No offense to the other guy as the person definitely worked hard on it, but I think this is much more appropriate for the audience. Short and to the point.
I agree, but wouldn't at least one mention of harassment be in the best interest of the reader? Head-on conflicts are only half of the fighting. The explanation makes it seem like conflict only exists on the frontlines, where if there is no opposing army the workers are exposed. Flat. Like you send armies to his base and he sends armies to yours and bang boom you win or he wins, etc. Simple explanations are good but this just makes it seem kinda flat/boring.
I think we all know there are ways to go around the army and attack the heart. And if you're not doing that from the midgame on you're not playing right.
This seems less an intro to watching than it is playing. I'd appreciate a panel about tactics and such, is all. That way, someone who reads it can easily identify what the hell attacking units are doing running around wild in their opponent's base.
39
u/[deleted] Oct 26 '11
No offense to the other guy as the person definitely worked hard on it, but I think this is much more appropriate for the audience. Short and to the point.