Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN

[VedalkenBear]

Again.

All the arguing is beside the point. Bob has absolutely no basis for his argument. Let me explain.

1) His premise is flawed. He states that 'Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN' (thread subject line). This is logically equivalent to stating that these nations CANNOT win. He cites the MP win thread as his proof. Statistically, that thread does not prove his point. Therefore, his statement has no support.

2) He then explains why he believes that his unsupported premise is correct. Their PD is bad. Every single response to this point accepts, implicitly, statement 1), above. In other words, you are arguing implicitly accepting that they cannot win. This is a classic (if ridiculous) rhetorical technique. Don't follow it. Someone must prove premises before they are allowed to use them as the basis for other arguments.

3) He does not offer a solution! He is simply describing a rather ridiculous reason for a nonexistant problem. He is complaining, purely and simply. At least NTJedi suggests a solution to this (though again, he is implicitly accepting 1) and most likely 2) above, which is incorrect). Offer some sort of solution if you are going to complain.

Bob, answer these points, or shut. the. hell. up. Even IW people have pointed out to you this very issue, which means the designers of the game _are not going to listen to you until you respond to this_. To the point, you are trolling. This is against forum policy, and you should expect a warning and/or banning for it.

[Humakty]

I find them an under average nation, but they are not the only ones which could use a power up, and I can't see the point of such an argument.
Are they the ONLY nation that haven't won in MP ?

[Sombre]

Humakty said:
Are they the ONLY nation that haven't won in MP ?

Not even close.

[Humakty]

So here we have our Don Quichotte, hopelessly charging windmills...

[llamabeast]

Lord_Bob, I will play you one-on-one, Bandar Log against Ulm if you want. Would be fun. Are you up for it?

[Reverend Zombie]

Evilhomer said:
In this instance I do agree with bob, such a test would prove almost nothing.

The test, should the monkeys win, will be evidence that the argument in the title of this thread is wrong.

The game settings can be set up to allow the two reasonable expansion before contact. This will emulate the following MP situation:

initial expansion complete, NAPs with most neighbors, war with one.

This is the most favorable condition for going to war with someone else, apart form going to war with an ally, of course. And neither player will have to worry about being betrayed or having their NAPs cancelled.

[Lord_Bob]

I just checked MA Ulm's PD. Looks like Mr. Nerf Boy has been at it again. I get 1/2 Infrantry of Ulm per point and 1/2 Crossbowman per point. 10 WHOLE GOLD per point. Yes, that's 10 GOLD of unit. 10 WHOLE GOLD. OH. MY. GOD. SO POWERFULL. A useless arbalest and an Infrantry of Ulm who will pass out rapidly. It is not QUITE as pathetic as monkey PD, but it is quite pathetic. Oh, I also only get one TEN GOLD unit past 20.

And no, the fact that Ulm, which has the weakest results of the entire game also has fairly nerfed PD doesn't prove me wrong. I would like to say that MA Ulm PD is BARELY adequate. BARELY. MARGINALLY. But combined with the other failing of MA Ulm, it is not surprising at all that they never win. How is MA Ulm going to deal with raiding?

[llamabeast]

Alright. How about Man vs Bandar Log. Would you play that?

[Shovah32]

I should be able to play against you in the next few hours if you're up for it.
Pick your nation and I'll play with whatever monkey nation you want.
I'm guessing standard settings? What map?

Also note that I have almost no monkey experience.

[Sombre]

This guy is hilarious. Say something about Abysia's old age problems!