Grens

[CusTomm]

I call the guy who camp noobs. Thats not grenwar , that is campwar

[Elite]

Having the high ground allows you to prevent the enemy from attacking and gives you the initiative. Take the high ground first, and then eco rape. On a tiny map if you've got a hill in the right place you can control all access to your base. Custom, I don't see how you can complain about hill camping. Its infantry wars...all other things being relatively equal the man with the high ground has the advantage. You can block access to your base and spend more res on eco early because you dont need as many inf to defend from a hill as they need to kick you off of it.

[Ghost]

In 1v1 gren wars I take a civ with mountain combat bonus and camp the shit out of a hill. I win every time. Gren players get exactly what they deserve for moving from small map to tiny map.

[Elite]

Thats actually a really good idea. And it is perfectly legitimate, if you want to play a tiny map you should recognize that whoever identifies and captures the most central piece of high ground will win.

[SlipKnoT]

i cudnt bring myself to read most of customms posts... its retarded that he can try to argue that gren is better than any other sett. only thing i will agree on is that gren can be fun every so often and i mean rarely. even when i play it i hate it most of the time. it is by far the worst game on EE as regards skill. everybody knows it but the gren die hards will still try to defend it. and i rofl at ur accusation that gren players micro better... ive seen many gren players trying indy tl or another sett and fail so hard at controlling 2 army types.. and for ur earlier statement that im average at gren... thats hilarious. i can pwn the vast majority of the die hard gren players and they play it nonstop yet i barely play it... this blows holes in every arguement u have if i can rarely play a sett and still pwn many die hard players it just makes a mockery out of the sett/rule game type....

gren was created for players learning EE. that is all it was created for yet some of u suck so much u cant learn a new sett..

[devilridermax]

In 1v1 gren wars I take a civ with mountain combat bonus and camp the shit out of a hill. I win every time. Gren players get exactly what they deserve for moving from small map to tiny map.

what would you sacrifice? hunting? ;/?

[uIwehFx]

I been reading to much shit in here until now.

I don't think that anyone of you is in the position to say what makes ee hard and what don't. Makes booming ee hard , micro , reaval map / unreavalmap, tl , sh , 5 cits , 20 cits, more units less units ?!

The point is that everyset is diffrent played to another. It offers diffrent things to do, starts are diffrent , general strategies are diffrent in every set.
I think the only thing how we can find out how sets are harder to each other, is take noobs and show them the sets. I am really sure in one point. They will need the same time to get good in it , in every set , doesnt matter if its gren or mid or liga w/e. The point is not to learn how to explore a mpa fast , not which civs you take , how you start of with the cits. The point is to learn how the set is played. Which strategies are most common. And this will probably take a noob the same time in gren as in Liga.
We can still fight about that in liga you have more oppertunities to do. And this is what the set makes harder. Not the boom , not the micro nothing like that. And liga just got the advantage that you play all ages in it.
Still i will hold on that when you just learned one set you cant swap over to the other and be good at it. Liga got barly anything to do with gren. When liga players never play other sets, they wont be able for gren as well. It is just that liga player try to play all sets....
In my oppinion this whole discussion went quite pathetic. Because noone of you saw the point. All of you beeing bias like "ben" said.

[SlipKnoT]

i agree that every set has its challenges. also gren can be challenging but if we were to judge every sett on how easy it is to learn then gren wud always be the easiest and liga, mod dm and pre wud be the hardest. so your arguement is true in some ways yet gren still is the bottom of the pile in terms of a challenge. for instance if u take 2 noobs and show them basics in liga and gren. which one wud pose more of a challenge to an average player of each sett. u know the answer is always gren. new liga players get pwned for along time before they get anywhere. ive trained complete noobs into good gren players within a week or less. it takes months to do the same in liga.

[Sexacutioner]

a liga player has a far better chance at playing any other sett there is, mainly because they know what a counter unit is and they know the main units for just about every epoc if not all

a gren player knows how to make guns and when faced with any other unit type is lost as to what to do and how to counter it even using just guns + is mostly an SH sett which makes it so you would be shit at pretty much any tl sett

[uIwehFx]

a liga player has a far better chance at playing any other sett there is, mainly because they know what a counter unit is and they know the main units for just about every epoc if not all

a gren player knows how to make guns and when faced with any other unit type is lost as to what to do and how to counter it even using just guns + is mostly an SH sett which makes it so you would be shit at pretty much any tl sett

Being really bias there. You basically state that and tl player can play sh, too. I suggest you gonna think about that again. I will just tell you some reasons. I mean really if someone playing tl all the time , he wont have the player speed to rush on an sh game or know the strategy of an sh start. I mean the thing you get from tl is how to boom up the game. But like i said before, different sets requiere different tactics, which you have to learn. I agree that liga tells you more about EE and you learn counter units, but that really does nothing to do with grens. And thats what i am all on about. You learn more in Liga which wont help you in gren, and the other way around as well. I really don't want to defend gren or anything, because for me it is just an example.

[Ghost]

In 1v1 gren wars I take a civ with mountain combat bonus and camp the shit out of a hill. I win every time. Gren players get exactly what they deserve for moving from small map to tiny map.

what would you sacrifice? hunting? ;/?

Building BTD

[Sexacutioner]

actually all older players started by playing tl and switched to sh verry easily and were far greater rushers do to the fact that in tl if you dont get a rush off to hurt the others eco you will most likely die and if your playing a single epoc tl just using the wrong unit to start can kill you and no one can go from playing sh only games and even be a threat in any tl game

another reason tl players can adapt to sh so well is the fact they know how to keep their cits alive in early attacks because their used to only having 1 tower and 1 house rather than 3-4 towers and 4 houses which help even that much more

but not really worth arguing about it since there and NO tl only players anymore that im aware of anyhow so to actually show you wouldnt work out

and its not like sh has a lot of slut rushers so they would have plenty of time to boom up and get army out

[Elite]

It took me several years after becoming decent at mod sh / pre sh to get decent at tl setts and especially liga. I'm still learning liga actually. On the other hand, I was in the top tier of gren players pretty much from the first game I played. Gren Wars is the least complex out of all the setts that are played on EE, I don't think you can argue to the contrary without simply discarding logic altogether.

[uIwehFx]

It took me several years after becoming decent at mod sh / pre sh to get decent at tl setts and especially liga. I'm still learning liga actually. On the other hand, I was in the top tier of gren players pretty much from the first game I played. Gren Wars is the least complex out of all the setts that are played on EE, I don't think you can argue to the contrary without simply discarding logic altogether.

That is what i just call , the not understand of what ee is. EE is a strategy gme ( realised the name saying the topic? ) it is all about tactic and startegy. I dont want to get further into this ''I was in the top tier of gren players pretty much from the first game I played'' because it is pathetic to try push your oppinion to the front so much. Like i said it is not about being a sh set not about being a tl set. Tl will not teach you sh or other way around, you at least have to observe some games to get how the sheme of the game is. Grenwar is the least complex, which is true , there is not as many things, to have in mind as in Liga. Still this set can be interessting, if you have a enemy who is willing to make up a nice game with you. If the game is going on fast, everyset can be quite nice.
In my oppinion there CAN be more exiting grens than there is Ligas, but mostly it is the other way around, because the people are not often making up an exiting gren game.
Conclusion for me is : An game with less opportunities can still be exiting. And if you are willing to do a speedy exiting gren, it will not be like you sitting in front the keyboard doing nothing. It is all about how you play it.

I am really worried you guys forgot the sheme ee is made for. EE is made for strategies, and there is different strats in every set, if you play gren all day long , i also would get bored. Especially with the slowmotion today, in gren. But i would get bored of liga after 10 games either. Swapping sets around keep them all interessting, also some grens a day are really fun !

[ben55]

do you not agree though, gren's strategies are limited because well it is grenwar compared to other setts. more strategies is often more complex gameplay. i don't see how grenwar can be the exception to that. having fun and enjoying it does not reflect it's difficulty so i don't know what you mean by that in it reflecting the difficulty of the sett.