We certainly can beat the lowlands we have the archers, the chariots, and the better weapons overall and if we are willing to convert to a less centralized form of government be able to hold it and administer it what we cannot do is hold a city hundreds of kilometers away.
We do?
No.
There are no facts here, only wishful thinking or questionable-at-best speculation in various degrees.
Topaz? Quartz? Prehnite?
Could even be amber.
Mica in sheets. As others has said amber.
I bet it's amber.
Amber, actually, its on the trade screen. Though speaking of trade...is Alabaster too bulky to trade at this level? we've had a quarry of it since we started the temple, but we apparently aren't trading it...
And we can have Grand docks plus another two normal docks, alongside our forests and manpower we win every time
so they still force people to trade we're they want though?
we've debated why taking the Lowlands is not wanted, go back though the thread because I'm not beating a dead horse for the eighteenth time
That still wouldn't apply. It still doesn't today, because that isn't international waters!
Its amber guys, it says on the trade listing:
The fuck are you talking about? They trade with us, not through us.
Fact: Nomads might not even come back
I have known about you guy's phobia for the lowlands for a long time now and quite frankly now more than ever should we try to finally take territory haven't you noticed that the more time has passed the more united the lowlands became? first there were three then it became four now it is only two, you seem to think we can just shut ourselves away from our closest neighbors and assume that even if they do unite we can fight them of when AN clearly stated that in over all infantry they are better than us
Really, source that shit instead of insulting me and maybe you'll have a half decent argument.
And it's become three again with the Thunder Speaker rebellion
