Hybrids

Any Rogue attacker is problematic. I would never want any attacker to pick rogue, even if they do plan to utilize thievery heavily. Having a personality that's only situationally useful and reliant on chance is worse than personalities that are good most of the time, or really good in particular situations. Rogue means nothing once the a/t gets chained, and chaining a/t is incredibly easy and usually worth the effort, especially if they forget guardstations like many a/t do.
That said, play it like any heavy attacker, and forget about thievery without a lot of science and willingly gimping your army and building choices to maximize the thief option. About the only thing that can be said for Undead Rogue is that you will have an easy time finding space for thief dens, but you will still have to sacrifice army to get a useful tpa. Better to go into war with as many elites as you can to make up for the lack of manpower, and build lots of guardstations to prevent the inevitable when your undead does get chained.

hu/rogue (+40% income, max income first and get higher income, run drafts higher and then do BE%, then start running higher sci rates and pump the theivery/magic and your fine)

Why do people never listen...?

Thanks for the advice, I'm going to try and maximize what I can and just try not to be as much of a retarded noob next age. Which will probably be impossible, but hey, here's to trying, right? :D

Even a poor race/personality combination is still playable. Only the obvious bad picks should be avoided like the plague. Shep isn't great, but any race besides undead can make it into a playable attacker province with some utility and not lose too much (just don't hybrid with it, lol).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nooblet

Why do people never listen...?

---

Because they aren't interested in learning

AMIRIGHT!?!

worst possible combinations

fea/tact
undead/shep
dwarf/ uhh (does anything really go bad with this? besides rogue?) XD
hu/mystic
avian/ (i cant think of anything that would go bad with this either other than mystic)
orc/sage (just makes no sense xD)

anyone else got any other ones for thought?

What's wrong with Orc/Sage?

Orc/Sage is not bad. icey ran them last age.

u are a giant failboat Kemia

orc mystic

Tlu get in my kingdom i have a province needs taking over

Sage is playable for all races, even undead... of course undead have much better options and get considerably less, but they're still able to use the extra science to compensate for having the worst long-term economic penalty. Orc/Sage is pretty good; go with heavy gains science and you'll be grabbing an ungodly amount of acres for chaining and decent acres on bottomfeeds, and your high science is protected from Learns when out of war. Sage can be very good when they do get chained in war, and Orcs are often going to be in that position. Also note that libraries ignore their inherent BE penalty and poor BE in general, which heavy attackers tend to suffer from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nooblet

Sage is playable for all races, even undead... of course undead have much better options and get considerably less, but they're still able to use the extra science to compensate for having the worst long-term economic penalty. Orc/Sage is pretty good; go with heavy gains science and you'll be grabbing an ungodly amount of acres for chaining and decent acres on bottomfeeds, and your high science is protected from Learns when out of war. Sage can be very good when they do get chained in war, and Orcs are often going to be in that position. Also note that libraries ignore their inherent BE penalty and poor BE in general, which heavy attackers tend to suffer from.

---

id have to keep this in mind for next age orc/sage

I love how everyone catches on to sage the age after it was good :p

How long into the age does Sage needs to be able to match with other pers like Warrior or Tactician?