Winter's War Team Deathmatch Announcement

Starting in November and lasting until mid December, the Deathmatch community presents Winter's War Team Deathmatch Tournament - Incorporating both 3 vs 3 & 2 vs 2 matchups.

Hosting a prizepool of over $2000+, contributed by the DM community.

Winter's War Official Trailer - made by SpoolyGaming

Winter's War Settings Preview Reveal - made by SpoolyGaming

Can team QuEnDi continue to thrive at the top of team deathmatch? Or can rising DM teams including Freakin & OG pose a new threat? Or maybe some RM pros will band together and become victorious this winter.

The top 8 teams will battle it out in the main event to crowned the winners of Winter's War.

Qualifying Event: https://challonge.com/winterswarqualifier
Main Event: https://challonge.com/winterswar

- 5 weeks of fast paced team DM action
- Hidden civilization mode & civ tier lists to incorporate unique civ choices and strategies
- Fight on the plains of Arabia or venture into the formidable Glacier Swamp
- Join forces and band your armies together
- Only 1 team will survive this Winter's War

Spoiler: PRIZEPOOL DISTRIBUTION

Total - $2000 (subject to increase by donations)
1st: 30%
2nd: 21%
3rd: 16%
4th: 12%
5th: 7.5%
6th: 6%
7th/8th: 3.5%

Spoiler: TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE

Timeframe

Sign-up Deadline: 7th November 19:00 GMT
Seeding: 8th November
Brackets: 8th November

Qualifying Event: Single Elimination
Round 1: 9th - 15th November
Round 2: 9th - 15th November

Main Event: Group 1 & Group 2
Week 1: 16th - 22nd November
Week 2: 23rd - 29th November
Week 3: 30th - 6th December

Lower Bracket
3rd Place placement match: 14th - 19th December
5th Place placement match: 14th - 19th December

Semi-Finals
Group 1 & Group 2 - Top 2 teams - 7th - 13th December

Grand Finals
Sunday 20th December - 18:00 GMT

See the Rules & Settings here.

UPDATE: Grand Finals date will now be on Sunday 20th December @ 18:00GMT

Don't forget to Sign up Here.

 

I usually don't fancy DM, but this is totally different. Gonna look up for it! BTW, I love the civ-tiers idea.

 

I usually don't fancy DM, but this is totally different. Gonna look up for it! BTW, I love the civ-tiers idea.

This tournament is open for any level of experience in Deathmatch! We also loved organising and discussing our civ tier idea. We hope it adds a different dimension than just seeing your standard 4/5 DM civs in matches

 

Men i already love this tourney. i would love to see 4-4 instead of 2-2 but understand that there are no teams maybe that can get 4 players, and the DE maybe wont work good.
one option that is no comon in DM comunity: make the same settings as the 2nd qualy, but 3-3 and 4-4. So it would be:
- first game 3-3,
- second 4-4
- third 3-3
- fourth 4-4
- desicive 3-3

no repeat civ, hidden civ. that is a total of 34 civ picked out of 35.

but i tell you now, i will watch every game, no wonder who plays

 

excuse me, i read the rules and dont see if walls ant bbt are not allowed. i know that they should not, but i dont find it

 

excuse me, i read the rules and dont see if walls ant bbt are not allowed. i know that they should not, but i dont find it

Hey there! It's right under the Gaming Rules in the Rules & Settings Bombard Towers, Stone Walls, Stone Gates, and Palisade Gates are banned. Palisades and Outposts are allowed.

2 - Towers, Walls & Gates
Players may not build bombard towers in this tournament. Arrow towers such as keeps etc. are allowed. Stone walls / stone & palisade gates are banned. However, palisade walls and outposts are permitted - any players which are found to be building the banned structures will result in a game loss for the match the offence occurred in.

 

I'm a DM noob, please explain me why Mayans are considered a Top Tier Civ

 

I'm a DM noob, please explain me why Mayans are considered a Top Tier Civ

Hey Rey_Fer.

It's important to note that we (the admin team) have not created a definitive list of tiers that rank from strongest to weakest; rather, we have created a list that upturns the status quo. In short, we didn't want to see the same civilization compositions/wars that we've seen so often in the past.

We've also accounted for the fact that this is both 2v2 and 3v3.

In DM, Mayans are very cheap, making their market - for selling resources - one of the strongest (if not the strongest) in the game. Whilst we appreciate that Mayans wouldn't stack up pound-for-pound against certain civilizations, their potential to 'sling' allies (thereby making certain civilizations even more difficult to deal with) cannot be understated.

It is for this reason that we decided to place Mayans in Tier 1.

 

Nice, typically I'm not really into DM but these settings are very interesting. Will check it out for sure!

 

This'll be my 2nd DM tournament and I'm so excited to play! Can't wait to get smashed by some incredible teams... or maybe even smash some incredible teams?

 

Nice work settings looks great looking forward to some good games and seeing what combos are played

 

Awsome, we already sign up our team ^^

 

Looking pretty damn cool.
I am pretty much hyped up for this one
Long Live DM

 

Hey Rey_Fer.

It's important to note that we (the admin team) have not created a definitive list of tiers that rank from strongest to weakest; rather, we have created a list that upturns the status quo. In short, we didn't want to see the same civilization compositions/wars that we've seen so often in the past.

We've also accounted for the fact that this is both 2v2 and 3v3.

In DM, Mayans are very cheap, making their market - for selling resources - one of the strongest (if not the strongest) in the game. Whilst we appreciate that Mayans wouldn't stack up pound-for-pound against certain civilizations, their potential to 'sling' allies (thereby making certain civilizations even more difficult to deal with) cannot be understated.

It is for this reason that we decided to place Mayans in Tier 1.

Thank you, very insightful.

One more question.

Then, the strategy with mayans in DMTG is just market sell + sling? Wouldn't sarracens be better for that while still having amazing siege + camels + halbs?

I mean I guess the ideal composition for mayans would be eagles + siege rams, shouldn't that loose very quicky to any pala civ in the first minutes? And even if they survive opening halbs, eagles doesn't sound as powerful and they are still gold expensive so both players should run out of gold at the same time and then the other could still go hussar?

Guess I'd need to wait to the tournament to learn how to use mayans in DM

 

Mayans have a heavy wood and gold centered army so can sling food easy, which the powerful cavalry civ will need. Saracens army however is heavy food and gold centered, so they have no spare food to sling.

 

same could be said about the other archer civs and even aztecs or incas

Edit: why did I write lithuanians lol

 

Lithuanians is a full cavalry civ, not sure why you think that the same could be said for them, they should burn through their food fast.

Aztec is more infantry focused, not requiring as much food as a cavalry civ, but definitely more than mayans.

Yes lots of archer civs should have food to spare, but how many of those archer civs have a decent rush? Most archer civs dont have great cavalry (several have terrible cavalry), so they need to rely on infantry at the start. Champs are too slow for a rush, halbs too slow and too weak, eagles with extra HP however are perfect.

 

I was reading the rules, and it's not quite clear if in the 2v2 games, civs should be from different tiers, or both civ can be an A-civ (probably from different tiers, but I just want to be sure)

 

I was reading the rules, and it's not quite clear if in the 2v2 games, civs should be from different tiers, or both civ can be an A-civ (probably from different tiers, but I just want to be sure)

'For a 2 vs 2 teams can pick 2 civilisations from any 2 of the 3 tiers but will not be able to pick the same civilisation they have already used in that current series.'

 

'Teams must pick one civilisation from each of the 3 tiers for every game in a series. For example…If the game series is a 3 vs 3 – Each team must pick one civilisation from the Top Tier, one from the Mid-Tier and one from the Lower Tier. For a 2 vs 2 teams can pick 2 civilisations from any of the 3 tiers but will not be able to pick the same civilisation they have already used in that current series.'

But in 2v2 the Tiers still have to be different correct?

 

But in 2v2 the Tiers still have to be different correct?

Yes that is correct

 

Lithuanians is a full cavalry civ, not sure why you think that the same could be said for them, they should burn through their food fast.

Aztec is more infantry focused, not requiring as much food as a cavalry civ, but definitely more than mayans.

Yes lots of archer civs should have food to spare, but how many of those archer civs have a decent rush? Most archer civs dont have great cavalry (several have terrible cavalry), so they need to rely on infantry at the start. Champs are too slow for a rush, halbs too slow and too weak, eagles with extra HP however are perfect.

I meant Incas, of course not lithuanians.

Are aztec eagles that much worse than mayan eagles so that mayans are tier 1 and aztec tier 3?

And what about the other archer civs that actually have decent cavalry, isn't a cavalier better than an eagle anyway? I'm thinking about vietnamese or ethiopians, although I'm not sure if you make archers with these civs in DM...

 

Ethi have horrible cavalry, missing bloodlines, last armor and no paladin
Viet do have decent cavalry, especially with the extra hp battle ele (that nowadays has husbandry), dont know the specifics of the vietnamese start, go couple cavalier first for the rush than go eles for the defence/slow push?
Brits have bad cavalry, missing bloodlines and no paladin
Malay have horrible cavalry, missing last 2 armour
Ita has decent cavalry, no paladin tho
Chin has decent cavalry, no paladin tho

So yeah, some archer civs do have the option to open with cavalry, in a 1v1 they might be better than Mayans purely based on the rush. However those cavalry units do require lots of food, leaving them with no spare to sling. Mayans may lack the powerful rush unit (tho a 100hp eagle is no joke), but in the context of a teamgame where as mayans you have a better option of slinging food to your ally who does have a powerful cavalry unit the admins/hosts decided that mayans is indeed the better civ.

Ofcourse its a bit subjective and you can make good arguments either way, but I for one can see why they think mayans are a top tier civ in a TG.

This was a staple for RM TG's as well if you remember the old days with TyRanT. The mayan player slinging mongols, every day all day.

 

Ethi have horrible cavalry, missing bloodlines, last armor and no paladin
Viet do have decent cavalry, especially with the extra hp battle ele (that nowadays has husbandry), dont know the specifics of the vietnamese start, go couple cavalier first for the rush than go eles for the defence/slow push?
Brits have bad cavalry, missing bloodlines and no paladin
Malay have horrible cavalry, missing last 2 armour
Ita has decent cavalry, no paladin tho
Chin has decent cavalry, no paladin tho

So yeah, some archer civs do have the option to open with cavalry, in a 1v1 they might be better than Mayans purely based on the rush. However those cavalry units do require lots of food, leaving them with no spare to sling. Mayans may lack the powerful rush unit (tho a 100hp eagle is no joke), but in the context of a teamgame where as mayans you have a better option of slinging food to your ally who does have a powerful cavalry unit the admins/hosts decided that mayans is indeed the better civ.

Ofcourse its a bit subjective and you can make good arguments either way, but I for one can see why they think mayans are a top tier civ in a TG.

This was a staple for RM TG's as well if you remember the old days with TyRanT. The mayan player slinging mongols, every day all day.

yeah, I'm a DM noob so I really don't know if slinging is indeed that OP. Still hard to imagine what are the real differences that make mayans tier 1 (same level as huns, franks, khmer, slavs, goth, lithuanian, celts; that I always consider top top top DM civs) and aztecs tier 3 (difference is really eagles +8 vs 100 hp, I guess monks don't count in DM and then SO vs Siege Rams...)

mayans were top civ in aoc 4v4 because in addition to maya slinging mongols, there was also the strategy of slinging the mayans for a super fast imperial with 3 castles and having 60 elite plumes FU while everyone else was in castle. They had it's value as a fast + cheap civ, that is not the best for DM. If it were only for the sling, they could have slung with vikings, that have a better eco, but fail to be as killer as mayans (they where used though as the slinger in 4v4 nomad games back in the days of NC and WiC)

 

Although I won't go through every possible reason here, at least let me give a couple short good points to add/compliment things iViktorious and Spooly are saying:

1) They start with 4 villagers, which at least helps a bit with rushing or building the market early

2) They have the technology Guilds, which allows the market prices to be better (starting at 85 for selling food/wood compared to 70 otherwise)

3) Usually a player transitions into Plumed Archers while slinging food/gold (like others are mentioning). These are highly mobile and effective archers. Their mobility can make it easy to keep them all alive for a long time, thus allowing a player to continually sling their ally without making new ones.

4) Lastly they have all the economic techs for wood/farms/stone while also having the resources lasting 15% longer. The combination of this with having cheap units makes them the best slinging civ in the game.