gg, 1800 vs 1700. 1700 played great. shows the power of ulsarks in the end, but their weakness to arrows in the beginning. my army was almost pure ulfsark and many big battles took place. i even lost the water:(
This game went back and forth WAY too long. The Norse player needed to build siege units to take down the Greek player's defenses with. He failed to do that in the third age (I quit during this time, so I don't know if he did so later) when the Greek player did do so. Notice how effective that was?
Also, why did the Norse player have myriads of wood cutters? I can't for the life of me understand that in light of the fact after his fishing fleet was lost. There wasn't an adjustment made early in the game. He really should have thrown a third to half of his wood cutters on food, since he was low on that.
The other thing that he might have been able to pull off in order to help his food situation would be a build 'hidden' fishing bases, fishing just off the coast. It is doubtful whether or not this would have remained hidden.
Posted on 05/04/03 @ 05:36 PM
There is no way the norse player was 1800, all he seemed to do was build ulf after ulf, never built any rams, and should have won way way earlier
Posted on 05/04/03 @ 08:08 PM
(Insert Rating analysis here)
Additional Comments: What the hell im this game a 4, cuz it shows that games are won on land and not water. Nice job NrS you took the battle where It could be won. Coke