|
|
Search
You searched for the word(s):
Showing page 1 of 53 (527 total posts)
< 1 second(s)
-
hahaha why is he even asking this question if it is treaty? lol
-
maybe he just scouted ur vil distribution and saw when u made a rax/stable
-
I disagree, I have seen some sioux players with very good anti-iro/india tactics. ...
-
Jerom, you don't understand. Where I live ''you all both'' is a very common phrase, regardless of whether it is grammatically correct or not. Many Americans say ''ain't'' which isn't correct, but it gets across a point.
-
Jerom: SecretShogun:Sioux is actually a very good anti lame civ. It isn't a good call to say they automatically lose vs India/Iro.
Well, you want to say Sioux beats them ?
They have a much better chance of beating iro/india than any other civs.
-
Sioux is actually a very good anti lame civ. It isn't a good call to say they automatically lose vs India/Iro.
-
I used ''both'' to create emphasis, as in saying ''ego rego'' instead of ''rego''
-
Playing vs good players like this ''noblesse_oblige'' guy is difficult to do without map control. Raiding can change the tide of the game so the tower can be quite effective. Typically when I know my opponents and their game play I will choose the food if they aren't big raiders.
-
Jerom: SecretShogun:Each of the options have their advantages. The tower is great on maps where hunts are scarce(Yukon) and also good vs civs that like to raid hard(Sioux). The food is good for an early dual tax or cav start. Just choose which option makes sense. There is no one right answer.
Would a tower be as valuable in a 3v3 though ...
-
Civs like India who have early protection against raids(Agra) and very powerful HI are difficult to defeat with br/axe. Cetan are a very good idea in this situation as well. Keep in mind if you are playing Sioux your enemy will most likely be playing a lame civ too.
1 ...
|
|
|