PlanetsCentral

Well, first of all, Russians have never been afraid of anyone and are not afraid. Secondly, the 1-1 game breaks the whole logic of Tim 's game, and thirdly, and most importantly, which scenario. The current scenarios show the economy, not military merit. you can stupidly pump up the economy without getting into a fight and win , I suggest a more interesting scenario - king of the mountain One of the admirals is the king of the mountain. he is in the center, he initially has a good economy and a fleet of all the necessary ships. The others, without the union, are trying to take away his planets. whoever takes the most wins. The map is divided by the number of races. at 11 = 10 rays

Well, Mr. I'm-not-afraid-of-anybody: Why does none of you guys respond to my proposal before I trigger you like this?

If you read the 1on1 game scenario closely you will realize that there is no advantage for anyone. Both players will have to take control over the race they chose and the race their opponent chose. Thus Tim's idea of stone-scissors-paper-lizard-spock does not apply at all.

I'm sure that in a 1on1 nobody is able to sit on his economy and wins without fighting. Just because there is no other player that your opponent may focus on first.

And if you are so concerned about this issue I'm sure there is a way to find a scoring that will meet everybody's requirements.

So thank you for your counter proposal but it seems to me it's just going to be another 5-10 against all the others again. Whatever you say so far just confirms to me that none of you guys is willing to accept the challenge of fighting 1on1 games... which would show who is the true warrior and who on the other hand is just the one hiding behind an alliance maybe winning games only because he's taking advantage of his allies abilities...

Cheers,
Mike