No nats map?

Het zou wel eens leuk zijn om maps te hebben zonder natives … teveel wedstrijden worden beslist door dit ?


Maps without natives = Boring map.


arctic territories, patagonia, arabia are in various queues iirc

omdat je niet kan winnen zonder ?

There are many variables with natives in a game:

The type of native.
The location.
The cards or construction order.
The enemy’s strategy.
Natives from the metropolis or from the native embassy without the need for a native TP.

In what situation do you say they are decisive?

I think also upper Himalaya.

Actually, I am someone who uses them more frequently than average, because there are many people who underestimate them, but it is not a ‘lamer’ strategy as you are trying to imply.

wie spreekt hier over ‘lamer’ strategie? Er worden gewoon teveel wedstrijden gewonnen door natives en veel mensen spelen niet graag met ze … daarom word het misschien eens tijd voor mappen zonder natives. En als u dat saai vind is u probleem een nutteloze reactie :wink:

i have absolutely no idea what is being said here or why

He wants maps without natives, because according to him they are decisive when it comes to winning or losing.

There are already maps without natives in the game, but I think he wants more of the same type.

I think upper Himalaya has 2 nat TPs in the middle instead of the trade line with 2 native TPS between them and the back of the map

how can a statement which is so full of clarity only increase my confusion. Outside of treaty and 50 minute team games, how much do you have to drag out a game to where natives become a factor at all in winning or losing

That’s what I would like him to explain.

There are 4 maps without natives and they are Arabia, Arctic Territories, Kamchatka and Patagonia.

Some people just cant stand natives because it changes how games are played when someone uses them and they don’t want to play differently then usual.

I personally love natives because it allows for larger armies and its fun to change things up.