Looking for two

Kax wrote:

But isn't this difficulty precisely why they call it a handicap match? There's nothing inherent to the 2x3 format that obligates the three to play in a way that maximizes the 2's chance of winning. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the 3-side usually wins these matches as a result of this indefensible tactic. My experience has been the opposite.

I should have said an almost indefensible tactic. And yes, that's why it's called a handicap match. But most of the time when you play with average skilled players, it's pretty balanced out. Once everyone gets set up, a deforesting run or mining up a quad can swing things one way or the other. However, I do find that trapping an LGM is almost certain loss death for the handicap side if done properly.

pmg wrote:

i think if u were not ment to do it then u cant...if u shoot a tree and it dies...then yes u can do that. if mines come out of your tanks ass and explode then yes...u can do that. bolo is not barney's play pen. if your playing to win then u do what u can and everything in your power to win. if this means to use mines or killing trees then so be it. besides i thought this was a matchup thread. :twisted:

You weren't meant to hold games in the case of bugs, yet we do.
You weren't meant to wait before the go, yet we do.
You weren't meant not to disally before the end of the game, yet we stay allied.
You were meant to betray your ally, yet we don't in pw games.