Home
CA in pocket is 15xx strategy. Forward the enemy pocket is 14xx strategy. I've never lost to an enemy pocket rush when I've been pocket. It's a late rush, a good scouter will see it coming. By the time you get to his base he is already up to Castle. A few walls and sometimes a tower will stop it like happened in this game.
I've been playing more competitive games lately and I have to say that 2 stables is overrated in most cases. Or actually, it's because 1 stable is so much more efficient militarywise and economywise. It takes skill to pull it off at higher levels, but it can be done. Two stables is a niche strategy - when one of your teammates has a good civ advantage (like Huns vs. Mongols) then you can use it for aggression and sometimes their map is so open that they'll need help. If you're playing a random team game with 1700+ in MS or UA then 2 stables is safe because your teammates could be unpredictable. But when it's your clanmates I say it's better to have one stable with knights used effectively than 2 stables that are just a meat shield for a dumb teammate who's playing too aggressively. If the flank loses his army it's because either. A. he didn't make enough army to start with B. he got caught in the open C. he just sucks
A good flank shouldn't need help from the pocket unless his map is absolutely garbage or he's getting sieged very early. The winning strategy on flank is to play defense - make archers, raid when it's safe, palisade key points, upgrade archers to x-bow in Castle Age, switch to knights, raid multiple spots with x-bows and knights, minimize your own army casualties, boom from 3 or 4 TC's while pumping army, go Imp, play Imp. It's boring but it works.
In a league game on Arabia a flank has to up with pop 22 or less. A pocket should Feudal with 27 pop, hit Castle with 29 or 30 pop minus spears. Any higher than this and you're a liability to the team. A pocket can get hit with archers or scouts early, the sooner you get to Castle the better. All flanks should go archers except for Mongols who should almost always go scouts, and Huns can do scouts when deer in Dark age or on a good map. The pocket should always make knights, never CA. Never forward. God forbid he does a forward with scouts Razz The pocket needs a fast, versatile, all-purpose unit, that's what the knight is. CA can kill vils and pikemen... useless. Knights can kill anything that's not a pikeman or a camel and they'll kill those if you have larger numbers.
Also, aimed at nobody in particular: since I started playing I've always heard the "I played bad" excuse. To that I say, "Yeah, you did play bad, and it's because you were never all that good." If you're drunk or tired then it's valid, or even if you've just come back from a long time away from the game. But if a few games before you just beat somebody pretty well and all of the sudden you just happened to "play bad" then you're kidding yourself. The reason you played bad is because there's a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of knowledge somewhere. I've seen really good players play when they're rusty and they may have an occasional bad start but not the horrific starts that 1900- players seem to have. When I say that I play bad it's because I don't know a map, forgot a strategy, or something along those lines. I rarely mess up with scouting, luring boars, army micro, etc. Mouse/keyboard speed has to be re-conditioned but if you say you played bad because you played slow then you were not recently in shape.
I've been playing more competitive games lately and I have to say that 2 stables is overrated in most cases. Or actually, it's because 1 stable is so much more efficient militarywise and economywise. It takes skill to pull it off at higher levels, but it can be done. Two stables is a niche strategy - when one of your teammates has a good civ advantage (like Huns vs. Mongols) then you can use it for aggression and sometimes their map is so open that they'll need help. If you're playing a random team game with 1700+ in MS or UA then 2 stables is safe because your teammates could be unpredictable. But when it's your clanmates I say it's better to have one stable with knights used effectively than 2 stables that are just a meat shield for a dumb teammate who's playing too aggressively. If the flank loses his army it's because either. A. he didn't make enough army to start with B. he got caught in the open C. he just sucks
A good flank shouldn't need help from the pocket unless his map is absolutely garbage or he's getting sieged very early. The winning strategy on flank is to play defense - make archers, raid when it's safe, palisade key points, upgrade archers to x-bow in Castle Age, switch to knights, raid multiple spots with x-bows and knights, minimize your own army casualties, boom from 3 or 4 TC's while pumping army, go Imp, play Imp. It's boring but it works.
In a league game on Arabia a flank has to up with pop 22 or less. A pocket should Feudal with 27 pop, hit Castle with 29 or 30 pop minus spears. Any higher than this and you're a liability to the team. A pocket can get hit with archers or scouts early, the sooner you get to Castle the better. All flanks should go archers except for Mongols who should almost always go scouts, and Huns can do scouts when deer in Dark age or on a good map. The pocket should always make knights, never CA. Never forward. God forbid he does a forward with scouts Razz The pocket needs a fast, versatile, all-purpose unit, that's what the knight is. CA can kill vils and pikemen... useless. Knights can kill anything that's not a pikeman or a camel and they'll kill those if you have larger numbers.
Also, aimed at nobody in particular: since I started playing I've always heard the "I played bad" excuse. To that I say, "Yeah, you did play bad, and it's because you were never all that good." If you're drunk or tired then it's valid, or even if you've just come back from a long time away from the game. But if a few games before you just beat somebody pretty well and all of the sudden you just happened to "play bad" then you're kidding yourself. The reason you played bad is because there's a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of knowledge somewhere. I've seen really good players play when they're rusty and they may have an occasional bad start but not the horrific starts that 1900- players seem to have. When I say that I play bad it's because I don't know a map, forgot a strategy, or something along those lines. I rarely mess up with scouting, luring boars, army micro, etc. Mouse/keyboard speed has to be re-conditioned but if you say you played bad because you played slow then you were not recently in shape.
nice one dude keep it up .. 
your thoughts were good. read full .. true .. not kidding . truly read 
» no daG spam no drg LOS hack.. boring site now
» Time to get some activity back
» happyyy... b'dayyy bluewolf
» Happy birthday Dag
» Counter Strike ?
» Wanna Join
» CsK is Silver.. :D
» Update Me with Indian Clan