Goths unbalanced versus Archers. Japanese unbalanced vs UU in general. Teutons unbalanced vs Archers. Infantry unbalanced vs Byzantines. Etc. People enjoy CBA because it's broken.
Goths unbalanced versus Archers. Japanese unbalanced vs UU in general. Teutons unbalanced vs Archers. Infantry unbalanced vs Byzantines. Etc. People enjoy CBA because it's broken.
You're quite dense. I made a point that everything about CBA is unbalanced. I also said people enjoy CBA because it's broken. That would also imply imbalance.
edit; Yes, balance would be making everything equal i.e. Mirror Civ wars.
You're quite dense. I made a point that everything about CBA is unbalanced. I also said people enjoy CBA because it's broken. That would also imply imbalance.
edit; Yes, balance would be making everything equal i.e. Mirror Civ wars.
u obviously have not idea of what balance is. balance = pros and and cons makes it equal. not that everything is exactly equal
the game itself is pretty balanced playing non-scenarios, but in cba there is not economy nor sea batles, nor advanced siege units. and for example vikings that are the kings of sea/economy becomes a joke in cba
u oblivious have not idea of what balance is. balance = pros and and cons makes it equal. not that everything is exactly equal
the game itself is pretty balanced playing non-scenarios, but in cba there is not economy nor sea batles, nor advanced siege units. and for example vikings that are the kings of sea/economy becomes a joke in cba
random is even unfair in rm but as your this big time pro in balance then i'm sure you knew this already
u oblivious have not idea of what balance is. balance = pros and and cons makes it equal. not that everything is exactly equal
the game itself is pretty balanced playing non-scenarios, but in cba there is not economy nor sea batles, nor advanced siege units. and for example vikings that are the kings of sea/economy becomes a joke in cba
Obvious or oblivious? Either way that made no sense.
In your implications, you don't consider Mirror Civilizations to be balanced. You consider Goths beating archers and losing to UU Melee as a better form of balance with your pros and cons theory. I'm going to have to disagree with you entirely. I think the word you're looking for is a tradeoff, or a compromise if you will. I can see how you get both mixed up, but you're far from being correct.
As it is right now, they are by far the most overpowered civ in CBA. The only thing that can stop them is teutons and MAYBE a well played mongol/byz.
I think they should start as non-elite. They would still destroy everything, just not as overpowered as they are currently.
Reasons for/against?
goth rapes archers, get raped by melee = balanced
sara rapes everything but teutons = not balanced
goth rapes archers, get raped by melee = balanced
sara rapes everything but teutons = not balanced
Exactly. Mamelukes are supposed to be weak vs archers/infantry. But they own all of them except teutons.
Goths do own archers. But they get eaten by infantry/cavalry.
Teutons get owned by archers. But they eat infantry.
goth rapes archers, get raped by melee = balanced
sara rapes everything but teutons = not balanced
You're quite dense. I made a point that everything about CBA is unbalanced. I also said people enjoy CBA because it's broken. That would also imply imbalance.
edit; Yes, balance would be making everything equal i.e. Mirror Civ wars.
edit; Yes, balance would be making everything equal i.e. Mirror Civ wars.
u obviously have not idea of what balance is. balance = pros and and cons makes it equal. not that everything is exactly equal
the game itself is pretty balanced playing non-scenarios, but in cba there is not economy nor sea batles, nor advanced siege units. and for example vikings that are the kings of sea/economy becomes a joke in cba
the game itself is pretty balanced playing non-scenarios, but in cba there is not economy nor sea batles, nor advanced siege units. and for example vikings that are the kings of sea/economy becomes a joke in cba
random is even unfair in rm but as your this big time pro in balance then i'm sure you knew this already
the game itself is pretty balanced playing non-scenarios, but in cba there is not economy nor sea batles, nor advanced siege units. and for example vikings that are the kings of sea/economy becomes a joke in cba
Obvious or oblivious? Either way that made no sense.
In your implications, you don't consider Mirror Civilizations to be balanced. You consider Goths beating archers and losing to UU Melee as a better form of balance with your pros and cons theory. I'm going to have to disagree with you entirely. I think the word you're looking for is a tradeoff, or a compromise if you will. I can see how you get both mixed up, but you're far from being correct.
call it whatever you want, the purpose of this thread is to make mamelukes equally in pros than cons
got it?