Do bị maxi xử ép quá ngày bảo onl 3h nhưng mình bận học sáng chiều mỗi buổi 3 tiếng rưỡi nên cũng chả có thời giờ để onl nên mình xin rút khỏi MOW chờ ra bản VietNam mình sẽ chơi cùng với Intel và 1 điều nữa là con PC mình quá cùi nên ko thể chơi dc nữa nên cũng rút , chơi thì còn chơi đấy nhưng offline thôi :)
@awm: vãi bẻ răng mi bây giờ. Ta nói giỡn mà mi cũng tin @@. @Osadar: yên tâm đi bạn vẫn đủ để mà chiến. Còn cái tên ăm đó hắn hay thế lắm. Đừng vì hắn mà làm tổn hại thần kinh =]] Hôm qua trong room có chú nào tên Việt Anh thế nhỉ? Vào rồi lại out @@. Hum qua tôi kick bớt 1 số acc đã off khá lâu trong lúc giỡn với tên noalana vô tình kick nhầm chú, Có gì thì join lại room 5 nhé.
3 LÝ DO NÊN CHƠI MOW THAY VÌ COMPANY OF HEROES ĐÂY Three reasons to play Men of War instead of Company of Heroes Robsavillo by Rob Savillo, BITMOB STAFF Friday, August 05, 2011 "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength." Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, chief of staff of the Prussian Army and renowned military strategist of the 19th century, never proclaimed truer words. But you’re probably more familiar with the common interpretation: “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” And I’m going to extrapolate that further as “no strategy game survives contact with the player.” Because as I play Czech-game-studio 1C Company’s Men of War: Assault Squad (a World War 2-era, real-time strategy title available for PC), I’m reminded of developer Relic’s own series in the same genre niche, Company of Heroes. The many war-ravaged grunts I’ve directed through artillery-cratered battlefields in the latter, then, unavoidably color the former. And that insight has highlighted three ways in which Men of War executes Moltke’s battle thesis more interestingly and engagingly than Company of Heroes. Men of War has an incredible level of detail I don’t necessarily mean fancy graphics (but I could if I wanted). Men of War provides a level of micromanagement that I didn’t think possible in a RTS. You can order infantry to run, walk, crouch, and lay prone. You can make them crawl through a field where no cover exists to increase their chance of survival. You can direct them to enter dynamically destructible buildings and even select out of which windows they should point their weapons. Every single unit in the game holds an inventory of items (down to individual soldiers within squads). You can even loot the bodies of your fallen foes! That’s sometimes a solid tactic, especially during a long battle. Soldiers, jeeps, howitzers, tanks, and so on have limited ammunition. They’ll run out. You’ll have to call in a supply truck or -- if you can’t wait -- dig through the pockets of your slain adversaries. Such attention extends to tanks as well. You can separately target the tracks, hull, and main cannon. Hit enemy armor with the right tools, and you can disable those specific parts. The crews of broken-down Tigers and Shermans will exit their vehicles and continue the fight on foot. And that does mean that you can then assume command of those ruined husks should you repair them (though, I still haven’t quite figured that out…). Men of War is primarily about tactics Relic increasingly minimized the role of static base buildings in its strategy games. 2004’s Dawn of War asked players to construct a center of operations in the same vein as Blizzard’s Warcraft and Starcraft games from the ‘90s. 2006’s Company of Heroes pared this down with fewer options and prebuilt defenses. 2009’s Dawn of War 2 removed those entirely for the single-player campaign while converging all facilities’ functionality into a single structure in multiplayer. But Men of War seems to have never even entertained the idea. You don’t “build” additional warriors; you call in reinforcements who enter the field after a timer counts down. You don’t have research labs to unlock sets of unit tiers; your unseen commanding officer grants you access to additional firepower after you've successfully advanced the front lines by securing strategic locations on the map. In other words, “teching” in Men or War means playing the main game, not a SimCity sideshow. This sort of design flies in the face of conventional RTS wisdom. Men of War is not about build orders and timing or managing a resource economy side by side with a standing army. In this way, Men of War is more successful in putting focus on skirmishes in the battlefield than Company of Heroes. Men of War is about pushing forward This game moves at a slower pace. Like Company of Heroes, your primary goal is capturing strategic locations around the map to gather supplies, thus fueling your war machine. Unlike Relic's offering, 1C Company simplifies the economy portion by utilizing a single resource, manpower, which slowly increases on its own. A big jump in manpower comes only from securing points; therefore, Men of War again encourages players to flex their tactical minds to win. Company of Heroes matches almost always seem to devolve into a dance of whack-a-mole. You spend a lot of time digging in your soldiers and setting up lanes of fire only to watch in disbelief as a rogue rifleman squad slips through and starts seizing manpower, munition, and fuel points. But losing a rear position in Men of War isn’t necessarily a game-changing event precisely because of the aforementioned economic design. Recapturing the location comes down to your tactical decisions; players need not contend with quickly dwindling reserves in the face of an enemy’s snowballing resources. Many often misunderstand Moltke’s theory of war as suggesting that planning for battle is of little consequence. To the contrary, the chief of staff meant to convey that such military action is dependent on initial preparation. The second part of his theorem states, “Strategy is a system of expedients,” which only reinforces that view. Strategy, then, is the means to an end that adapts to changing circumstances in the field. Men of War dutifully embraces these axioms of armed conflict. The game’s emphasis on combat over economy puts players in the role of tactician with the utmost focus placed on units; the extreme level of micromanagement affords a nearly complete abandonment of macromanagement. Men of War more successfully connects players to the battlefield by building on the innovations from Company of Heroes, and as a result, 1C Company's premiere strategy title feels like a logical step forward. http://bitmob.com/articles/three-reasons-to-play-men-of-war-instead-of-company-of-heroes
3 lí do đó với người mê game chiến thuật thôi , còn mấy bác mà chơi cho vui thì kéo về mấy trang đầu topic thấy than khó rồi đk micro quá v.v.. quá trời =]] việt anh hwa là e của vú à ? hí hí giới thiệu đi nha còn con nữ VA mod mất tích bao lâu nay ko thấy xuất hiện
Hôm qua đánh vui vãi bác Baru xài rocket spawn mình chả xi nhê gì cả lính spawm chả tốn MP (lính tier 1) phát cuối mình ra Assault trooper thì lợi thế nghiên về phe tui luôn qua móc con M26 rồi xong victoria is our
Ủa nghe nói AWM gác kiếm mà. Spam được 2 bài cái lại cầm kiếm lên Hôm qua đi học về khuya quá chẳng còn ma nào. Chán
Mấy bác cho hỏi chút, nhà em hiện giờ không có mạng nên không chơi OL được :( có cách nào để chơi đơn mà được sử dụng hết các laọi quân trong game không ạ? Mấy cái map skimis cho có vài loại quân ít wa mà vào phần Lan thấy cả đống thích wa mà không chơi vs AI được hix. Ai bít chỉ dùm em phát ^^
có đó bác , có 1 cách là vào editor tự sướng thôi copy ra net chiến onl với ae đi trò này ko cần setup nên copy ra cũng chơi dc =]]
Đề nghị chủ Topic add thêm hướng dẫn chơi qua Hâmchi (Phòng,Pass) cũng như Patch cần thiết chứ ít ai ngồi giở lại từng page lắm
Phòng hiện giờ có 5 phòng hầu như đều full do add lại GVNMOW - GVNMOW2 - GVNMOW3 - 5 - 6 pas : 123456 Patch 1.96.6 full
Bên ta cũng thế! Lính chết cực kỳ nhiều nhưng toàn là lính cùi nên cuối cùng đã chiến thắng. Cánh bên tui hầu như tất các căn nhà bị phá nát bởi pháo của biến thái, trận đánh diễn ra y chang như Stalingrad >.<, quân 2 bên giành giật từng vị trí, 2 con tank xịn của biến thái đều bỏ mạng ở đây! Hô hô hô.