What elo is halfway decent?
I wasn’t denying that Teutons were a bad choice against Tatars, they do have options tho which if used right can take down tatars if executed the right way.
Tatars have very few answers to heavy cavalry unit civs - their options are limited but they also have options to deal with them if executed the right way or in fairly late imp(generally the scorpion line if massed to 30 and defended well alongside the cav archer line). Kind of like Teutons vs archer civs.
In the end certain matchups come down to the skill to overcome one’s weaknesses and to know your enemy.
As for my personal intended use for the Steppe Lancers - they would be the outer guard for the healing fortress formation but only if their hitcount were to be increased. 29 Steppe, 20 cav archers, 11 monks - square form, stand ground used alongside other formations. They would act like kamayuks in that when faced with regular numbers they would defend the formation well - but when facing enmassed numbers would do well to retreat or perish.
As of current - they just perish when faced with regular numbers
Tatars have major problems against halbs + siege, but that mostly happens on arena. Teutons beat Tatars on arena 100% of the time.
On arabia it’s a whole different story, since Teutons usually are really bad against CAs and their mobility
3 Likes
I’d say 1k2. If I remember correctly how you play, you’d probably struggle even against 1k elo boys since everyone now can execute a fairly decentish rush
Currently I’m in the realm of breaking into 1k personally, tho I’m experiementing with other civs as well that suit my play style so I have a few to use for tournaments - if I keep focusing on Teutons gaining 1100 isn’t far from my imagination - as for 1200 there are a few I’ve fought near that realm more around 1400- which is why I developed the mining and chop semi wall+ tower camps which seem to be doing me a great service in my climbing the ladder but their use is meant in the early game to counter those in the 1400 range when I reach that elo
Trust me, whatever you do if you stick to those strats you’ll still be around 1k elo. Certainly you won’t be beating 1k4 players, since they have at least a decent idea of what they should do
In the 1.4k elo range I need to drastically improve my decision making into what composition is best for certain situations and how to micro a little better than I can currently - my strategy scales with skill and my skill is lacking yet improving. I look forward to the challenge
To be 1k4 you need to change your playstyle. Tower defence and other stuff won’t serve you very well once your opponent knows what he is doing.
If i remember correctly the way you play, you’d probably always die against a drush fc
In regards to the drush - I am currently practicing early implementation of the semi walls - so far it’s going well and mirrors drush times- just a little faster and only the fastest of drushes will be able to do proper damage.
As for a rush of my own - a 3 man archer semi rush plus an arrow dmg increase is possible without hurting the up time while using market for the needed gold to both up to castle, make the arrow research and provide the needed funds for the archers - I am currently terrible at it, but I do see the possibility
My micro in my down time needs to be faster - the more I can do before my attention needs to be split the better.
You know that market abuse works the other way around? Selling Gold for Food?
I think you should view some tutorials, this thing you are doing is… very bad.
Limiting the amount of camps limits the amount of needed towers
Not sure what you mean - I sell wood and a small amount of stone if needed
Selling wood in castle age ensures I won’t need to mine gold until much later into the build
cough Saracens cough
sigh
Please watch some basics videos.
I watch plenty.
The strategy already beats many rush types that I would be taught to use. Rush types I would absolutely suck at. Because I have a very hard time multitasking between even scout usage.
Here’s the bottom line:
I suck at the game-plan most players use.
Only because they are not well executed
I see your faith in those strategies is as big as mine is in mine
Well, you know, those strats are meta. There’s a reason why those are played and yours is not
It’s completely ok, that you play the game however you like.
But please accept that it is not strong and you don’t have a deeper understanding of the game. Claiming Tatars would just die to halbs is just wrong. Terribly wrong.
We even tried to explain it to you, but you ignored it completely: Cav archers destroy halbs. And Tatars are a cav archer civ.
If you want a good “Healing Fortress” civ, take teutons. Tatars are a very agressive civ, that just doesn’t fit defensive playstile. It’s that easy.
A meta strat is just short for popular and mainstream.
Until a new strategy is implemented and proven over time and gains popularity it won’t be meta/mainstream -mainstream is whatever is popular and useful and proven at the time. This strategy is none of the above until proven. Which takes time and development - which no one else is doing. So it makes sense.
Since I admit - I suck at the game - but the strategy stands and scales with me as I improve - so I support it. Even if I end up being the only one to support it- I will continue to develop it even if I’m the only one to develop it.
WTF…
I’m out of here.