 |
| |
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:13
|
|
An explanation about your puzzlement. Yes, conquest is the point, but it doesn't work in the usual way. I advise that often when you conquer a city, rather than try to hold it, immediately abandon it. Then, later, after the partisan effect has played itself out, conquer it again and it will be easier to hold the second time around. Sometimes you may just want to pillage and not conquer and hold, to soften up your enemy, paving the way for easier victories in the future with all the money you get from the pillaging.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Allard HS
|
|
perhaps because of this, perhaps not, but this scenario is one of my personal all-time favorites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kull
|
|
El Paso, TX USA
Mar 1999
time: 22:13
|
|
It's been a long time since I played "Vikings", but it really is an excellent scenario. I probably should have used the "pillage and run" strategy, but those old "conquer-the world" habits die hard!
In addition to the invaluable (and unbuildable) King units, the Vikings DO have one decent defense unit: The Merchant. Merchants have a Defense of 2 and Hit Point of 2, and they really can solidify a perimeter, especially when fortified on hills or mountains. (I can almost see Harlan shaking his head!) Although I never did finish the game, by 979 AD the Vikings controlled 51 cities including all of Scandinavia, England, and Ireland, most of Russia, and sizeable chunks of France, Germany, and Central Europe.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2000 16:01
|