Halo Wars Vulture Rush

Ok 1.If that person is a rusher why the hell would he go into a game where he cant rush wow. In halo wars its either rush or lose IMO, simply because Halo Wars takes lack of brain/strategy to play as I recall from sources it was one of the simplest/easiest game to play because it hardly took ANY strategy everyone only builds one ****ing unit the whole game how is that strategy?In Command and conquer people HAVE to build multiple units and it took major strategy to win a game, it wasnt rock,paper,sissors.

 

You can moan and grope all you want about it being unfair, but it's a real tactic. The Allies got their asses owned in the beginning of WWII because of **** Germany's speedy Panzer tanks. Whereas the French created the piece-of-**** Maginot Line. You decide which 'strategy' is better.

 

You haven't answered my question. Why is the non-rusher better? What skill does he have that the rusher does not?

In what you said, why is the rusher going to cry like a little baby? Is there some new element of strategy in the no rushing games that's not there for rushing games?

 

12 minutes in, my partner is only just getting his second base... with 3 tanks and 3 hornets...
as cutter

 

If you play as Anders your opponents expect an air rush. Try playing as Covenant and fully upgrading Hunters. They make sooo much profit and beat this tactic hands down. Vultures are too big and not maneuverable enough to evade incoming fire. Use chaff pod hornets to cover them and this tactic may work.

 

Before I can actually have an actual argument with you about rushers, I need you to forget this notion that all Rushers only 1 unit.

Watch this and this.

Next, that skill that you think only non-rushers have, well, I have some bad news for you. That skill is essential for rushers. In higher level play, if you don't have that skill your rushes will be swept aside with the oncoming enemy army.

Also, your guesswork RPS is a joke. I'll be scouting you 'getting' in my head so that I still beat you.

 

of course it uses tactics, you have to think of a ridiculous way to get troops really fast. And if your rush fails, it takes a great amount of tactics to recover before the other person attacks you.

Hows it unfair if both teams are allowed to do it?

Hows it boring, it gets your heart beating?

And why are some of you talking about only building one type of unit for a rush. The rush I do sometimes consists of hunters, banshees, my leader, wraiths, and sometimes a locust or two.

 

If someone is making vultures too rush you with, make 1/4 tanks, 1/4 anti-air and 2/4 guass warthogs and rush them before they get vultures, it's alot quicker too get those units.

 

You can never tell when they are going to make vultures, you can only guess.

I don't like rushing, mainly because I play 3v3 and If I rush, it leaves me wide open for another attack from other opponents. I try to build up and wait until I have defeated the first wave, then send it those units and attack while he is still recovering.

And...any more debating, and this can end up in the debates section.

 

Both of those videos were there to show you why 1 unit rushes suck. The first 1 shows a 1 unit rush V a 3 unit rush. The 2nd one also shows this.

No, the only real difference that a rusher and a non rusher have is that a rusher is aggresive. The non-rusher is a ***** for not having the initiative to take what he needs. The rusher needs you to have no economy, he'll destroy your SP. A non-rusher will try and out-eco you. That's the difference between the two.

And yes, rushers do need to know how to fend off armies with their lesser, weaker units. More so then non-rushers. As you saw in the first vid, the enemy didn't try and destroy the Grunt rush, he lost. He thought his Warthogs were stronger and better. A good rusher would have seen that that attack was lethal. He should've retreated but he didn't and lost for that.

Again, the only difference is that rushers are aggresive while non-rushers aren't. There is no arbitry ability that all non-rushers have that rushers don't. In the end, this is why rushers will win most of the time against on-rushers. That and the way most non-rushers have some belief that it's unfair to do something aggresive.

 

People who are unable to muster a force and are unable to prepare for consequences are pussies.

They are pussies. They don't have the balls to take what's theirs at the start. They don't even try to be aggressive!

Rushers never lose the aggression. The non-rusher just gets aggression once he maxes pop cap. The rusher will fall back until he gets the needed units to destroy a base. At most, you'll get 30 seconds before the rushers back on you.

And a good rusher never loses his army unless it was for a reason. We're going into rusher V rusher tactics so that doesn't concern this debate.

Also, I'm confused with the bolded part. Are you saying that a non-rusher somehow has enough units to fend off two armies by himself by magically checking the 'non-rusher' box next to his name? Because that's bullshit.

I also need another clarification, what is a rusher to you? I'm assuming it's a person who attacks early as opposed to a person who uses all his resources for one attack if which it fails he will be economically disadvantaged.

 

...

...

I know, rushing n00bs like you is boring. We like the challenge when the enemy puts up a fight every second. Just because you've never put up a fight against a rusher means you suck. Every five games, a person quits or never puts up a fight because rushing is 'gay' and 'n00by' or boring yet you've never been in an intense game. And don't kid yourself, those 2 hour games are not intense. If they were, one of you would have finally made a mistake and lost. Intense games have action in the first 30 seconds all the way to the very last seconds.

 

lol this is like "My First RTS"

 

Funny, that's how all rushing games end.

Can't agree more.