Get over it!

[Von Kickyourass]

Please do not reply negatively to this its just my opinion.

I know alot of you get annoyed at 'static players'(the ones that stay still the whole time) players or whatever they get called but why do some people have to have a swearing frenzy and go crazy.

i'm not a static playe but i move slower then most people, i move my whole army as a line( first riflemen then line inf and art etc), so the way i like to move makes me slower. I'm sick of people accusing me of being a static player. i actualy move, i usualy end up in the middle of the battlefeild which is proof i have moved. Any way some people go crazy, someone i was versing last nigh called me some pretty rude names which i won't mention, and im 13 years old. i think people should just get ove it and just fight the battle, what do you think?

[Hellman109]

Static players are boring in most games.

The end.

[coman]

By now you should have a stable of reliable partners... I mean people to play with that like your style. Look for them here if you must.

I don't play with strangers, just isn't as much fun as people make it out to be.

[Von Kickyourass]

Static players are boring in most games.

The end.

thanks for your vivid reply.

[Keepbro]

I think the problem with static play is that it's easier in this game to defend than to attack. When defending you (generally) open fire with arty first, open fire with line first, and usually you commit your reserves after the attacker has.

Remember that patience is the chief virtue of any general.




But yeah static players are boring - I know i'll just put all my men into a giant boring V and wait for the enemy to run into my kill zone. Look at me - I'm the greatest general ever - no-one can defeat my invincible tortoise defense.


The correct method for dealing with this is to play TWO games - one where you defend and one where you attack - you soon discover who is better at this game.




The best player is ME -me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me


hahahahahahaha

[Skeleton Of The West]

I dont really have a problem with static players. Yes, its a bit boirng but thats how they play. Maybe they play like that because they dont have enough experince yet in the game, and it takes them time to do things.

[S<>P<>Q<>R]

Since you bought the game, it's your own concern how you play it, why care what someone else would say.

[Von Kickyourass]

Since you bought the game, it's your own concern how you play it, why care what someone else would say.

because i value other peoples views of things and i think i can learn alot from others. I'm pretty sure thats a good answer to your 1 dimensional question

[CynicalTyler]

A person who sits there and defends should be an easy target for a well-planned offense. In general it means they won't adapt well to the unexpected. So if they set up a V kill-zone defense and don't move, don't walk into the V! Attack them on the flanks, roll them right up! Of course the mortar spam defense makes this a bit more difficult. Still, anyone who complains about a non-moving enemy just shows that they're too weak to plan a proper offense.

[Von Kickyourass]

A person who sits there and defends should be an easy target for a well-planned offense. In general it means they won't adapt well to the unexpected. So if they set up a V kill-zone defense and don't move, don't walk into the V! Attack them on the flanks, roll them right up! Of course the mortar spam defense makes this a bit more difficult. Still, anyone who complains about a non-moving enemy just shows that they're too weak to plan a proper offense.

exactly right in my opinion, thanks for the reply

[soma78]

A person who sits there and defends should be an easy target for a well-planned offense. In general it means they won't adapt well to the unexpected. So if they set up a V kill-zone defense and don't move, don't walk into the V! Attack them on the flanks, roll them right up! Of course the mortar spam defense makes this a bit more difficult. Still, anyone who complains about a non-moving enemy just shows that they're too weak to plan a proper offense.

I quite agree with you. If somebody is whinning about you're style of game then it's because they just don't know how to adapt and are just used to hurl their army against the oponent.

I actually like static players because they give me enougth time to plan a real vicious attack. The best is when the player reacts to your move and that you to make a new strategy.

My problems, as for now, is that it gets really hard to find an open server to play. Anyway winter's over now so I guess I'll just go out and enjoy springtime ...

[MrOsterman]

I actually like static players because they give me enougth time to plan a real vicious attack. The best is when the player reacts to your move and that you to make a new strategy.

And that is quite often how it happened. Generally both armies would deploy defensively and then start to make choices about how to advance. The "trick" was to look aggressive until you knew how your opponent was going to commit and then switch to a defensive posture. Advance your line, see where his strength is and then halt your advance to let them come into your firing arcs. Move your defensive line to them basically.

[Von Kickyourass]

a good tip: If your worried about versing static players just play unranked all the time. Then if they are static and you can't be bothered attacking them then you can just exit, but i would rather try to find a good way to wipe them out.

[Freeman]

everybody has different styles of play. if they get annoyed because you take your time well it just says a lot about them more than it says about you. if they cant stand waiting for you then maybe they are the ones not agressive enough.

Its empire: total war ladies and gentlemen... war can be fought in many differing styles. its your job as a general to adjust to your enemy or make the enemy adjust to you. if you cant stand a long battle then play an arcade style strategy game. if you play against a player that has a tendency to be "static" then be aggressive in your tactics and knock him/her off-balance. force them to commit and defeat them in detail.and please lay-off on the insults... ITS A GAME.

peace.

[Kazang]

I have always hated TW multiplayer as it encourages you turtle up and sit on the hill, there is no incentive to chase the other player.

I only ever play with people i know as its simply too frustrating to play a long range arty hill camper, who wont ever move, who would rather let the timer run out than actually play the game. I simply dont have that much time to waste.
But at the same time i understand why people play like that, there is no reason not to, other than boredom. The game offers no advantages to the attacker, only disadavantages.

Personally i think the whole mutliplayer game should be redone, with games of 2 halves, attack and defence.
Or a senario based system played over to maps than contain features and pre set rules, rather than just open fields to fight in.
The Mulitplayer in TW always has been tacked on, i dont consider it a serious game.

[MustardParty]

a king of the hill mode would be what TW multi needs - two sides start off with an an objective in the middle, both sides are compelled to leave the deployment area to capture, then hold the objective. if you couldn't get the objective first you are compelled to attack the enemy's ground so that you can take it.

even that feels a little artificial, but it would totally get the job done. but who cares about static players, historically most of the generalship was done before the first shot was ever fired in a battle. good ground was a premium commodity and the general that could maneuver his forces to secure that good ground had the advantage, why would he throw that advantage out? With the good ground you are free to set the terms of the engagement. In multiplay there's none of that because engagements start out too close, and there is no reason one way or the other for someone to attack or defend other than their play style.

[CynicalTyler]

a king of the hill mode would be what TW multi needs

I'll second that!

[ZontorX]

some of the Historical battles have objectives, but i don't know if you can play those in multiplayer. Ive never played multiplayer myself, but i agree that some kind of objective based battle system would make the game much more enjoyable.
in fact, they should implement objectives into single player mode too, because it seems like the only important battles are the ones where you actually take an enemy city. what's the point of a field battle if you can defeat your enemy by taking his cities?

[sabaku_no_gaara]

Static players have a few advantages, but I don't mind losing, and regard them as a gift to experiment tactics on untill I find one that works.

[Von Kickyourass]

Thanks for all(well most) of your opinions, i would rep you if i could, but i need 25 posts