One thing you could do for strategy guides is make it more engaging, like you have done in the past. For instance, ask what move would be optimal in position x
i guess polaris player didn't know the end game; idk polaris well but it seems the main mistake was not making catapults and ice archers (especially freezing the heavy units?) and in the end he just over-relied on knights which werent so good vs heavy units; while cymanti player had very good unit combos; when polaris went ice bank it could have been good move to slow-pace the game by making defenders in the two cities under risk on right side and slowly gathering heavy stuff in the back (gaami+cata+archers+fortress maybe); if he could get critical mass count of archers then archer + maybe even swordsman (so same 8star cost as single knight) could be more effective than just knight spam; it looks like he had no idea in the end and just tried brute forcing with knights; also he had two gaami on left afk half game - instead could have moved it to right to adapt for what is opponent doing at 46:20 move 27 they could kill the warrior with gaami and this way they freeze the land forward so that knight could make 6 unit kill chain landing at capital city - this could make huge difference
I think part of the reason why strategy guides don't do so well to you may be because people want to see a step-by-step playthrough than just a guide, but that's just my two cents. A shame though because I do like guides
For those plonkers who didn't watch the strategy video... In a nutshell, cymanti is bad on the sea, pretty bad in the middle and late game, and reliant on it's starter shaman all the way to the very late game when it can make more.
That Polaris player was terrible. So easy and fun to play in this context against cymanti. I would have destroyed you 😃 He needed to create and break ice often. He played like a standard tribe instead of taking advantage of the ice. Also, the ice bank rush was far from ideal at that stage
