POLL: Nation Preferences

Shovah32 · #1 September 26th, 2007, 07:41 PM

Thunderstrike? High Seraphs are pretty damn dangerous.

Atreidi · #2 September 26th, 2007, 08:59 PM

Whats so good abour Early Era Lanka?

Meglobob · #3 September 26th, 2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Atreidi said:
Whats so good abour Early Era Lanka?

Everything.

As a rule you can't go wrong with demonic monkies.

Atreidi · #4 September 26th, 2007, 09:24 PM

K · #5 September 27th, 2007, 12:33 AM

People seem to think that Lanka is some kind of super nation, even though they've only ever won one Multiplay game, and that was a Newbie game. Heck, in just about every other MP game I've played they don't even make it to the midgame.

sum1lost · #6 September 27th, 2007, 12:54 AM

Lanka has the best late-game of any nation, IMO, and should have a very powerful early game, if played well. Their middle game isn't terrible, especially if played carefully.

K · #7 September 27th, 2007, 01:07 AM

Quote:

sum1lost said:
Lanka has the best late-game of any nation, IMO, and should have a very powerful early game, if played well. Their middle game isn't terrible, especially if played carefully.

Heh. The Multiplay scores don't agree.

Sure, the "Victorious Nations/Hall of Fame" scores aren't a truly representative sample, but I've never even heard of someone winning a MP game with Lanka (other than me in a single Newbie game).

sum1lost · #8 September 27th, 2007, 01:33 AM

The multiplayer scores aren't a very good sample, either. Especially since Lanka hasn't been around as many of the other nations.

One thing about this game is that nations seen as strong get ganged up on, so their performance is hurt. But seen equally, lanka has a number of strengths over its opponents.

K · #9 September 27th, 2007, 02:03 AM

Quote:

sum1lost said:
The multiplayer scores aren't a very good sample, either. Especially since Lanka hasn't been around as many of the other nations.

One thing about this game is that nations seen as strong get ganged up on, so their performance is hurt. But seen equally, lanka has a number of strengths over its opponents.

Is it their poor late-game magic, small numbers of expensive troops that die easily to magic, or their complete and utter dependence on province-destroying Blood Magic? Or is it that a person with a modest Pretender and decent research can summon better mages than they can ever make?

They have a great early game, but they just don't compete against a nation that has even a little research under their belt in either summoning or battle magic.

As someone who has played them a lot in both MP and
SP, I can vouch for that. Forgive me if this is rude, but most people who think Lanka is great are armchair quarterbacks who have played a game or two in SP on small maps and never had to deal with the problems of playing Lanka's late game against more than four players (human or otherwise).

I might be missing some killer late-game app, but for my money most EA nations are better than Lanka past turn 30.

Gandalf Parker · #10 September 27th, 2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

K said:
People seem to think that Lanka is some kind of super nation, even though they've only ever won one Multiplay game, and that was a Newbie game. Heck, in just about every other MP game I've played they don't even make it to the midgame.

I didnt bother mentioning it this time to avoid the usual slam but....
Again, the poll says nothing about the type of game. The questions are such as "What Early Era Nation do you play with the most and why?". With more SPers than MPers in general, you cant take for granted that the choice was made for trying to win a multiplayer game. The poll-creator might have made it that way but we cant be sure people answered that way.

Maverni is a great theme. And Lanka is fun to play.

Just a possibility.
Gandalf Parker