rebuild (he doesn't "lose resources" he simply has to rebuild for 110/110). He also misses out on +10/+10 for a few moments. Serious disruption? That's not even close to breaking even in terms of resources.

Usually a third city will have a Temple, Uni and maybe 1 farm. Raze and sack bonuses will be minimal with the third city. It's not near enough to make up for the high cost of a siege army. Again lets say you start making your army at 9 minutes and arrive at 11-12. Thats 2-3 minutes of your opponent's booming you have to make up for.

Second city always has five farms, and a usually a Market and Uni. The caravan and Uni restrictions apply to taking the second city as well as the third.

Using a Class/Med siege army to take the third city against a good opponent is a waste of time and effort. Let alone sitting around to assimilate it. I'd like to see a couple games where you do that and win. I'm willing to bet that either a) your opponent resonded poorly or b) the attack wasn't what won you the game. Taking the third city is more like a "break even" tactic, taking the second city is a knockout punch in most cases.

[El_Capitan]

LOL!

I like the third city because it reminds me of turd!
I prefer slowly rolling people so they lose all hope of the impending doom that is sure to come! No, really, if you take an enemy's 2nd City, it's pretty much over, and pressing an attack on their Capital pretty much gives you the win.

Honestly though, even when computing resource differences between the aggressor and defender (on the 3rd City dilemna), you also have to account for the defender also spending well over 1000 resources to counter-attack. If the defender doesn't overcome the aggressor and take back their 3rd city quick enough, then they will eventually have to start making Siege just to take it back. That leaves less room for actual troops and leaves no out for the defender, except to hope to outboom while building a defensive-only army. What you actually "want" is for the defender to start making Siege, because at that point, you're booming and making more military. If the more aggressive assault fails for the agressor, then the attack accomplishes nothing.

Stop this argument already! I've beaten GREAT opponents by taking out their 3rd Cities, even their 4th Cities! Sheesh, I'll have to sort through my recs now. =(

Pooh... I've got heartburn... lol.

[HalfLotus]

At Apolyton no quarter is given to mere Settlers.

Seems you missed the point though. A smart player will let the third city go without a fight, and rebuild for cheap somewhere else. Making siege to take back a Small City with a Temple and Uni, yeah right!

Yes they have to make a comparable army to defend themselves, but they don't need seige, and they have spent more time booming than you (2-3 mins typically). This gives them a significant resource advantage which is best dealt with by capturing the second city! Take that! Wappow! Zam!

[El_Capitan]

Well, with words like Wappow and Zam! A Prince you are not!

I've been looking through my recs, and I realize that my early Classical/Medieval Age attacks are towards their 2nd City because they don't even have a 3rd City up yet! Not only that, but I seem to Raid before I attack, causing them to forgoe any booming and go anti-raiding defensive.

Anyhow, it's okay if a supposed good player gives me their 3rd City without a fight. I get a free 4th City, and still get to press my attack.

Ok, Whippo Bam Kapow! You don't "let" a person boom because you're early raiding them with HA and HC before you start your Siege attack. That slows them down enough where they can't significantly outboom you, and you have better positioning and cut off their Caravan trading routes for the extra Wealth from killing their Caravans!

P.S. I'm still looking through all my damn recs. I've got thousands of recs, I'm bound to find a game that proves my point! I've got great 2vs1's, 3vs1's, and great rush Victories, but still nada on the prada!

[HalfLotus]

Well the raiding can go either way. I could say that the opponent will raid you and slow your attack. Raiding is so common among good players that's its a toss up as to whether you gain an advantage from it.

Anyhow, it's okay if a supposed good player gives me their 3rd City without a fight. I get a free 4th City, and still get to press my attack.

You can press your attack, but the time wasted on the third city will probabaly prevent you from taking any more. While you spent time sieging the third city, he's building a fort+towers at his major cities.

For anyone interested, there's about 50 replays at Apolyton and RoNU showing Classical/Medieval attacks by yours truly. They illustrate my point quite well, and should tide you over until El Cap can come up with just 1.

[El_Capitan]

BAH! You better not egg me on HL, or I shall wreak furious vengeance upon thee!

I tell ye, hold your horses, let them graze on the pasture, and when you're ready, off to the races!!! The 3rd City is a magical City. It breaks the triangle. Remember, the key to putting out a fire is taking away just "one" of the key ingredients necessary for a fire to survive!

In all fairness, I should mention that it is better off with the opponent you're aggressively attacking to spend early resources trying to raid you. It actually helps your attack!

[HalfLotus]

@ breaking magical triangles. I think that'll be a winning condition for the xpac: break three spiffy triangles to start the timer. Zoom!