Why giving the land to them? because if they play to disrupt us, instead of be optimal in used space for the two of us, we will get less land, and need to rush to their 'border' with our settlers, instead of choosing the best sites first.
BTW, What I said is what I would say to Vox, it's not that I completely believe that. The best expansion we will get is in a peaceful setting, certainly one where the borders are fixed. In all other cases, we will lose our part of the Spinebreaker mountains (most probably the city to the North of our capital), and this puts us in a tactical disadvantage. But Vox doesn't need to know this...
GL: we need to vote on this, but can only do so after we know more about the situation. I like the idea (obviously, it's the second time I propose it), but I certainly know of the risks involved. I think we can minimise those by playing superbly, and this kind of 'gamble' can put us over the top, instead of keeping us at the mid-range of teams.
DeepO
BTW, What I said is what I would say to Vox, it's not that I completely believe that. The best expansion we will get is in a peaceful setting, certainly one where the borders are fixed. In all other cases, we will lose our part of the Spinebreaker mountains (most probably the city to the North of our capital), and this puts us in a tactical disadvantage. But Vox doesn't need to know this...
GL: we need to vote on this, but can only do so after we know more about the situation. I like the idea (obviously, it's the second time I propose it), but I certainly know of the risks involved. I think we can minimise those by playing superbly, and this kind of 'gamble' can put us over the top, instead of keeping us at the mid-range of teams.
DeepO
Comment