| 1 |
I love raider spam, and the fact that it's viable for most of the game in 1v1s. Not that I'm particularly good at it, but it sets up a nice dichotomy between raider play and other military strategies. In fact, the interactions between differing military, economic, and strategic "philosophies" is the most interesting part of ZK to me.
|
1 |
I love raider spam, and the fact that it's viable for most of the game in 1v1s. Not that I'm particularly good at it, but it sets up a nice dichotomy between raider play and other military strategies. In fact, the interactions between differing military, economic, and strategic "philosophies" is the most interesting part of ZK to me.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Raider-heavy
games
also
feel
much
more
kinetic
than
games
focusing
on
slower
units.
There's
a
tangible
sense
of
movement,
almost
like
grappling.
You
get
a
bit
of
that
in
composite
forces,
but
it's
more
like
sumo
wrestling.
So
the
element
of
speed
adds
to
the
thrill
of
game
for
players
as
well
as
spectators.
Raider-heavy
play
also
looks
and
feels
intuitively
more
skillful
to
execute
(
whether
that's
true
is
another
discussion)
.
|
3 |
Raider-heavy
games
feel
much
more
kinetic
than
games
focusing
on
slower
units.
There's
a
tangible
sense
of
movement,
almost
like
grappling.
You
get
a
bit
of
that
in
composite
forces,
but
it's
more
like
sumo
wrestling.
So
the
element
of
speed
adds
to
the
thrill
of
game
for
players
as
well
as
spectators.
Raider-heavy
play
also
looks
and
feels
intuitively
more
skillful
to
execute
(
whether
that's
true
is
another
discussion)
.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Strategically, it comes with all the caveats you mentioned of course. I guess that's sort of the gambit. But I love the role it plays in the philosophical ecosystem of ZK.
|
5 |
Strategically, it comes with all the caveats you mentioned of course. I guess that's sort of the gambit. But I love the role it plays in the philosophical ecosystem of ZK.
|
Raider spam?