By the way guys, stop doing horse collar. The ROI on that upgrade is so big, and my calculations show that 75 + 75 = 150, which is 2 scouts that you can make and your opponent can't
That means in early feudal you can have 3 sc while your opponent has 1. That's 300% more army!!!! That's gotta be a decisive win for sure, can't defend vs. that
Thanks for the offer, but unfortunately I'm allowed 0% more wives than I already have.Marry me please RicoJay
Thanks for the offer, but unfortunately I'm allowed 0% more wives than I already have.
Is the reason you keep telling people to boom your scenario because you know if you actually argued about the real matter at hand you have nothing to come with?
Nobody disagrees that the non-trader will have a window with more resources. I'm pretty sure we finished discussing that 400 replies or so ago. Right now we're arguing whether or not that actually makes a decisive difference. Your boom scenario won't give any useful data at all when it comes to answer that question
For those replying who I have already ignored by virtue of your lack of providing useful comments or data, I will not respond. I hope that existing viewers, or new viewers can provide useful data for this.
For those replying who I have already ignored by virtue of your lack of providing useful comments or data, I will not respond. I hope that existing viewers, or new viewers can provide useful data for this.
I think the only way this matter can be settled once and for all is if we all just ignore each other. The sooner the better. Bye guys.
My final statement: Yes, it's either Harvard level trolling or public school level logics, but theres probably no way to ever find out which.
Stop calling him Philippe, he's not Philippe.I'm pretty sure Philippe, or whoever he is,
A perfect example of a useless response.
This is getting more and more embarrassing. Are you really serious? Anyone who disproves your theory or at least questions it for a reason is simply ignored? Then why do you even ask for our opinion? All you want to hear is: «Wow! You are so right! Why didn't anyone ever notice?»
Either you are serious, and then you urgently need some reality awareness advice. Or you are trolling and then I have to give you a compliment, because at least you do that quite well.
Ive given you all a way to run simulations to proof this. Your unified response: insults and useless posts like this one.I think the only way this matter can be settled once and for all is if we all just ignore each other. The sooner the better. Bye guys.
My final statement: Yes, it's either Harvard level trolling or public school level logics, but theres probably no way to ever find out which.
Ironically, your post doesnt do anything about this."useful data for this"
there is nothing useful in this thread...
Stop calling him Philippe, he's not Philippe.
Philippe plays on Voobly, knows about pro games and strategies and was actually funny (sometimes)
that is not ironyIronically, your post doesnt do anything about this.
Its definitely irony.that is not irony
Then create a simulation to test the part B of this thesis which is that having 22% more resources is decisive. I did by showing 22% more Paladins blows the doors off the traders amount of Paladins, and everyone kept responding with unit counters and making up that the defender will just be better. The economic thesis is that all things equal, ie against an equally skilled player: this is more than enough extra resources to win you the game.Well people are rightfully confused why they should run a simulation that will only show what everyone here already knows: "You will have for some amount of time more ressources when u dont start trade".