+1, seems like he doesn't have much experience from arabia 11wow fireboy1
u dont consider huns or aztecs to be top arabia civ ??11
they are both in the top 3 along with mayans.
And almost all your points about each civ is dumb.
+1, seems like he doesn't have much experience from arabia 11wow fireboy1
u dont consider huns or aztecs to be top arabia civ ??11
they are both in the top 3 along with mayans.
And almost all your points about each civ is dumb.
oh, 11He doesnt have experience at all, u didnt see he created topic 'what mean push, i learn flush/drush/crush, now what is push" 11
He doesnt have experience at all, u didnt see he created topic 'what mean push, i learn flush/drush/crush, now what is push" 11
That's not my top list, is my opinion about the list of the autor of the thread.wow fireboy1
u dont consider huns or aztecs to be top arabia civ ??11
they are both in the top 3 along with mayans.
And almost all your points about each civ is dumb.
not having to worry about building houses is a huge bonus for people who cannot multitask quickly (most of you), whereas it's not as much of an advantage for the "best" player
not having to worry about building houses is a huge bonus for people who cannot multitask quickly (most of you), whereas it's not as much of an advantage for the "best" player
If this were true then Huns wouldnt be considered the best civ coz by theory the no-house-bonus is not one of the best eco-bonuses.
For example look up for Vipers' RandomCivil-games, where he got housed 4 out of 5 games, in a lot of 1st time housed already in the dark age - maybe he should work on his multitasking skills... Building houses is just annoying and robbing you some concentration capacity you need for other things, i think that's the reason why this bonus is practically worth way more than theoretically - even for the best players.
The problem could always be with the skill difference, and not necessarily the civ. Especially at somewhat low levels of play.Sorry to revive this debate, but there is one thing I dont understand. If the majority here rank both meso's over huns, why are huns played so much? I always assumed it was because they are the best, but if I join a 1v1 arabia lobby, my opponent has selected huns, and I think that aztecs are slightly better, I would go aztecs every time. My problem is that I can't do enough with a drush to to stop huns getting castle and raping with CA.
The problem could always be with the skill difference, and not necessarily the civ. Especially at somewhat low levels of play.Sorry to revive this debate, but there is one thing I dont understand. If the majority here rank both meso's over huns, why are huns played so much? I always assumed it was because they are the best, but if I join a 1v1 arabia lobby, my opponent has selected huns, and I think that aztecs are slightly better, I would go aztecs every time. My problem is that I can't do enough with a drush to to stop huns getting castle and raping with CA.
As much times as i picked aztec enemy went maya I do go maya nowadays tooBecause 95% of time enemy picks azt vs hun, the hun guy switches over to azt. People generally consider huns war to be more fun than azt war, so they both stop switching to aztecs in the first place.
Whats ur nick at vooblyeach time someone pick hun, aztec or maya, i said u whore and i get angry coz he take op civ, then i always take vik
it may explain why i'm still so bad at this game