undead/sage

with the -35% sci eff....how would sage effect it.....+25% sci eff and +35% spawn rate

I've never been a fan of trying to negate penalties. I much prefer building on strengths.

From my recollection, course if someone hasnt beaten me to it. you first take racial mods into effect before personality


So undeads only get 65% of the max sciences allowed
then as sage you would then add the 25% from that.


someone correct me if i am wrong.

0.8125, a pretty bad pick.

Undead so strong this age....negateing the sci handicap (and its a big one) would seem to be beneficial....and was hopeing that the increased spawn rate would bring it closer to normal sci eff

35% more scientists than non sage I mean

The only upside to undead sage besides negating a little of the -35% science might be maxing their terrible science earlier than other undeads or other attackers. So you might be maxed out by midage and be about even with other attacker races, but you would lose that advantage by the end of age.

I wouldn't be surprised to see UD Sage get retaliated often with 2x learn attacks when they send out to convert leets. Even -30% scientist abduction isn't gonna stop people when they see that easy defense. As UD Warrior last age, I was rarely retaliated against when pumping, simply had nothing anyone wanted to take from me and I only used plunder OOW. Forcing UD to hit for land OOW to convert leets and gain honor is gonna be interesting, I personally don't think many of the 300+ UD War Hero are gonna have a successful age. They are gonna have to hit a lot of people, piss a lot of people off, and one concerted effort to camp armies home will destroy their leet conversion progress.

Like bishop said, it always better to build on strengths then try to cover weakness. Which is probably why we see so many ud wh. Having played wh last age I have to agree it sucks when you're not in war. Too easy to lose everything especially if a bigger kd decides to hit you with army home. think it takes a bit more experience to play than people realize.

You don't pick undead for good science and sage is not gooing to achieve good science on undead, you pick it for the elites, so WH is the most natural choice unless you are gooing to go UD/Rogue, no matter what it is hard work if you want undead to do anything except attacking, and you are likely gooing to need hospitals even then.

Generally I agree that building on strength is preferable, but this age my instincts say otherwise. Let me preface that by saying almost anything isn't that bad. I ran an orc mystic last age so I'm not afraid of putting my head in a meat grinder.

I happen to like undead sage because the server wants to outrun undead. With that 35% holding you back my main concerns are with intel gathering and overpopulation. Once you become a pure canon that requires constant attention from your kingdom you're basically hurting them; you need intel, you need to send out soldiers, you need soldiers, you need gold, and on and on..

Lucky for you I'm the one billionth avian cleric who won't have the nw scope to reach down and finish you. (I'm happy being a narrow field attacker but I hope most avian players are aware of this).

But actually orc cleric is making sense, avian warrior is making sense, t/ms that are really about being unbreakable are appreciating a switch to tac. It's just dangerous being the teeth of the offense without paying a dear price. I like this because the strategic alternatives abound.

I like undead sage because you can get on with conversions without freaking about your science. I can't compare this ages version with the undead sage I ran in 69 but the opportunities to blast someone with amnesia will eventually present itself. That might be another reason I find it attractive.

When you cast amnesia, it's fun to laugh. Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!

Sage isnt that great this age, and picking it on UD who will only receive 2/3 of its allrdy not so impressive benefits is really bad choice.