Well well well.
There seems to be a hatered towards any sort of use of any square inch of water on any given map. While I can see why this might be the case on complete water maps such as carribean and amenzonia, I have been yelled are for the use of a simple water boom with shooners as being "cheap" and "supid"
Just now, I had a team game on yuctan and I had a fair water boom going with 55 fishing ships and 20 villys going while my partner was doing a native rush as the french. This was in the 2nd to 3rd age time. The nature of my water deck basicly has me getting to the 2nd age and giving up some of my military for 4 docks pumping out FS at a good rate. Naturaly, they figured it out after a while and attacked in the late 2nd age with a good force, and wiped out my TC and Baxs as well as 10 or so villies. That ened up going fine after my teammate came over, and I set up a new TC with a surplus of wood and went 3rd age. When I got there, I figured that I would hop to the 4th with my shipments and extra food and gold from the boom, I saved my cards and got 2 moters and the factories as soon as I got there. I took out a few buildings and started to attack on land with my partner towards their FB and it failed but let me get to the 5th, now I had Imp Redcoats with rockets while they were in the 3rd age still from their constant preasure on land.
In the end they called useing the fishing boats "lame" and that they couldn't have done anything, on the contrary, 2 or 3 warships would have wiped out my 2 carvals that were standing by on a whale. This would have killed my boom.
I ask you this, this was a random map game with master sarges. Would this be called laming for useing water? Or is it totaly fine since no one lagged, and my land was very weak as a result and they could have prevented it quite easily.
I find it disapointing that the use of water is being called lame and that people only like land maps like texas and GP.
As a note, I play TWC and VAL useing brits and sioux.
There seems to be a hatered towards any sort of use of any square inch of water on any given map. While I can see why this might be the case on complete water maps such as carribean and amenzonia, I have been yelled are for the use of a simple water boom with shooners as being "cheap" and "supid"
Just now, I had a team game on yuctan and I had a fair water boom going with 55 fishing ships and 20 villys going while my partner was doing a native rush as the french. This was in the 2nd to 3rd age time. The nature of my water deck basicly has me getting to the 2nd age and giving up some of my military for 4 docks pumping out FS at a good rate. Naturaly, they figured it out after a while and attacked in the late 2nd age with a good force, and wiped out my TC and Baxs as well as 10 or so villies. That ened up going fine after my teammate came over, and I set up a new TC with a surplus of wood and went 3rd age. When I got there, I figured that I would hop to the 4th with my shipments and extra food and gold from the boom, I saved my cards and got 2 moters and the factories as soon as I got there. I took out a few buildings and started to attack on land with my partner towards their FB and it failed but let me get to the 5th, now I had Imp Redcoats with rockets while they were in the 3rd age still from their constant preasure on land.
In the end they called useing the fishing boats "lame" and that they couldn't have done anything, on the contrary, 2 or 3 warships would have wiped out my 2 carvals that were standing by on a whale. This would have killed my boom.
I ask you this, this was a random map game with master sarges. Would this be called laming for useing water? Or is it totaly fine since no one lagged, and my land was very weak as a result and they could have prevented it quite easily.
I find it disapointing that the use of water is being called lame and that people only like land maps like texas and GP.
As a note, I play TWC and VAL useing brits and sioux.