Originally Posted by
Ethan
The main factors in favor of TGs:
1st - High rOPA, 2nd - low total% to offense buildings, 3rd - high BE
The main factors in favor of stables:
1st - Low rOPA, 2nd - high total% to offense buildings, 3rd - low BE
For all that most people site BE as a big concern for TG vs. stables, it is usually the least concern. Total Raw OPA is *far* more important a factor. In light of this...
UD attacker generally should have the following characteristics (exception, "breaker" attackers have high/very high offense buildings):
rOPA - very high
total% offense buildings - moderate (high at war start, but needs moderately high overbuild)
BE - moderate to low
This gives us recommendations for:
TG - very strong
Stables - mild
Stables - very mild
Thus we reach the conclusion that, if an UD is better with stables... it was probably doing things wrong. (Excluding breaker roles - if you are playing one at kingdom request I assume you don't need my advise.) Cause the only way to overcome the bias towards TGs is to be running middling to low rOPA... and then what, precisely, are you doing with UD anyway?
Please note - all those hating on the static analysis - yes, that came from a static formula. Notice the adjustment to the available land for offense? Sure, UD off_build% starts high, but it churns a lot, just like nooblet has pointed out. I'm not mindlessly applying math for static situations... I'm deriving a formula to give me an idea where to start modifying *from*. Did you know rOPA was *far* more important than BE? I didn't till the formula told me.
And to anyone citing the elite strength of the races... not relevant. The closest you get is that high elite races tend to have high rOPA. But if you have a 80 rOPA faery somehow... stables are no better for it than for a 80 rOPA UD. Offense/unit is a pointless measure for this discussion. [Aka - if you're going to do math, please do it right. The vines gag gets old fast around here.]