<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 30 of 79   1  2  3  Next >>   
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 07:05:51


Kenny • apex 
Level 59
Report
Welcome to Week #10. We originally planned to be hosting a shortlist Round Robin game, which would be 5 top players invited to a live round robin. The top players invited were a bit too busy, besides the eager Heyheuhei. We still plan on doing that this week, but we'll be discussing the exact timing and such later. Stay tuned for more details.

Other than that, we're still rolling with last week's template. Here's links if you need a reminder:

1v1: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=232586
2v2: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=193940 (I'll tweak so that it's not AI surrender this go around)

Big thanks to all of you for watching and helping out and good luck this week!

Times & Dates: 1:00 PM GMT-0 @ November 16th, 2012 (Dunga Live Class)
12:00PM US/Central @ November 10th, 2012 (1v1)
12:00PM US/Central @ November 11th, 2012 (2v2)
4:00PM US/Central @ November 13th, 2012 (Lolowut's Coffee Break)


Methods of joining:

The easiest way to join this tournament is to post here. You will be thrown into my invite list directly, and be thrown into the total count of participants. This will help me gauge how many people will be playing and how big to make the tournament.

There are two other ways to join. I will be making a "Lobby" to test whether or not the participants signed up are active. This will show up in the tourney listings. So either you can be invited to it, or join it outright.

Lobby:

Even if you post here and get thrown on my invite list your spot is not guaranteed. You have to prove to me you're on at that time. I will be inviting everyone I know on Warlight into this "Lobby", to guarantee your spot you must join that tourney.

Disqualifications:

You may be disqualified from ever entering the tournament again if you:

1. Fail to join the actual tournament.
2. Get booted during the actual tournament.

It is up to the host's discretion.

Commentators:

Currently, Mythonian, Kcscrag, and I are the hosts. We have 2 official expert commentators named Dunga and Szeweningen. If you're interested in becoming a commentator (especially useful when one of us doesn't feel up to doing it), invite me to a game or add me on skype at Lolowut. You must have skype in order to become a commentator, I'm not willing to play around with unfamiliar programs. Only things you'll have to prove to me is that you have enough knowledge of 1v1 and in some cases 2v2 in order to accurately analyze a game, and not have a boring voice.

Q/As

Q: What happens if we don't get a nice number of people that would make the brackets logical?

A: Everyone who joined the Lobby will be thrown into the actual tournament, if the number of people is greater than the bracket, then it becomes a contest of joining fastest. I'm not willing to set up byes and odd brackets and host the tourney through invited games. Sorry, just the way I run it.

Q: Who hosts the stream or tournament if none of the hosts(Lolowut, Mythonian, Kcscrag) can?

A: Anyone can host it. I'm sure if I'm unable to host it I'd be willing to give you tips on how to do it. The stream requires a great computer, so be careful.

Q: I don't have a great voice and speak English terribly, but I do want to help the analysis, how do I do so?

A: Add Mythonian or I on skype. Me @ Lolowut and Myth @ Mythonian. We both have skype up during the tourney and can get your thoughts conveyed.

Q: I signed up, but I'm not getting invited. Why?

A: If you were disqualified from entry ever again, I've invited you to a game and informed you. Plead your case, I may be willing to let you back in.


Past Winners:

#1 (Sept. 8th): Zerbi (1v1)
#2 (Sept. 15th): Szeweningen (1v1)
#3 (Sept. 22nd): Phantasmagoria (1v1)
#4 (Sept. 29th): Szeweningen (1v1) Myhand and Szeweningen (2v2)
#5 (Oct. 6th): Heyheuhei (1v1)
#6 (Oct. 13th): Timinator (1v1) (Oct. 14th): Timinator and Heyheuhei (2v2)
#7 (Oct. 20th): Brisk (1v1) (Oct 21st): Timinator and Heyheuhei (2v2)
#8 (Oct. 27th): Timinator (1v1) (Oct. 28th) Simba and Myhand (2v2)
#9 (Nov. 3rd): Szeweningen (1v1) (Nov 4th) Trilussa and Gnuffone (2v2)

Congrats to the winners!

I'll see you November 10th!

- Lolowut
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 07:23:28


The Ice Fire Juggernaut
Level 8
Report
Wow 10 weeks of eliminating mayhem *claps*


Could you atleast use an settting ive been working on for months now
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 08:18:54


À la recherche du temps perdu 
Level 35
Report
I am interested in participating to the 1v1 on Saturday.

(I didn't understand if it will be played the single elimination tournament or the round robin, if it will be a rr, then I'm sure you will find much better players than me, so feel free to ignore the above post.)
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 09:47:59

Qi 
Level 55
Report
I like Sze's analysis of the Gnuff/Tril vs Myhand/Sze game in #9. Sze says the picking stage was unfair. He says he absolutely had to attack certain areas (eg, in the UK early, to Switz/France early, and then running around attacking more neutrals in UK to attack another neutral in Ireland because by this point he had no good options), as if better options didn't exist. He criticizes Gnuff's moves again and again. But, ultimately, who won? Gnuff. And which player is most responsible for having lost? Sze. The video's analysis does not take this into consideration.

Altogether, Sze attacked 5 neutrals, losing (I'm guessing) 8-10 armies in the attacks themselves and 5 armies to hold the newly conquered territories (armies which otherwise could have been used to attack or defend). 13-15 armies wasted on neutrals. A 2v2 for each team became a 2v2v1 for Sze/Myhand and a 2v2 for Gnuff/Tri. (If you click Players and see the board, neutrals count as a 'team' or player.)

Wasting 13-15 armies on neutrals -- running around like an angry chicken with it's head chopped off -- is what lost the game. Use those 13-15 armies more strategically and the game was won easily. Sure, Gnuff did a few 'creative' things. Sure, not getting first move in Eastern France when trying to bust Benelux was unfortunate. But the video analysis only talks about bad luck and Gnuff's mistakes. It doesn't account for the strategic miscalculation of attacking 5 neutrals (losing 13-15 armies), which is the strategic reason why that game was lost.

If your starting spots are as bad as they were, why make things worse? Myhand has told Sze before: "You don't HAVE to do something every turn." Jumping from strategy to strategy to strategy (for instance, go bust Benelux, enter Ireland from the north, enter Ireland from the south) didn't give myhand time to win the game. Bad assumptions led to a bad starting strategy, which led to jumping from one losing approach to the next. Altogether, Sze lacked strategic focus.

That's what I saw when I watched the game and listened to the biased explanations. Too bad myhand or Saladin weren't able to analyze the game instead, to say what really happened. He was obviously motivated enough to play his best and knew what to expect from the other team. So my conclusion is that Sze could only see others' mistakes and is either too proud to explain his own or not good enough (given the unique circumstances) to know where he went wrong.

I don't have a link to the game. Maybe someone else does.

Don't feel discouraged Sze. You'll get them next time :)
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 10:13:55


À la recherche du temps perdu 
Level 35
Report
I was confused to sze's comment too, because he didn't point out our main error, that was in Ireland, where we let him break South Ireland (even if that error was due to laziness and miscommunication).

He pointed out mainly that they were unlucky, and I was surprised by a few things.

First about picking: we calculated that 50% chance of having or not having russia, I just think that if you didn't get the whole russia is not extremely unlucky but regularly unlucky.

About his attack in Benelux, that very attack followed 2 previous attacks in wich he had the first turn, or I would have killed him in the center, so in that very case we were unlucky not them.

Regarding his playing I don't agree with you, beacuse he played very well, even if attacking England first turn was a big error, even if the only one in my opinion.

Anyway I wasn't annoyed by his comment at all, beacuse I think that in order to beat 2 players like them, luck is a big necessity, and since it is a common thing (that I do as well) to notice only unlucky turns and not the lucky ones when you play a game, I just tought that his comment was perfectly comprehensible.

The only bad thing about it was the fact that the video wasn't so instructive for people who saw it, but since sze is the best commentator we have I cannot blame him at all, the fact that that game was decided mainly by luck was a thing that had to be enlighted.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 10:41:23

[WG] Reza
Level 58
Report
/was hoping for a new 1v1 templater. Ohwells
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 10:44:18

Qi 
Level 55
Report
I miscounted: Sze killed 6 neutrals (losing 14-16 armies) to enter your bonuses.

His positioning required him to attack neutrals. Attacking 6 neutrals (instead of, say, 2-3, with a better approach) is what was costly.

Sometimes games are determined by luck. Sometimes by a player who makes the most bad moves (or the relatively less strategic moves). That game was determined partly by luck but mostly by Sze's attacking too many neutrals. Everyone played more or less straight up and in ways that could be expected. Sze did not.

Tril, you attacked with intent. You hit Sze each time you attacked. The only neutrals you hit that I saw was in Switz to take the +2 bonus Sze gave you so he could try to bust a +3 bonus. Sze attacked neutrals to anticipate. He attacked neutrals each time. The only thing he killed all game was neutrals. He never killed an enemy. Eventually army numbers become so favorable for one team that the game is decided.

Reverse roles: If you, Tril, had been the neutral killer and Sze was the one hitting you, who would have won?

Also: If Sze had attacked less neutrals and been more focused in Ireland or Benelux, could he have bothered Gnuff enough to give myhand a chance to clear the middle? Killing 6 neutrals and 0 enemy territories gave myhand no room for error. He needed to be 'flawless'. The turn he jumped toward Iceland with 7-10 may have been the turn he could have cleared the middle, if he had hit Norway later (and still gained that spot) and worked the middle more aggressively. (I say that without seeing the calculations and actual army numbers in the middle.) Myhand does like to delay. It can be beautiful. But when the window of opportunity is closing, sometimes brute force could work. That battle in the middle, however, is all mind reading -- and reading Gnuff's mind is hard to do, given the apparent randomness of strategic patterns of some of his moves. But Myhand could have been afforded more time to work the middle.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 11:10:12


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
Gui, please post exact turns with substitute moves that would have been better ex ante. I am happy to do an open analysis.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 11:40:15

Qi 
Level 55
Report
I can't. (1) I can't time travel (ex ante implies I can go back BEFORE you made the moves and tell you what to do). (2) I don't have the game link and won't go watch the video again. (3) Get myhand to sit down with me to talk about what he was doing/thinking so I can provide a collaborative approach, and I could tell you what I might do. But that would feel like work, so (4) I'd like an hourly salary in exchange for helping you become a better all around player :)

My analysis above is simple: If you play a 2v2 and kill 6 neutrals and 0 enemies without either busting an enemy or gaining a bonus, something is not right in the approach. Kill less neutrals and have more firepower for the enemies is the gist of what I'd do if I were you. But I'm not you, so maybe I wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. (That is, do you think I would have made the same picks as you?)

If I had been the one who made your picks and your moves and then analyzed the game on a video, I wouldn't have blamed luck so much and implied Gnuff is a fool. Instead, I would have just flat out said "my assumptions from turn 1 were wrong. I attacked too many neutrals and didn't give my teammate much time to turn things around. I wasted armies without really doing much. The other team didn't waste armies in my area. They won."
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 12:39:21


ps 
Level 60
Report
would like to join the 1vs1 tonight. :) hope i get the time difference right. :S
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 12:51:24


{rp} Julius Caesar 
Level 46
Report
i would like to take part in tonights as well plaese?
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 12:55:05


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3382512
Gui, ex ante meant using the intel that I was provided with the exact turn, which you can do. It is true I attacked a lot of neutrals, but the problem is I played only what the position gave to me. I could not have played it in any other way not taking some other huge risk. Also quoting: "i don't have to do something every turn" seems misplaced, since it only applies to equal or close to equal positions, which was definitely not the case. I know you like to post open critique on me, which is healthy, since it keeps my ego in check, but please try to post sth that actually makes sense.

my assumptions from turn 1 were wrong. I attacked too many neutrals and didn't give my teammate much time to turn things around. I wasted armies without really doing much. The other team didn't waste armies in my area. They won


1st sentence yes, 2nd sentence wrong. Unless you could provide better moves it's not analysis, it's just pointing towards a statistical data point.

Kill less neutrals and have more firepower for the enemies is the gist of what I'd do if I were you.

Yes, if it is possible, I do it, if it is not, I don't. I can only play what the position gives to me meaning I play moves that I don't find better alternative to. If you are pointing to the picks, that's actually the only part you might be right, I did not analyse them after the game, maybe giving russia away was the way to go.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 13:07:00


[WM] Anonymous 
Level 52
Report
The 10th edition will be Medium Earth they said...


It will be funny they said...
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 13:09:51


ps 
Level 60
Report
Gui vs Szeweningen soap opera is getting old
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 13:10:32


{rp} Julius Caesar 
Level 46
Report
put it on CBS at 1130 on weekdays and it will be everybodys favorite soap
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 13:31:27


À la recherche du temps perdu 
Level 35
Report
P.S.
Since it is very likely that I will come back home at the very time in wich the tournament will start, can I be invited just to the official tournament so that I don't have to cut off 30 minutes from my studies in order to confirm my presence?
I assure that I will be in time.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 13:52:37


À la recherche du temps perdu 
Level 35
Report
"Gui, please post exact turns with substitute moves that would have been better ex ante."

Since I either think that is intersting to do some open analysis, and since I know that you know that I'm not doing that in order to annoy you, I would be intersted in you to analyse your very first turn.

Your attack with all in England, as I said, was your only error in my opinion.
Infact the chance wich that attack would be good is only of the 18%, considering me a decent player. (I will explain why)

If I would be in Ireland the attack would be bad (No reason to explain you why)

If Gnuffone would be there and if he would have tried to take Ireland in one turn, your attack would be good only if he would have failed the attack in that very spot.
(64% of taking the spot, 50% of finding me there: it means 18% of chances of having done a right thing)

Infact even if he wouldn't have completed Ireland, if he would have taken just that spot, he would still have enough troops to defend from your attack, infact unless you wouldn't have been ok to give up completely with the center - thing that would have been worse than breaking Ireland - you wouldn't have been able to take that spot.

Considering also the possibility of not taking it, even if you would have focused with all there, beacuse it would be reasonable to find an 8 troops defence (in case he would be lucky with Ireland, 9), wich is not necessary not break with a 12 troops attack.

What do you think about it?
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 13:54:15


The Defiler 
Level 54
Report
Hey, in the 1v1 template, maybe you should change it to 16% luck instead of 75%.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 13:57:13


À la recherche du temps perdu 
Level 35
Report
I forgot this:

So ex ante would have been better to put all in austria.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:17:47


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
First we knew all of your picks, but we did not know who was where.
Second since turn 1 I was playing under the assumption that we were behind.
On turn 1 I saw that I would be stuck on 5 income for the rest of the game, so the only chance I saw we had was for me to stall both of you long enough for myhand to get counterplay since I thought that if Gnuff gets safe expansion (especially if he gets +3 first turn) myhand won't be able to do anything (the only choices where going thruogh norway or eliminating him in slovakia which seemed very improbable considering we'd be behind in income). In any case I made the judgment that if we are in a stall, my team will lose in the long run. Anyway there was a slight chance you'd go for ireland if you were there, but basically it was a shot I think i had to take since Gnuff easily could have been there and if he was there, the probability of going for ireland 1st turn would be much higher. Also i don't think what you say is true, if I have high stacks in UK my attack will be succesful more often than not, since I don't need to break into ireland right away, but I need to stall Gnuff. If he tries to take ireland and fails while taking contested spot he can defend if he deploys all, but that also means that he will not get any bonus the same turn since he can't defend ireland and take last spot (he'd need at least 1 additional deployment to finish it.) but even then, he'd get negative net income. Also 11vs7 can take so i actually could get into ireland the same turn by force, not to mention that losing austria was not that bad considering myhand was in hungary. I was more comfortable with that kind of stall with Gnuff than with you. Also see that if I move with 4 in UK Gnuff would have to miss exactly that territory and he'd be able to defend and finish ireland the same turn, my UK pick would become useless.

So to sum up the 1st move was based around the assumption that our positioning was worse and if Gnuff is not contested than we'll lose, which seems quite obvious to me factoring in my positioning with being stuck on 5 income and myhand's positioning which was worse than Gnuff's. Deploying to austria is the safe way to go and I'd do that if I was sure that you were in ireland, but here I made the judgment that Gnuff's positioning had to be contested and losing austria was not that important considering myhand would hit Nitra in any scenario and he'd be able to counter it effectively. In any case bar 1st move on benelux I think I extracted max deployment from both of you losing minimum seeing you never got austria and Gnuff actually transferred into ireland.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:27:40


professor dead piggy 
Level 59
Report
It's interesting to watch top 2v2 players do what they do best. Team C got better picks. Tri had a slight advantage over sze due to Ireland>England. Gnuff had better picks than myhand due to iceland benelux being the same number of neutrals for 1 higher income than denmark portugal. It doesn't seem like much but it was an advantage they carried the entire game.

Turn 1 Sze just resigned himself to the fact that he wasnt going to get a bonus this game, not realising trilussa was the person he was facing off in all 3 places and she would struggle for a bonus too. He left the fight in the centre to myhand and took on the islands as best he could. He gambled that someone would take ireland which was a mistake team A couldn't afford after getting slightly worse picks. Mid-game gnuff wisely focused on the narrow Iceland->denmark fight where his income wins out and simply avoided elimination in the centre.

WM rule =P
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:33:01

Qi 
Level 55
Report
As you know, each turn leads to new strategic options for the next turn. So the turns that matter:

1. "[Your] assumptions from turn 1 were wrong." You said in the video (paraphrasing), "I assumed Gnuff was in Ireland. So I absolutely had to deploy 100% to ensure Gnuff does not get the Ireland bonus." Tri was in Ireland. Your absolute certainty was a 50-50 guess in my book, unless you know that Gnuff always picks Ireland and that led you to believe it was a certainty.

2a. You said in the video you were sure Gnuff was in Ireland but after seeing Ireland not being taken, you knew Tri was there. So why enter Ireland if Tri was there? Have you watched Tri play much? I assume you have. He's worth watching. He doesn't attack neutrals much unless he thinks it will lead to something. There was a good chance he'd not attack in Ireland. But that is based on your second certainty: Tri is in Ireland now. I wouldn't have been so sure about that. Maybe Gnuff was there but he was focusing on his other two bonuses. So your second certainty was also a guess, not a certainty. You guessed right though. But if you were so certain it was Tri, why enter Ireland that turn? It's not ME 1v1. You don't need card pieces. Tri likes to let the enemy kill neutrals for him so he can steamroll the weakened enemy. Your aggression gave him a second advantage over you.

2b. Because of your first turn assumption (certainty to you, 50-50 guess to me), your second turn's situation meant you did in fact have to do something: deploy 100% in Aust. So, what could you do? Drop 5 and let Tri hit you 14v10? Or attack Switz? Attacking Switz would lead to a slow war of attrition. If you stand strong 14v10: Tri loses 7; you lose 8-9. Standing armies next turn: 7 versus 1 or 2. Not good, but you'd give myhand 1 more turn to make something happen. What next, if you stand strong turn 2? If you have 2, you face an 11v7 attack by Tri. 58% chance he kills you. Or you could run to Switz. Overall effect of standing strong 1-2 turns: Tri doesn't get Switz so quickly. Tri wouldn't have expanded in Austria so quickly. Though he'd be more likely to go for Ireland, especially since Gnuff ended up transferring extras to him (though the Gnuff I know doesn't usually do that unless he has a selfish reason to). But your bad situation here is still due to your first turn assumption. Attacking in UK was not necessary, even if Gnuff had Ireland. So you hit that one neutral. You followed that up with attacking Ireland and trying to stay alive with an attack on Switz (see 2c below). So you hit three neutrals already. Tri only hit you so far. He's about to steamroll you. Thus: You ATTACKED TOO MANY NEUTRALS too early. The effect: Myhand LOST TIME working his magic. "[You] attacked too many neutrals and didn't give [your] teammate much time to turn things around."

2c. Your choice: Kill more neutrals. Hit Switz. Effect: Instead of a 14v10 war of attrition (you could buy time, let myhand try to win it), you end up with standing armies of 13v8.

3a. A 17v13 attack is what you're looking at now. With 17v13, Tri loses 9 you lose 10. Effect if you stand still: standing armies of 9 (Tri) and 3 (you). 13v8 (turn 4's situation, if you stand strong this turn) is successful 70% of the time. The time to run would be then.

3b. Tri wants your blood. You try to run and (a) you get to France but give control of Switz to Tri or (b) Tri hits you before you run and your 2 hits France and likely just makes you look pathetic. You got lucky and moved before Tri would've made you look pathetic. But now Switz is his if he wants it. But at least you can bust Benelux and give myhand a chance to win the game with superior income, since Benelux might go down. He can grab the middle and cut back to mess with Tri in Switz/Aust.

4. You had first turn twice in a row. You think you'll get it a third time? You do: You deploy 3 in Ireland, unnecessarily. Put everything in France and you have a chance to get first move and attack with authority. Gnuff didn't even care about you. Your only hope ends up being a 4v3 attack. In the video you express surprise that the 4v3 didn't work! Focus 100% on your primary objective (busting Benenlux) and those extra 3 would've been more than enough. And since Tri ended up hitting you first, it would've given you distance between his stack and your conquistadores of Benelux. But you didn't. At the moment focus would've helped, you lose focus. "Jumping from strategy to strategy to strategy...didn't give myhand time to win the game." The effect: "[You] wasted armies without really doing much."

5. Now your situation is pathetic. Tri rapes you.

6. So you jump to Southern Ireland. This is your best hope, delaying the inevitable...Game is over unless myhand can clear the middle immediately. He isn't able to. GG.

In only 4 turns you became useless. You didn't give myhand time. He was facing an opponent who was not randomly wasting armies on neutrals trying to be clever. So he needed more time. You had a chance to possibly make your approach work (turn 4), but you take your foot off the gas. Why commit to a strategy and then change strategies at the last moment, when success is most possible?

I stand by my initial assessment: "[You] attacked too many neutrals and didn't give [your] teammate much time to turn things around. [You] wasted armies without really doing much. The other team didn't waste armies in [your] area. They won."

What would I have done differently, aside from having different picks? I wouldn't have gambled everything on a 50-50 assumption first move. But if I did end up with your ugly situation based on the picks, I probably would have put 5 in Austria first turn and see what happens. Gnuff and myhand were the wild cards. If Tri was in Ireland, he probably wouldn't go for it: they don't know who is in the UK and Tri saves his armies. I like to gamble too. So if I was bored, maybe I would have checked Southern Ireland with a 4v2 and execute a soldier in Russia 1v2 to try to get last turn and then attack Switz 9vX third order to make things interesting. Chasing windmills full power in Ireland is something I wouldn't have done, given you had to hit a neutral just to see Ireland and it isn't an interesting/fun move.

Anything else that I would've done differently would have depended on (a) how my first turn influences turn 2's options (and how that influences turn 3, and so on) and (b) whatever discussion I have or don't have with myhand, to find a way that I can make our approaches/moves work as much as possible towards the same strategic goal(s).
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:33:02


hedja 
Level 58
Report
Ladder or brand new templates would've been better in my opinion.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:35:23


À la recherche du temps perdu 
Level 35
Report
Ok I see the point.

And I understand why you did that, infact when you thinkn of being in disadvantae sometimes is ok to make risky moves.

I still diasgrre with a point.

You said that you wanted to stall Gnuffone in order to let myhand enonugh time to clear the center, my point about this is: how could myhand have had the center if you would have left me austria on turn 2?

What I'm trying to say is that if Gnuffone would have been in Ireland you cannot do anything to win the game, so if you really had to take a risk, i think that it would be better to assume that I was in Ireland, and play as you knew that.

This is a worth-taking risk, because in that way you could have won the game, instead to me the risk you took if it would have succeded, it would allowed you to be alive a little bit more, but still you were in a deadly situation.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:37:04

[WG] Reza
Level 58
Report
epic answer to a long post hedja :)
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:44:16


hedja 
Level 58
Report
Reza, I meant for this week, last week it was fine :P
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:45:30


{rp} Julius Caesar 
Level 46
Report
i have anew respect for gui that was the most in depth answer anybody i know has given ever you must have used the 10000 character limit in that post
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:46:21


{rp} Julius Caesar 
Level 46
Report
what time does it start EST in america?
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:49:09

Qi 
Level 55
Report
About the templates: Too many ME 1v1 junkies. Maybe they are chain smokers too. Just facilitate their weakness. But I think that 2v2 template is the best 2v2 game I've played. It requires a great deal of thought. And people familiar with Europe have an advantage. That means many of the ME 1v1 junkies would crash and burn. They don't like looking like fools. So many won't join and face embarrassment. This is how WL has always been.
Live Events: Week #10 (10 weeks. Wow.): 11/10/2012 14:55:38


hedja 
Level 58
Report
Hellbender, it is in roughly 3 hours and a bit from now

Gui, some people just get bored after having overplayed the EU map. I would prefer to play on nearly any another map, to try something new out, I'm not saying it has to be Middle Earth.
Posts 1 - 30 of 79   1  2  3  Next >>