It's relatively easy to get angels on first week on that map (even if it's open) but it's not a good way of playing (specially if there are 3 human opponents). The trading post will allow the necessary missing ressources. You just have to scare away the mines defenders (they can possibly join too), rush to the center with main hero, grab all possible ressources, fight the dwarven outpost (if necessary or possible) etc,...
It's still very risky because if you are not lucky you can lack a hundred gold pieces and forced to build a citadel while you could have had the level 6 dwellings built. You also will be broken at the beginning of second week and it will be difficult to buy the angels and build the rest of the buildings in second week.
The town hall is necessary first day (and hire 3 heroes) or mage guild day 1 and town hall day 2. The rest is forced with one day where you are not forced to build anything if you think you will lack of ressources.
If you ask angels + castle then it's almost impossible without joiners (chance or not).
H3: Fav Lvl2 critter.
First of all, no, I don't have the disk. Second, I deleted all the original maps, they are crap. Third, even if I did have the disk, do you think I would look it up and/or reinstall heroes 3 just to test your stupid map. PAcifist summarized it very well. You may take it as my reply too.Banedon wrote:The map comes with Heroes 3. If you have the disk, then surely you should have the map?
And you think I would strain my eyes to read your stupid posts?!Third, even if I did have the disk, do you think I would look it up and/or reinstall heroes 3 just to test your stupid map.
If you do not show any respect to me I will also not show any to you. As of now all I see is you trying to fight to prove you are correct when you are most certainly wrong. You can't even claim to be correct because you dodge the first challenge to prove your correctness. You know the time you said you are almost never wrong? Well, you'll just have to eat your words...and this is not the only time you're wrong. I beat you fair and square in another argument once, only I did not press the point. I didn't exploit any linguisitc differences or anything - I simply made use of my better knowledge of Heroes 4. Yes. Thank you.
Pacifist - Good human players would deny you the Trading Post. You won't be able to exploit it without getting attacked (or risk getting attacked).
First, you have never beaten me in any argument. And here, never means never. Not just almost.
Second, I can't test a map I don't own. But since Pacifist have already done that, I do not think it's needed. Still if you insist, I can do it myself as soon as you send me that map.
Third, you tend to act like this: all you do is riding on words and go out of your way just to prove you are right somewhere... which you, with common sense, aren't even close to.
This last argument is a very good example.
Under most circumstances, building angel week 1, on 130% is easy, on 160 often possible and on 200% it is usually doable by wthe end of week 2 along with capitol.
Now you come up with more and more extreme example claaiming that "you are not right because...", "you have to prove that you can do it here and here". It's not valid, because
1) I don't have to prove things like this. You have to take my word. If you don't take my word, then sorry...
2) I told you several times that I don't want to play heroes 3 at all, I hate to. I certainly don't have to play it for hours just to prove something evident.
3) The whole example is irrelevant. Pacifist told you why. And if I come back with a day 7 save with one angel on my main, you will certainly find something else to prove. Or simple not believing me. You also called Pacifist a liar here btw...
Oh, and you will find some even more example that is even more irrelevant.
4) It does not matter anyways, because it is evident that there exists at least one map where you cannot build angels on 130%. I have proven that to you myself, given several examples how that is possible. One is present on my computer, it's name is "NowYourHappy", it consists of two towns without a fort, all resources taken on day 1 by a script. The towns are 2 days walk from each other. Both player starts with 1 hero.
If you care, I can send it to you, it's a very cool map.
But is this relevant? No? Wait, why?
And you having a better knowledge of heroes4 ? No, come on, not that again....
You're making fun of yourself. ROFLMAO
I agree that now/i] you know something about heroes 4, but you certainly sucked back then. And I am still 100% sure that I am better than you even blindfolded... And no, I won't prove it, first I am too bored to play h4 second you refused all my challenges so I won't accept to play you.
Second, I can't test a map I don't own. But since Pacifist have already done that, I do not think it's needed. Still if you insist, I can do it myself as soon as you send me that map.
Third, you tend to act like this: all you do is riding on words and go out of your way just to prove you are right somewhere... which you, with common sense, aren't even close to.
This last argument is a very good example.
Under most circumstances, building angel week 1, on 130% is easy, on 160 often possible and on 200% it is usually doable by wthe end of week 2 along with capitol.
Now you come up with more and more extreme example claaiming that "you are not right because...", "you have to prove that you can do it here and here". It's not valid, because
1) I don't have to prove things like this. You have to take my word. If you don't take my word, then sorry...
2) I told you several times that I don't want to play heroes 3 at all, I hate to. I certainly don't have to play it for hours just to prove something evident.
3) The whole example is irrelevant. Pacifist told you why. And if I come back with a day 7 save with one angel on my main, you will certainly find something else to prove. Or simple not believing me. You also called Pacifist a liar here btw...
Oh, and you will find some even more example that is even more irrelevant.
4) It does not matter anyways, because it is evident that there exists at least one map where you cannot build angels on 130%. I have proven that to you myself, given several examples how that is possible. One is present on my computer, it's name is "NowYourHappy", it consists of two towns without a fort, all resources taken on day 1 by a script. The towns are 2 days walk from each other. Both player starts with 1 hero.
If you care, I can send it to you, it's a very cool map.
But is this relevant? No? Wait, why?
And you having a better knowledge of heroes4 ? No, come on, not that again....
You're making fun of yourself. ROFLMAO
I agree that now/i] you know something about heroes 4, but you certainly sucked back then. And I am still 100% sure that I am better than you even blindfolded... And no, I won't prove it, first I am too bored to play h4 second you refused all my challenges so I won't accept to play you.
Last edited by csarmi on 27 Mar 2006, 12:41, edited 1 time in total.
That would be mines but no lose ressources and strong guards (no 7)?csarmi wrote:pls show me just one person who likes map types 6-8.
Nucleon does.
If He played the same kind of map time and time again, not changing a iota of His building/fighting plan, He would probably find the game as boring and predictible as you do sometimes.
(Translated from Silent Speak)
Sorry, but I was talking about one person. Someone, who does not even have the respect/courage to talk in 1st person certainly does not qualify.
As soon as you startr talking in a normal manner and use an accpetable attitude (for example reading other's posts not just denying, denying, denying everything sensible), I will start caring about your opinion and then I will count that.
As soon as you startr talking in a normal manner and use an accpetable attitude (for example reading other's posts not just denying, denying, denying everything sensible), I will start caring about your opinion and then I will count that.
csarmi wrote:Sorry, but I was talking about one person. Someone, who does not even have the respect/courage to talk in 1st person certainly does not qualify.
As soon as you startr talking in a normal manner and use an accpetable attitude (for example reading other's posts not just denying, denying, denying everything sensible), I will start caring about your opinion and then I will count that.
Your facade is crumbling.
So according to you, must one have a certain hair color, demeanor or some other traits to be considered "a person"? How typical of you.
Nucleon will continue to do as He pleases; learn to live with it.
(Translated from Silent Speak)
-
Gaidal Cain
- Round Table Hero
- Posts: 6972
- Joined: 26 Nov 2005
- Location: Solna
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests