Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

Please name the nation with a weaker PD.

That is my one and only request of you.

Name the nation with a weaker PD.


I am willing to run a simulation of that nations PD against 17 Armoured Indie Archers and a Commander at 15 PD. I will then run Ape PD against 17 Indie Armoured Archers and a Commander at 25 PD. Guess which one will win? Guess which one might win if it is very, very lucky?

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

I'm not on anyones side, but I'd like to see it compared against Machaka's PD of 15.

I do believe an upgrade option should exist for province defence(with upkeep based on distance from capital) which would add another layer of depth to the game.

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

Fine, the monkeys have the weakest PD. I never disputed that.
(Don't know for sure, but I'll stipulate it for the sake of argument. It's bad, at least.)

That doesn't mean they're the weakest nations.

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

I propose that Lord Bob use MA ulm against the monkey equivalent. Ulm has some pretty nice pd, it shouldn't be a problem.

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

I just want to give Lord Bob a hug because he's having a bad day.

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

Yes, the Machaka Militia also have no armour and no shield on their base unit. So they to should completely fail the 17 Archer Challenge. They need to be upgraded as well.

Importantly, everyone else also agrees that Machaka is a "troubled" nation. Further proof of my statements.

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

Bob. As others have pointed out the thread in the MP forum doesn't provide the sort of evidence you are ascribing to it. There aren't enough games counted in it to even award 1 victory to each specific nation. So even if all nations had been played by equally skilled players and were exactly balanced there would still be a pretty good chance that any specific nation would have ended up without any wins.

Not that Patala et all might not have very weak PD, or even be weak nations. But in no way do you have support for the claim that they can never win in MP games.

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

Early expansion is one of the most important things in MP.

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

Ulm is considered one of the weakest (if not THE weakest) nation in the middle age (Ulm is going to have a hard time against bandar log in my opinion). Yet it has a very decent pd. Can you understand that pd is not the full picture and that you really need to look at the whole nation ?

Re: Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN
 

Sure. I'll take MA Ulm versus Bandar Log One VS. One.

Let's do that.

Do I have to win in 20 turns? Are we putting some sort of time limit on it to make it sporting?

Do you even know what you just said?

We'll be in mortal combat a long time before the powerfull combat magic gets out. And my arrow immune soldiers will run over Bandar easily.