Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN

Lord_Bob · #1 November 8th, 2007, 10:59 PM

Oh, and I'll play you to, EvilHomer. LA Patala versus LA T'ien Ch'i in order to painfully and dramatically demonstrate the difference. But really, what honor is there in winning a fight I cannot lose?

But then again, what fun is there in playing a game I can lose?

Hopefully, this will stop the trash talk.

Sombre · #2 November 8th, 2007, 11:08 PM

In my opinion LA Tienchi have a clear advantage vs Patala, but it isn't a matter of PD. It's a matter of Patala's troops being pretty sucky, especially vs massed composite bows and of Patala basically needing to reach the late game to do well, something that's very hard in a duel. Then again my impression of you is that you massively overestimate the importance of PD and probably aren't much good in MP, so who knows?

Valandil · #3 November 9th, 2007, 01:04 AM

This is true. Patala is a late game clam horder, not a eary rusher. If they played on a 1200 province map...

Evilhomer · #4 November 9th, 2007, 05:52 AM

wow, I have made 0 posts claiming that LA patala is better than LA Tien chi. You have however made several post about how easy you can win with MA Ulm vs MA Bandar log. Now you seem to want to avoid that match up, funny.

llamabeast · #5 November 9th, 2007, 07:29 AM

Yeah, come on Lord_Bob - if you have any conviction at all in your original claims you HAVE to play MA Ulm vs Bandar Log - and of course it will be impossible for you to lose, so you may as well.

Edratman · #6 November 9th, 2007, 08:24 AM

This whole thread is based on PD. Last I checked, it was still legal and acceptablee to bolster PD with recruitable troops.

lch · #7 November 9th, 2007, 09:06 AM

Exactly, this thread was about difference in PD strengths, and not about difference in the national recruitable units. "Can never win" was sort of an universal statement, however. It never was "can lose in certain setups". That's obvious.

Lord_Bob · #8 November 9th, 2007, 10:38 AM

Oh I can lose MA Ulm versus MA Bandar Log. Granted, MA Ulm has very poor PD, specializing in Arbalests who will kill the rest of your own soldiers for the enemey, so that has nothing to do with my claims, but, I really don't think I will lose.

I said I was ready yesterday, and I am ready today. Anytime after I make this post for the next 10 hours. I can also do from the time I make this post now, till whenever tommorrow.

It's nice that the frothing has settled down when I throw out LA T'ien Ch'i versus LA Patala. Did you know that LA T'ien Ch'i gets 2 composite bow shooters per point of PD? One of which is light calvarly! After 20, they also get a Heavy Calvary(which also has a composite bow!)! Maybe that should be switched to an Ancestor Vessel, like Mictlan has Jaguars, in order to achieve "balance". Heh, heh.

Oh, and I am perfectly aware that I am messing up my diplomacy by doing this. I however, think that the game shouldn't be broken by a trivial sub-feature that can be corrected with no programming effort at all. You apparently think it should.

Folket · #9 November 9th, 2007, 10:48 AM

I wonder if Lord_Bob only is here to make people upset, say strange stuff and generally mess with everyone, given that he recently made a post accusing people of cheating as he had a capital just three moves away.

Evilhomer · #10 November 9th, 2007, 10:49 AM

The reason I fear LA Patala vs LA Tien chi has nothing to do with pd. Basically LA Tien chi has good bless troops and access to astral magic (LA Patala is very weak against astral magic). I do honestly belive the match up is not at all decided since Patala has some good tactics up their sleave (elephants, much better battle magic), but LA TC has a slight advantage.

I could probably play later on today, in maybe 5-6 hours from now. Send a pm and we can arrange details.