AEnima wrote:
1.) How can you confuse complaining with throwing an idea out for discussion? You've had nothing constructive to say in this topic, go away.
Neither have you, go away? No you can stay, just stop being such an idiot really.
[edit] to make it clear for people reading it: "Neither have you, go away?" is pointed at him since he does it himself. [ end of edit ] hopefully this clears up things
AEnima wrote:
2.) Cataphracts do not suck in Dark, at all, they rape, go to scenario editor on aoc and do some tests.
as you're being a grammar nazi to kazter saying he's using the word "then" wrong, I'm going to be a grammar nazi aswell and tell you use your "," wrong.
And Cataphracts do not suck in dark age, but if you take a persian player vs a cataphract player (wing vs wing) let's say those undefined players are 1v1ing. The persian player would have an advantage. Since persians will go assyrans (or how is it spelled mr grammar?) and have cav range ups, and the cata player either goes franks or austria therefore having no cav range ups.
Since both uses a stable the persian player is in advantage again since he won't have to build a different building to counter his enemy, the other player does have too therefore using 2 different units which will cost him more resources (talking about upgrades etc.).
Also if you're next reply is going to be "HERPADERPALERP HE CUD MAKE SUM BRONZE KNIGHTZORZ BRO". I'd say: So can the persian player ? Making it perses + knight vs cata + knight = counter+counter vs weak + equal. (If you get what I'm saying, if not let your imagination do it for you.)