View Full Version : Warcraft3

03-03-2003, 01:24:12
Tau and I played a few games - it looks like counterglow Warcraft has started back up again.

Anyone else still interested in playing the occasional game?

03-03-2003, 02:28:55

03-03-2003, 09:26:19
In theory yes, haven't played for months though so I'll probably be shit. Just need to find some time!

03-03-2003, 10:07:22
Tau is within a hairs breadth or so of being competitive with me, we might be able to build some team games around the practised players.

03-03-2003, 10:22:48
Oh bugger. He'll totally thrash me then. I'm sure he was just a little bit better than me last time we played.

03-03-2003, 10:23:15
We need to find a game that everyone can play to an even standard even if they don't practice. :D

03-03-2003, 10:39:17
Snakes and Ladders?:)

03-03-2003, 10:41:00
Excellent. :D

I'm OK at backgammon and dominoes.

Tau Ceti
03-03-2003, 12:34:40
Shiny is far too kind. I went 0-6 against him and at least 4 of those defeats were spectacular.

03-03-2003, 12:47:35
You played 6 games?! :eek:

Tau Ceti
03-03-2003, 14:39:55
Like I said, four of those defeats were spectacular. The shortest game lasted 8 minutes and 30 seconds.

03-03-2003, 14:42:43
:lol: OK fair enough. That's about how long I would last against him.

04-03-2003, 03:56:44
We played 2 games last night, random races.

Game 1: Undead vs Undead, 47 minutes long - Rachel WIN.
Game 2: Human vs Human, 47 minutes long - Rachel WIN.


04-03-2003, 04:02:08
Both times my collossal ineptitude at picking the good units showed through. And the first game was played on a really stupid little map where you have eat through the trees to get out of your starting location.

The most alarming thing was watching Rachel's replay afterward - there's still a ton of things she could be doing better!

F3@R T3H Fr0g!

04-03-2003, 10:17:40
Good work Rachel. :beer:

I thought about trying to have a game last night but I was too tired. Maybe tonight.

04-03-2003, 11:09:52
2 all tonight - Rachel can't beat the undead unless she is the undead.


04-03-2003, 11:14:47
I never got to grips with the undead or the elves. Never really played with them. It's really annoying that you can't just play their campaigns. I can't be bothered to finish the Human one and is it Orks next? Just to get to them. :bash:

04-03-2003, 11:18:39
Undead is second, Orcs is third, Elves are last. The Orcs and the Elves are quite good, but the undead campaign is very poor. Only worth it for finding the Pandaren hidden on the maps.

04-03-2003, 11:38:29
Single player games are almost always boring anyway it's just a chore that would be useful to learn the units really, which might help in playing against them.

Not sure if it's worth learning the undead. I might be better off just sticking with humans, at least I have a basic knowledge of them to build on and the undead really don't hold any interest for me. The Elves might be more my kind of thing.

This game is just so complicated. :eek: I have played it more than any other PC game since Half Life and I still barely know the basics. It's really good but it's so daunting how much there is to learn.

04-03-2003, 11:51:11
You definitely want to pick your basic strategy and work on refining that instead of trying to learn them all. Stick with the humans and work on getting good with Sorceresses and the AM/MK/Pal combo.

04-03-2003, 11:55:19
Not sure if that will set you up very well for the expansion but it's a good start. A lot of the new human units come out of the Arcane sanctuary so there's a bit of overlap there. And the human tri-hero combo is a given.

04-03-2003, 11:56:37
Yeah, my main reason for getting some experience with the other races is that right now I don't really know how to fight them because I don't understand them well enough. I found I did a lot better against Humans or Orks, even if I didn't win, because I could anticipate what I might be fighting and how to counter it a bit.

I've never actually made a Palladin in 2 player I don't think. You thnk it's worth going for all 3? When we were playing before I got reasonably good with using the abilities of the AM and the MK both together. Never really managed to use any sourceresses as well before they got killed though. I need to spend more time playing less advanced players than you and Rachel really so I can survive long enough in a fight to use some of them. :D

04-03-2003, 11:58:07
"And the human tri-hero combo is a given."

More info please! Everything I read before said that people weren't sure about that, AM+MK was touted as a good combination and I found it very useful. Paladin just for his armour aura? When is it best to get the third hero?

04-03-2003, 11:58:28


04-03-2003, 11:59:27
Exactly. :D

04-03-2003, 12:14:42
Paladin/Archmage/Mountain King forms a very powerful group and can just about win battles by themselves.

Start with the MK or the Archmage - the Paladin is not a good early defender if you get Hero rushed.

Blizzard 3
Brilliance 3
Mass Teleport

Mountain King:
Storm Bolt 3
Thunderclap 3

Holy Light 3
Divine shield 1-3

The Paladin is there to keep the other two heroes alive, with Holy Light doing 600hps worth of healing in one casting. Divine shield makes him absolutely untouchable now so you don't have to worry about keeping him alive. Use Blizzard and Thunderclap to kill enemy units, especially low tier ones, and Stormbolt to stun and kill enemy heroes and interrupt abilities like Starfall. Brilliance aura adds to the mana regeneration of the other two heroes (and all your casters) allowing you to cast HL, Blizzard and Bolt all the more often.

Add fully upgraded Priests, Sorcs, and Footmen to this mix and you have a winning strategy. Generally I would pick the Paladin second because he works very well at that point in the game, and it'll be more a case of one superhero and two support heroes instead of three superheroes. If you take the Dwarf last, get stormbolt for interrupt over Thunderclap, likewise with the AM last get Brilliance first and then Blizzard. The real trick with this is learning how to stagger your build up so you get things at the right time and not too soon or too late. And certainly not all at once, because you won't have the resources to do anything useful with it.

You can never have too many Sorceresses. Just keep enough footmen around to protect them from direct melee damage.

You can have too many priests. 4 is usually enough, UNLESS you need to cast dispel a lot (which would usually be because the enemy was using Necromancers or Sorceresses, but possibly also Witchdoctors/Shamen). Priests don't do nearly as much damage as Sorceresses and their spells are very very cheap, 5 mana for heal and 25 for Inner Fire. With an Archmage feeding 1-3 bonus mana per second to them, you won't need a mass of them.

An alternative strategy is to just make a Paladin and an MK and then mass griffons. That one is fairly self explainatory.

04-03-2003, 12:22:54
Well... the thinking has certainly changed since last time I played.

Blizzard over Water Elementals? Whenever I use Blizzard the AM seems to have to put himself in danger, gets killed and he can't sustain the Blizzard if he gets hit anyway. It's too much micromanagement to work it effectively, and, of course, it kills your own units when you do get it on target and they run in the way. With the WE he can keep pumping out units, boost the casters and stay at the back out of trouble and not dying.

I've never quite managed to actually use any caster other than a hero to cast a spell during combat...

04-03-2003, 12:37:15
ps. If anyone is around for a game tonight let me know.

04-03-2003, 19:56:07
Problem with WEs is that they can be dispelled. And unlike skeletons, there are only 2-3 of them up at one time, so they can be easily targeted. And they also tend to feed your opponents large amounts of experience when they die.

Blizzard at level 3 does 500 damage in 10 seconds to everything under it. Perfect for killing casters and other units that like to remain stationary. And with an invincible paladin feeding the AM 600hps every 7 seconds, keeping him alive becomes a bit easier.

04-03-2003, 21:41:49
I find it hard enough to stop the screen from flying half way across the map in the middle of a battle. :lol:

04-03-2003, 22:57:55
Better to focus on autocast stuff and economy then!:)

05-03-2003, 09:17:14
I think I do OK on economy, that's pretty easy my main problem is losing battles, and I think that's mainly about practice.

05-03-2003, 09:20:53
You tend to do better than I do on economy, I can't help you there, and you don't need it.

05-03-2003, 13:53:23
Originally posted by Funkodrom
I think I do OK on economy, that's pretty easy my main problem is losing battles, and I think that's mainly about practice.
Play an Age… game, then :rolleyes:.

05-03-2003, 14:00:43
Hey, thanks Shiny. I think the only problem I might have with the economy is that I put too much resource into it. Although that gives me a strong economy it makes me slightly weaker militarily.

:lol: Playing Age of Kings I was both crap at economy and crap at the combat. I suppose that's one way to solve the problem. For me the best thing about WarIII is that the economy is easy so you can spend most of your practice time on the actual fighting.

04-04-2005, 09:43:52
Was playing this again yesterday, fancied playing some RTS and I wanted to see how many of my combat 'lag' problems were down to a slow machine.

Just playing through the campaign at the moment. Quite enjoying it though.

04-04-2005, 09:59:21
I like starcraft better still..


04-04-2005, 10:52:03
With JM on that one...

I'd learn to play someone other than humans; they are great all rounders, but they tend to not lend themselves well to you learning how to beat other players. Once you have played them all a bit more you will learn how to deal with playing against them...

04-04-2005, 11:16:27
I don't think I'll be taking it online again, I'm much too shit for that, but I never did all the campaigns.

04-04-2005, 11:55:54
I still remember when I lost 2 heroes in a zeppelin crash :lol:

04-04-2005, 12:00:20

Actually I would be up for another online game maybe at some point. But I might just get that Warhammer game based on the same engine and try that.

04-04-2005, 16:22:57
I haven't heard that the Warhammer game was any better, per se.

Gotta love Fist's Zepplins skills, even still. =)

04-04-2005, 16:27:24
No, but different and warhammer. :)

I might download the demo again, was too slow on my old machine.

11-04-2005, 19:48:11
The 40K game is entertaining, but other than names it has no relation to the table top game, and the gameplay is like a poor version of Craft3.

Still entertaining to play a few times. The AI is shockingly poor though.