See here.did koreans get some sort of eco bonus?
Isn't it a big early to make assumptions and verdicts?aoehd its a big fail
Really?Luck isn't supposed to interfere with a strategy game.Please remove this(even though its coolish).Apparently you randomly get sheep, cows or llamas, problem is cows give 150 food each while the others give 100. Shouldn't they all be equal food wise?
If you have more techs to pick from, but not enough resources to buy everything, you'll have to make choices. It's those constraints that make RTS games fun. I don't see why this would be different for team games if the amount of resources per player remains the same.I don't see how more restrictions lead to more choices.
False.scarce resources = more restrictions = making more choices = best strategy wins
Whether we state it in one way or another, our conclusion is the same: good play is about dealing with scarceness. (And thinking about this will make you a better player.)@UpperKEES
:?:
Well you have to keep in mind that they would be ridiculously overpowered if they would also fare well in battle, since they're already a fast raid unit which can raze a castle or a town-center in seconds (if massed). This is of course not always doable (depending on the location of the enemy army) and not always optimal, but they have their niche.May I suggest reducing the cost of tarkans slightly (to say 50 gold, or 50/50 gold/food?), they are still a terrible choice compare to just going knights (remember, with knights you save the 650 stone, and the tech if you plan to mass tarkans from stables). Perhaps also give them somewhat equal speed to cav archers (I think they are slower), and it could be very viable to go fc -> tarkans, even against cav archers (they still lose to knights).