Cowardly Players

[altimatepirate]

Title says it all. In 90% of the multiplayer games I'm in people sit back and shuffle their army's formation. My allies are generally unsupportive and seem to think that the enemy might have a long range MLRS system in their back ranks or something, preventing them from moving forward with me. I've played strategy games for years and I've never seen anything like this. It makes multiplayer absolutely ridiculous and incredibaly long.

How do people not feel ashamed and cowardly when they just sit back???!?!?!

I propose that multiplayer maps should have victory points added to them a la Company of Heroes to give an incentive to all those campers/dress-wearers out there to pick up their purse and actually fight. Thoughts? Rants?

[Achilleslastand]

Title says it all. In 90% of the multiplayer games I'm in people sit back and shuffle their army's formation. My allies are generally unsupportive and seem to think that the enemy might have a long range MLRS system in their back ranks or something, preventing them from moving forward with me. I've played strategy games for years and I've never seen anything like this. It makes multiplayer absolutely ridiculous and incredibaly long.

How do people not feel ashamed and cowardly when they just sit back???!?!?!

I propose that multiplayer maps should have victory points added to them a la Company of Heroes to give an incentive to all those campers/dress-wearers out there to pick up their purse and actually fight. Thoughts? Rants?

I agree......but victory points no.........Maybe some hills,buldings or even redoudt in the center of map to get people off their duff...

[Stymie Jackson]

Here's one way I find makes them move.

Park your 6lber horse cannon next to their general and grapeshot them.

[Zyphlan]

In the end even that is a tactic.
And other strategic games don´t have that seeing 99% of the games you can rebuild troops.
In this game you can´t so people are alot less eager too attack.

[Stonewallis]

Title says it all. In 90% of the multiplayer games I'm in people sit back and shuffle their army's formation. My allies are generally unsupportive and seem to think that the enemy might have a long range MLRS system in their back ranks or something, preventing them from moving forward with me. I've played strategy games for years and I've never seen anything like this. It makes multiplayer absolutely ridiculous and incredibaly long.

How do people not feel ashamed and cowardly when they just sit back???!?!?!

I propose that multiplayer maps should have victory points added to them a la Company of Heroes to give an incentive to all those campers/dress-wearers out there to pick up their purse and actually fight. Thoughts? Rants?

Ally with my army

[PrimeChaosVC]

Victory Points are actually good, it gives people a reason to advance and constantly on a move instead of camping, but I doubt it is a suitable system for a tactical game like ETW. I always believe that there should be a dedicated attacker and defender, in which the job of the defender is to defend a certain point in his deployment zone while the job of the attacker is to take it. Then again if such a system is implemented, guess what all these cowardly players will play when they host a game?

The best solution is to add good players to the list and play with them.

[Tsailen]

I do not mind it opponents camp. In fact i almost prefer it. Give me time to manuever and try different things. I find that too often, players rush into battle as if there was only ten minutes to win...They run their armies into place. Meanwhile i slowly come to advance, and usually end up with the opponent meeting me on my half the map. Why rush? Take your time...

I do have a problem with campers who are impatient. Too many times have i played a camper who is constantly whining about how i am taking too long to attack....

Allies who dont advance with you are only a problem if you advance without them. Haste makes waste....

[Atheist_swe]

I do not mind it opponents camp. In fact i almost prefer it. Give me time to manuever and try different things. I find that too often, players rush into battle as if there was only ten minutes to win...They run their armies into place. Meanwhile i slowly come to advance, and usually end up with the opponent meeting me on my half the map. Why rush? Take your time...

I do have a problem with campers who are impatient. Too many times have i played a camper who is constantly whining about how i am taking too long to attack....

Allies who dont advance with you are only a problem if you advance without them. Haste makes waste....

Totally agree, there is however a problem if the camper knows how to camp. If he has a good armycomposition, good position, knows how to deploy his troops and manouvers them accordingly. Given the players are on equal level of skill the camper has the advantage imo.

[Mowers]

another pointless thread that basically fails to address the real issue.

Of course its easier to defend in a meeting engagement scenario! why give up the advantage?

Until CA design some proper defend/attack scenario's it's all a bit of a waste of time. I am just amazed they didnt build it in. I have spectrum games with such a concept.

[Taran01]

Victory Points are actually good, it gives people a reason to advance and constantly on a move instead of camping, but I doubt it is a suitable system for a tactical game like ETW. I always believe that there should be a dedicated attacker and defender, in which the job of the defender is to defend a certain point in his deployment zone while the job of the attacker is to take it. Then again if such a system is implemented, guess what all these cowardly players will play when they host a game?

The best solution is to add good players to the list and play with them.

I agree. I would like to see VP done on strategically important terrain features. Hills, towns, cross roads etc.

A system something like "Take Command 2." In that game the maps are massive and you have a fog of war. So you have no idea where the enemy is until you have troops with eyeballs on them. This makes your cavalry very important because you need them to scout the enemy location and try to figure out where they are going.

You then try to deploy ahead of them on "Good ground." again your cavalry is vital as you can dismount them and slow the enemy army for a time giving your army time to deploy. Very cool game, although dated.

[Vern]

Ive suffered this myself all too often.

The last example, 2v2 my ally stated "I'm not moving from this posiition"

When i pointed out that staying put (especially on a no artillery match) was pointless, he informed me that " a good position can win a game" and "i have rifles, they're like mini artillery"

[guerra]

Well, I think the maps need to be changed so that the centre of the map is where you want to be. IE more buildings, more trees, and most importantly-higher terrain. So whoever takes the middle can just blast any camper apart with artillery.

[average650]

I think victory points if you mean like in company of heros is a bad idea becuase it's nothign like a real battle. Gaining points for holding a specific spot? That's kinda dumb. Maybe 1 victory point in the center of the map and whoever holds that wins. So whoever hold that point at the end of the battle or whoever kills the entire other team first, wins the battle. That way campers are eliminated but it's not like you accumulate points as I would expect victory points to do. And a variety of maps where some have a hill in the center, some have a town, and some have a valley would be best. It would give a lot of variety. Sometimes it would be a fight to the hill, other times it would be more manueving around the valley, trying to win it without giving up the high ground.

[Arej]

No it isn't.

[NathanielGreene]

Yea this is why 90% of games are no mortar/rocket but even though I play all my games without mortars people STILL camp. Yes these type of tactics are cowardly and all we can hope is that CA adds some variety soon.

[♔Oggie♔]

indeed! much multiplayers camp. Often when I advance my allie shouts at me to stop. I mean it's NO FUN to wait and the opponent wait and we all wait.... booring...
I say attack, a little camping is allright. I mean when you advance you halt and form your troops in a defensive formation and wait a little and then advance again
I always notice that most of the enemy players still wait...
then send cav around them to disrupt them, then I run away again.. etc. until they get iritated and advance then I'll crush them with my upgraded guards

[Firran]

I like attacking better then defending, i like to force the defender to make misstakes

[{LEONTES} Achilleas]

Hi everyone. Im starting this thread beause (sorry for my expression) im really pissed off with the certain subject and i think that players should be informed about other players who are not willing to accept a defeat. Just an hour ago i joined a 1v1 game with the player: ZAGORUS ANTONIOUS. The certain player started telling me that he is one of the best players in total war and he is a veteran. Anyway, he is 9 stars i think. So we started a battle England vs USA. At the last 5 min of the battle he was left with 3 units of Long Rifle Men and I was left with 1 regiment of horse, and 4 units of line infantry. The battle was clearly on my side. Then just as I was about to win the game stucked for about a minute and it appeared the message "You were dropped from the game". I quickly checked my points and it was the same amount as before. Believe me he had much to lose caz Im at 5 stars now. So I added him as a friend at steam and while i had him in the invitation list i repeatedly asked him what happened but no answer. Then I looked at the game list and his game was there again I joined and started asking what happened. He didnt answer but after one minute he said "Good try.. But Im ZAGORUS ANTONIUS". Basically I cant prove what happened int he game caz I dont have the replay.. But I have a picture of our in-game conversation on the second time I joined where I asked him if he left the game. He insisted for another game but I wanted answers. You can see that he threatens that he will kick me and then starts a countdown despite my questions which he doesnt answer at all.
Im posting this so players should be worn not to waste their time on such cowards as this player...[IMG]file:///C:/Users/user/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]

[DM>IS]

I've beaten that guy before - he never pulled the cable that time =/

Btw mate you need to upload that picture to imageshack or something :O we can't see it

Now - I have pulled the cable myself a few times times, but only when someone has broken the rules (like no mortars, or 1 ship) - so I don't lose skill rating, that is acceptable right?

[psyclog]

In other games, you just lose if your connection fails. Tough luck, but it's the fairest thing to do.

ETW doesn't have such a security measure? I haven't played MP yet..