| 1 |
I've edited the first post for clarity.
|
1 |
I've edited the first post for clarity.
|
|
|
2 |
\n
|
|
|
3 |
About the difference in situations since mid game to the end, there was some investment in economy on my side, which was spread out away from the contact area, krow raids north and south which didn't go very well for us but still did some damage and inhibited their economy growth....and we still had the half built detri, it doesn't disappear and they'd have to spend time mowing down 50k HP. They could kill the nuke launcher, but i got to fire the nuke just before the end. I also had a half-built bertha on the hill.
|
|
|
4 |
\n
|
|
|
5 |
\n
|
|
|
6 |
Basically you're arguing "If a team couldn't win when they were ahead, they won't win when they're behind (or just not ahead...)". A simple counter-argument is to ask how did such team get "ahead" in the first place? There's back and forth in battles, people make plenty of mistakes and suboptimal decisions on both sides, and there's investments that come at a cost but pay off later.
|
|
|
7 |
\n
|
|
|
8 |
The exact same people along the same battle can play to very different outcomes by just randomly making choices (adjusting unit composition or not, what to build, where/when to attack, etc.)
|
|
|
9 |
\n
|
|
|
10 |
\n
|
|
|
11 |
\n
|
|
|
12 |
\n
|
B1587720 9 on Tabula-v6.1 (Multiplayer)