The Art of Harassment - tutorial by a pro

[Arkanin]

Moderator Action: quote removed because of language.

I think this shows the guy's failure to adapt. I'll guarantee that the second time you use this strategy, on me, at least, it's going to come back to haunt you, so unless you're a much better player than me, you're going to lose.

It's a matter of fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. And shame on this idiot, heh.

 

[KAuss]

I don't know what most players do when they see barbs, but the worker I have works outside the field accompanied by the starting unit... So if the barb ever tries to fight me, then they'll usually have to deal with me having the defense bonus...

The only difference is, with barbs, you know they're going to attack without an end...

With a player however, the first thing you do is find their base (which they probably know by scouting early just as everyone would) and do the same to them...

It's like playing chess... You don't take a piece unless you know the outcome...

I question the mentality of those that fall for this tatic...

 

[Azragaul]

Dosen't sound like much fun after the first time or two. I would play you a couple of times. Lose or win either way that would be it. We most likely wouldn't play each other again. Its a good strat, I like the idea. Just, I don't know, if I want to rush someone I will play Warcraft I guess.

Whats a bigger turn off though is your arrogance about it. Its a good idea but like others have said a savvy player will have a counter.

 

[hehateme]

How can anyone be a pro, the game has been out for 1 week

 

[LabMonster]

This strategy is only good against new people.

its like in chess, you have the Fool's mate, it will work very well if not expected but when the outcome is predicted it becomes foiled.

 

[MSTK]

WC3 isn't the only RTS to use this strategy, nor is it the first. So don't flatter yourself.

 

[dh_epic]

It's a matter of fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. And shame on this idiot, heh.

Exactly.

I dare someone to try this strategy on me

People are foolishly thinking in Civ 3 terms, where you could build three defenders, leave them in your city, and never worry!

 

[CitizenCain]

"It will almost always work against anyone who's never seen it before, but it will almost always fail against anyone who's seen it even once."

Mm BS. I just finished playing a game where I was fighting a VERY skilled player. I playing Mails, and I kept him and his 3 cities pinned while i had only one. In the mid game he had the score of about 700 while I had about 250. At the end, I had about 1700 when he had about 1200. Oh yeah there were 2 other players there but they were nutural most of the time.

The guy you played against... the fact that he couldn't parlay such a massive ancient era lead into a crushing victory only proves that he isn't really that good.

Look, I'm telling you right now that if you use this strategy more than once against a quality opponent, you'll wish you hadn't. As has been mentioned in this thread, this is hardly a new strategy, has been around for ages, and the reason it's not used by high quality (MP) players is that it results in a quick death when you try it against anyone half way decent who's seen it before.

Hey, but feel free to keep trying this and see what happens when you run into someone who sends even one chariot/spearman/axeman towards your capital, and ignores your warrior spam-fest. Or you encounter the one person in the game who didn't have to worry about your warrior spam, and has three cities and 12 top quality military by the time you're building your second settler. Or the person who decides to be a tech whore while you're wasting your resources on worthless warriors. Bottom line? This strategy leaves you savagely vulnerable to even a minimal counter attack, and gives you a serious long term handicap because you're spending so much time wasting resources while anyone else can be investing in actual conquest, technology, culture, infrastructure, etc - things that will give an advantage for longer than ~50 turns.

But don't take my word for it... learn the hard way, for all I care.

 

[Dairuka]

I rarely get Iron on a hill. It's usually in a plains or grassland. Makes defending it annoying, since you don't get the 25% bonuses which really do help. I'd consider myself blessed to have Iron on a Hill, especially since it would be accompanied with two archers and a spearman to keep it safe.

The last person who harrassed me with warriors prior to 2000 BC wound up having his capital city taken before the beginning of the AD. Boy was he angry.

The people who really scare me, are the ones who stack 3 macemen, 3 pikemen, 5 catapults, 2 knights, and 2 longbowmen all in one army... and have them go around my cities and pillage the poop out of every thing. I do the same thing to them; but all that does is guarantee that neither of us are going to win. =/

 

[Pvblivs]

Large stacks? What about collateral damage then?

Can't you just use the five cats of _your_ stack (or rather some more cats and less other troops) bring hell to his stack and afterwards clean up with your knights and stuff? I do not see your point and think this just to be psychological

Using such two forces I believe the one who attacks first should win. Am I wrong here?

 

[Dairuka]

Note that the entire reason they go around pillaging, is so they can bait you into attacking them.

Particularly with your own Catapults.

So while you're tirelessly trying to pound them down with collateral damage; they just laugh and take it. Almost always the 3 pikemen have Combat I and Medic I, so even if you can manage to kill one or two pikemen, they'll still always have that health increase bonus: ARGH!

Because the stack has every possible counter to every unit you can throw at it. You can guarantee that you will lose more units in the long run than he will, since the AI picks the best unit to defend.

Unless of course you have some units with specific high level units, with promotions that will allow you to counter 2-3 unit types all at once, which really only works for Macemen during the era. Which won't help if the guy is smart enough to throw that stack up onto a mountain range, or forest.

Still; hes not doing any more damage than harrassment, which you can counter by pillaging the poop out of him; Unfortunately, what this does is make it so neither of you will win the game.

 

[Gufnork]

Some catapult attacks followed by some grenadiers should make short work of that stack. Unless the attacker has a tech lead.

How do you swamp three-four peoples capitols with warriors before turn 20? If you start with mining you can start researching Bronze Working from day one, something I often do in forest heavy starts.

 

[WarX]

Most of the time this is a very bad strategy. Sure it works great in RTS games, and ive used it countless times while playing Age of Empires. But consider the following:

1) I never move my settler unprotected. The extra unit with my settler also severs as my base defence for the new city.

2) Just one warrior near my base who squats and does nothing will not hurt me at all or sending shivers down my spine, its not like you sent an army. Barbs are more dangerous than your warrior.

3) You stress declaring war and sending warriors to all the other players. That is suicide. If I along with the other 5 players send just one warrior towards your capitol you are doomed. And in most cases everyone will atleast send one warrior your way. Bear in mind point #2, it is not a major psychological check-mate.

4) If do not decide to attack you, then all i need to do is keep 2+ defenders in my city, and i couldnt care less for your one warrior.

5) The time you spend creating warriors to send over to all the players in the game will keep you in the stone ages long enough to still be wearing leaves for clothes while everyone else is getting their designer clothes stitched by Georgio Armani.

I really like the strategy Dairuka mentioned, it indeed is a scary one. Although hes right that if you do the same it ends up being a stalemate, it is still very good as that one really does pack in the psychological warfare aspect, in addition to actually doing some tangible damage. Alot of people would not know what to do with that one.

 

[ivj]

You know what your guys' problem is? You're all looking for negative aspects and taking things too literally.

For instance "wha wha your capital is undefended, what if someone sends a warrior?" Your warriors are headed towards them, Most people will turn around when they see a 2nd warrior headed towards their capital. If they don't - well turn that warrior around and put it in yours.

Oh and for my capital being vulnerable.. 2 archers will keep it 100% safe till the ADs no problem.

Seriously, instead of looking for bad sides to this strategy, try looking for good ones and improving it.

 

[LabMonster]

A thinker has to find faults then praises

This strategy could work if you were lucky to be Roman and did a praetorian gambit

 

[JavalTigar]

thank you ivj for reminding me of why I will never play MP games.

 

[Dog of Justice]

Note that the entire reason they go around pillaging, is so they can bait you into attacking them.

Particularly with your own Catapults.

So while you're tirelessly trying to pound them down with collateral damage; they just laugh and take it. Almost always the 3 pikemen have Combat I and Medic I, so even if you can manage to kill one or two pikemen, they'll still always have that health increase bonus: ARGH!

Medic?

Why the hell wouldn't Mr. Catapult attack with all the (15-20, if we're assuming comparable economies) Catapults on the same turn? Anything else would be a waste, even without opposing Medic.

Speaking of which, can a single collateral damage attack take out multiple 90% weakened units?

 

[ToadFaerie]

Sounds a lot like the strategy my friends and I used for Warcraft 2, playing on Kali before the days of Bnet.

Your first grunt won the game. If you managed to disrupt an opponent's town development before that opponent found your town, you won. Such games pretty followed one of two routes.

1: You found the opponent, and he didn't pursue the same strategy. You win. The victory didn't actually happen for another 10 minutes or so, but victory was essentially guaranteed.

2: You and opponent pursue same strategy. First one to get a grunt to the enemy wins.

Civ 4 has some differences, but they are not necessarily the same. For War2, the strategy is weakest when attempted against enemies that out-number you. Strategy is strongest when you have allies equal to the number of people you use it against. In Civ4, it depends on whether you have allies you can trust or not. Random start and world size, and map type have tremendous importance. Don't want to loose to "uber" strategy? Play archipelago, or even continents.

 

[Marquis Mark]

thank you ivj for reminding me of why I will never play MP games.

Because you find it more fun to abuse the unadapting AI than it is to compete?

Being good at SP Civ, in all honesty, doesn't mean crap if you can't beat other players that can adapt and use counter-strategies. This is why single-player games appeal to non-competitive players.

One attitude that people should learn to stow right now is that people that play to win ruin their fun. No, you ruin your own fun by refusing to play the game at a competitive level. "Cheap tactics" is the battle cry of a newb.

So, feel free to playt casually against the AI for fun, but always remember to never claim to have any proficiency if it can't be applied to a human opponent.

 

[ritterpa]

There won't be any screenshots here, but you don't really need them. My nickname is "SuperPro," and it really does reflect on my skill - so far I've dominated almost every single game I played (at least in the earlier ages).

Well, if you're this good, you MUST BE RIGHT!!!!11!!one




















by the way, can I have your autograph?