Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Post edit history

B182919 2 on Intersection_v3 (Multiplayer)

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
7/16/2013 2:55:36 PMEErankAdminAnarchid before revert after revert
7/16/2013 2:55:14 PMEErankAdminAnarchid before revert after revert
Before After
1 [quote]Vaultlaws date back to times when they could actually kill things on there own[/quote] 1 [quote]Vaultlaws date back to times when they could actually kill things on there own[/quote]
2 Yes, but even now a vaultlaw would be an impenetrable fortification. I mean, you can't kill it and you can't pass it without taking losses, even if it's weaker. You can't tear it down with workers, because it still has enough damage to kill them if they are exposed. And if you send things like levelers, well, not like you're guaranteed any success anyway. 2 Yes, but even now a vaultlaw would be an impenetrable fortification. I mean, you can't kill it and you can't pass it without taking losses, even if it's weaker. You can't tear it down with workers, because it still has enough damage to kill them if they are exposed. And if you send things like levelers, well, not like you're guaranteed any success anyway.
3 \n 3 \n
4 I don't think i ever tried attacking old vaultlaws directly in old days, the primary function was as deterrent for quite a while (until bombers or impalers could be provisioned) 4 I don't think i ever tried attacking old vaultlaws directly in old days, the primary function was as deterrent for quite a while (until bombers or impalers could be provisioned)
5 \n 5 \n
6 [quote] IMHO the worst thing i did was not countering rouge spam with something more appropriate. [/quote] 6 [quote] IMHO the worst thing i did was not countering rouge spam with something more appropriate. [/quote]
7 Ah, i see @Fred is at his old trick again, too. 7 Ah, i see @[GBC]Fred is at his old trick again, too.