Replay Requests

Im bored and I supposedly have enough time to pump out a lot of videos for Youtube by doing some replay requests from your Napoleon Total War Multiplayer Matches. If the match is 11 minutes or lower, then I'll commentate and upload it with your info on the match. (Rules, Map, Settings, players, factions used etc..)

Would you like the replay of me destroying you with my light inf army?

Originally Posted by Point_Man

If the match is 11 minutes or lower,

well point i hope u are going to show every how to install fraps.

not many games are less than 11 minutes - unless of course you like to attack

but with fraps they could record 11 minutes of not moving.

BTW - Attacking - defined by me would be - to advance on the enemy with the purpose of engaging your opponent in direct combat with cav or infantry. Aggressive play would be difined by a sustained effort of attacking. i have come across some rather lame and disgracful interpretations of attacking so i would like to see if anyone has their own definition they would like to share. i had a guy once say to me he was the attacker because he shot first even though i had to run accross the map to engage him. he of course had the opportunity to volley first as moved into range - so he did shoot first. but it was hardly attacking imo. after the game i told him he lost because he attacked first - lol - and that he should try camping.

Originally Posted by terminator acheron

well point i hope u are going to show every how to install fraps.

not many games are less than 11 minutes - unless of course you like to attack

Those are exactly the kind of battles I wish to commentate on. Just watching arty fights isn't what I waste time to do. So any replays of you rushing is what I would enjoy uploading to Youtube and commentating on.

I recently did some so called "Defacto Defender" crap against Arcani in the CCS Tournament. Our 1st match Arcani was supposed to "attack" us , but instead they said since they brought arty, that makes them the "defacto defender" (lame excuse to not simply attack) so we attacked them and they kited as well, so we lost, but not badly. Even though they camped with arty and they kited, we still made it into a close match.

Also, Arcani knows Lancelot (Host) of the Tournament, so he said what they did was legitimate

1st Match: http://www.filefront.com/17081257/3v...rnament.replay

So for our 2nd match, I was pissed over that lame excuse to defend just because they brought arty. So as payback, I suggested I use Russia and let us be the so called "Defacto Defender"

They got owned with a capital OWNED
(Thanks also to my teammates for being able to hold the urge to attack )

2nd Match: http://www.filefront.com/17081281/3v...231%20W.replay

So we haven't played our 3rd match yet, but we are expecting them to use Russia during our 3rd and last match but, we have an idea on how to beat it better then what they tried

You got beat by those noobs from Arcani? I bet I could take two of you on Austerlitz

ah yes these gay rules - i know they dont make any sense - ive seen people use this excuse b4 - its usually only cus they cant attack because they tend to lose. As i understand - you dont have to really attack attack if your opponent doesnt bring art - apparently shooting art is considered attacking. I really think this needs a good look at as far a tourny rules go - i cant see how any reasonable person can justify camping with art as attacking. it sorta defeats the whole principle of attacker defender rule as i understand the rule was developed to stop camping. End of the day it only benifits the campers.

That being the case just bring 1 art to the 3rd game - it should mean they cant squib out of being the attacker if they are the desigated attacker no matter how many art they bring. But check with the admin of the tourny to get clarification. U could also raise this with salmon moose of arcani that these guys are a bit lame to employ these sorts of tactics in a what should be a fair and honest battle regardless of wheather its breaking rules or not. Hes seems to be nice guy and plays a fair game. if you ask him maybe he will have some influence to ensure if they are meant to attack that they actually attack.

Originally Posted by terminator acheron

salmon moose of arcani that these guys are a bit lame to employ these sorts of tactics in a what should be a fair and honest battle regardless of weather its breaking rules or not. He seems to be nice guy and plays a fair game. if you ask him maybe he will have some influence to ensure if they are meant to attack that they actually attack.

Salmon Moose played against us in both matches with his teammates. He's the one who made the excuse during our 1st match saying that since they are the ones with arty, that they are now the "defacto defender".



So check out those replays and see for yourself

I seriously cannot see why this discussion reappears again and again.
Saying "he has to attack" is equivalent to saying "I want to defend" which I never do.
Whether firing artillery is an attack or not is quite beside the point to me; I find the whole concept of "designated attacker" rather artificial and strange.

Originally Posted by daniu

I seriously cannot see why this discussion reappears again and again.
Saying "he has to attack" is equivalent to saying "I want to defend" which I never do.
Whether firing artillery is an attack or not is quite beside the point to me; I find the whole concept of "designated attacker" rather artificial and strange.

If that's the case, they shouldn't impose those rules of designated attacker or defender and just give the opposing teams the option to either camp or attack.

Can i just use this as a excuse to show my latest vid,i have a major arty advantage and im still forced to attack.
If you have a good arty advantage you have every right to defend,thats what you paid the extra money in the arty for and dont forget the other person has extra inf or cav because the other person brought arty instead of extra numbers so it all even's out in a not so complicated way.

And by the way if the person camps at the back of the map and you have the arty advantage it's to your gain as they will have no where to run there important units.
That gives you complete control of the game,i have been out numbed 2:1 in cannons and won in arty kills to the simple fact i was spread out and my opponent was huddled in a little arty fortress.so watch the replay and im sorry for the poor audio and see how you can control a battle with your arty even if they dont get many kills. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1XA3gGe2no

yes your 100% right Daniu it is very artifical rule

lets just say hypothetically i wished to create a set of rules (in fact most games in ntw are based on rules) but this set of rules is meant to establish a situation where the game regardless of terrain was going to ensure a somewhat fair or equal opportunity for both players. i so detemined that the rules shall be only 5 light infantry and each player had to take turns either attacking or defending on the same map. sounds reasonable. however if one player then chooses 5 x 125 range lights and the other chooses 5 x100 lights would it then seem balanced that the interprertation should be that the player who has the 5x125 range units should become the automatic designated defender. does this not actually contradict the premise of the rules in the first place. see what i have always failed to understand about the rule in the first place is that i see no logical link between having a rule about alternating between attacker and defender (which is probably a fair rule) and then changing the rule as a result of the build a player chooses to use. if u are the attacker and you bring art well then good but your still the attacker and therefore you can use your art to still soften up your opponent but you still have to make an effort to attack with your army and the rule of attacking within infantry 30 mins would be very workable imo. art still gets time to soft up the opponent and opponent can choose either attack or wait till the designated attacker has to move forward and attack. two important things would then occur. the designated defender does not have to be nessessarilly drawn into a suicide mission to assault choke points and designated attacker still benifits from bring art.

as the rule stands its just an excuse to camp imo - ive seen this situation many times b4 - so if the intention of the attacker defender rule is meant to alleviate camping in tourny gaming which i understand it is. the rule should be reviewed to ensure if attacking u actual have to make an effort to attack. saying that using art is attacking if your opponent doesnt is imo against the principle of the rule.

the reason it comes up so often on forums should be a good indicator that something is intrisically wrong with the rule. But i do realise that unfortuately the rule as it stands suits many more than it does those who oppose it. which is why you find the majority of really good players do not participate consistantly in tournys with these rules and only play like minded clans in clan matches or host there own tourny with different rules. but i am sure things are unlikely to change to much and we all know all tournys will still have issues.

i think im fairly impartial when reviewing battles replays to determine if the game in general has been played in a fair and honourable way. its a pity some tournys or even players for that matter cant look at replays and make a determination of who actually played in a just and honourable way or if the game should be replayed or not - rules are fundamental there as a guide for the conduct of participants. IMO games of this nature, which if genuine in trying to establish a victory for better player ability, should be based on core principles which are about balanced and fairness to both players.

Originally Posted by terminator acheron

if u are the attacker and you bring art well then good but your still the attacker and therefore you can use your art to still soften up your opponent but you still have to make an effort to attack with your army and the rule of attacking within infantry 30 mins would be very workable imo.

i disagree with the 30 minute rules suggestion.

first would you if you were the designated defender "defend" for 30 minutes of artillery bombardment i probably wouldnt.

second if the designated defender thinks that sitting there for 30 minutes is silly and starts attacking is he breaking the rules? he is after all suposed to defend not attack.


however i think designating one person a defender and one an attacker is stupid and can only lead to problems, just make both the attacker problem solvered.

yes bushy i understand your point and its very valid

however im not in way trying to say that art isnt a valid or effective strategy. the issue is whether it is balanced to determine that the premise of attacker /defender rule used in some tournys is justifiably altered depending or whether a play chooses to use art or not.

i hope the example above goes some way to clarifing its not really about the art as such.

I completely under stand your point termy mate,and point man get your hand off it lol.
Thats why i hate most maps in 1v1,they either give a advantage to one player or its just a rush to the nearest big hill.
And the the whole attack/defense rule is just retarded to me.Just like in real war,to attack a well fortified position takes a 5to1 advantage so thats just a bullsh!t argument that the dude in my video tried to argue with me for 5 min,and can i just say about flatmap like spector from my clan said defend what?
The simple answer is and for any torny is dont defend in deployment.at least make some movement forwad.

Originally Posted by bushranger

point man get your hand off it lol.

I can put my hand on whatever i want bushranger!!!

Nah, your right buddy, I wish more people were as good as yall that look at these forums.

i think if people love camping/and/or defending, a siege battle is probably best for that.defending brings more advantage on a hill ofc.i remember reading something in Sun Tzu's Art of War...

Thanks Point_Man, I wish people were as good as me too. Until that day comes I will have to keep fighting noobs.

http://www.filefront.com/17115925/1.replay

ummm- if you still want a replay to take a look at-its pretty close to 11 minutes once the armies connect

3v3 Galacian Ria

rules: 3 skirm/rifles max (ignored by a few players, but thats ok-they lost anyways)
Buggy_300 (left Prussia), Sherman (center Prussia), Doubleday (right Great Britain)
vs
George I (left France), Buzzkill (center France) Enigma (right Russia)

if it seems interesting enough by all means use it.

11+ minutes is a long time, perhaps I will watch it when I have time.

i think that in the game, by some point, whether it is due to a players build, or a players moves, that this 'attacker/defender' designation happens