 Commander in ChiefJoined: 4/15/2004(UTC)
Posts: 2,200
Location: Gensokyo
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
|
And how would a screenshot prove your point apart from showing how you can't handle 5 Hard AIs with 2 Hard AI Allies?
Why would I lie? I never said I was the best player around, and I never regard myself as one. I only accepted your challenge to show you that it can be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 PrivateJoined: 8/4/2008(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: Houston
|
Krit wrote:And how would a screenshot prove your point apart from showing how you can't handle 5 Hard AIs with 2 Hard AI Allies?
Why would I lie? I never said I was the best player around, and I never regard myself as one. I only accepted your challenge to show you that it can be done. because what you are saying is perpostrious. there is no way those maps are even real. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commander in Chief Joined: 4/15/2004(UTC)
Posts: 2,200
Location: Gensokyo
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
|
Ugh, how many times do I have to tell you it is possible because I've already done it?! I don't see why you're even arguing as your point has already been proved wrong as Firion Corodix and Icewind both have stated they accomplished it, so what's wrong with just accepting the fact that I accomplished it as well?
I told you each player's playing style is different and thus can accomplish things using different factions. Just because you can't accomplish it doesn't mean anyone else can't. I got things where I can't accomplish but others can. What the heck is wrong with you just accepting a simple fact? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 CaptainJoined: 8/11/2008(UTC)
Posts: 61
Location: Israel
|
Krit is right, don't think that others have the same flows that you have. Beeting 5AI with 2 AI in your side is easy, even 7AI against you is easy. its all matter how the player play against massive amount of troops that keep coming from the same side.
But the point is not how AI play, its about which army is the best for long games. Which will probably be or the U.S or the GLA, China don't even counts cause of it week defenses and later units. The U.S got auroras and allot of long range units in it arsenal. The GLA got sneak attacks inside enemy bases that can disable the enemy for a while or even defeating hem.
And remember, if you wanna check which army is best for long games, never use AI. |
A modder in training :P |
|
|
|
|
|
 MajorJoined: 12/27/2007(UTC)
Posts: 339
Location: USA
|
Michael, you gotta drop this. Although I doubt I'm going to try it, I'm certain I have done something similar in the past. A player and two comps vs. five comps. It's easy. One vs. seven comps is doable. Although extremely difficult, if for no other reason that that you have 7 Super Weapons aimed at you. (Although, for the Nuke at least, the AI appears to have a set location somewhere around the Command Center, so they always nuke the same spot. lol) Anyhow, Michael, your knowledge of the game isn't very good, it looks like. I strongly suggest you stop judging whether or not something can be done based on your skill. I'd say the hardest matchup is a player vs. seven Hard Tank generals. But that's just me, maybe others agree. Hundreds and hundreds of tanks can get hard to manage, especially China's. Though I'll bet it's possible to do. Anyhow, that's all I have to say on this. Krit is the voice of reason here. So Michael, please stop killing my topic, as it has little to do with late game income. If you want to tell everyone what's possible and what's not, go make your own topic. Stop killing mine. Edited by user Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:03:52 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commander in Chief Joined: 4/15/2004(UTC)
Posts: 2,200
Location: Gensokyo
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
|
ZergSwarms wrote:I'd say the hardest matchup is a player vs. seven Hard Tank generals. But that's just me, maybe others agree. Hundreds and hundreds of tanks can get hard to manage, especially China's. Try 7 Superweapon Generals, you get about 35 Particle Cannons aimed at you that way. XD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major Joined: 9/30/2006(UTC)
Posts: 126
Location: USA
|
*Dark Light has joined the BRAWL!!!* LOL I'm not EVEN about to get involved with THAT argument. AI is so dumb they attack in the same direction in the SAME DANG way every single time. It's so predictable if you can beat a 3v5 match it really isn't that big a deal.(1v7 on the other hand...) But seriously back to the topic at hand. Super Weapon Gen is almost indisputably the best in late game because of EMP Patriots and Alphas. Infantry kinda(Don't get me wrong I love Inf Gen) falls on it's face late game on a count of Pathfinders. Tank gen is really bad simply because it doesn't have artillery. Air force can be wicked if in strong hands. Nuke is fairly well off on account of the nuke migs. I mean that in my opinion late game is all about circumventing your opponent. Edited by user Monday, September 1, 2008 3:39:49 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Joined: 9/9/2008(UTC)
Posts: 74
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Well... for me, it depends. Normally, i would put my money on the US Tomahawk and Rockvee combo (even overlords are smashed by storms of tomahawks). But if we talk about Zero Hour with specific generals, Chinesse Tao hands up. I mean, they gave him too much advantage with their nuclear migs. 4 of them can crush any armor concentration without delay and even quad cannons die in cool 1 shot k's. Furthermore, i could even beat granger's king raptors in the air with those guys (with appropiate micromanagements to avoid blast killing my own migs).
OK, perhaps that's my point of view (since i love air force) but that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest (2)
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
