Pure Attacker race/pers advice

So I've been playing A/M and have decided to switch to a pure attacker. Talking to my monarch we've narrowed down some choices in no particular order:

Dwarf/Sage - building and sci bonuses
Dwarf/Warrior - building bonus and offense from Warrior
Orc/Undead - high offense elites/enemy casualties and plague
Avian/Undead - same as orc, can probably only take advantage of attack times on weekends
Dryad/Tactician - really high offense

Hoping to get some suggestions and a bit about why over the next 15 hours to help me decide, thanks for the help!

Dryad warrior would be my pick, the offense would be down right crazy. Dwarf sage or warrior if your lazy.

I am playing dryad tactician n it is awesome

The offense per net worth is so good if u HV Max horses n prisoners. Very flexible to play with

Orc/ Mystix...only true attackers know the benefit of casting MS on their opponents while their ogres decimate the enemies land

@Bokou - you haven't really said what you are going to do with it beside from "pure attacker". For example:

-will you be aiming to war?
-what are the races of the other attackers in your KD? Having one dryad in the KD is not likely to work brilliantly.
- is the ability to turtle going to be useful to your KD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

@Bokou - you haven't really said what you are going to do with it beside from "pure attacker". For example:

-will you be aiming to war?
-what are the races of the other attackers in your KD? Having one dryad in the KD is not likely to work brilliantly.
- is the ability to turtle going to be useful to your KD?

---

Why do you believe everyone plays in super organised kingdoms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by umajon911

Orc/ Mystix...only true attackers know the benefit of casting MS on their opponents while their ogres decimate the enemies land

---

Yeah, our monarch played as Orc Mystic last age because he knew he was going to be chained anyway. It's awesome for LL land back and getting all those nasty spells on the other kd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emerix

Yeah, our monarch played as Orc Mystic last age because he knew he was going to be chained anyway. It's awesome for LL land back and getting all those nasty spells on the other kd.

---

SEE!!! No one believes me! lol Orc/Mystix is FTW best combo hands down....unless you talk to Palem, he rides or dies by FA

Orc is an obvious choice for heavy attacker, no question about that. I dont understand why Human and DE is not in your list though. In most cases especially in longer wars they are less risky and more useful than Dwarves or Dryad. Generally playing attacker you should expect to be chained so you need the resilience that Orcs, Human and DE posses so you can keep attacking after being chained.

The attacker types can be categorized to help identify a role.

Whenever we put avian in the conversation we're now talking about attackers who excel in destroying other attackers. Imagine the hunter-killer sub in Red October or any number of fighter planes, specifically designed to destroy enemy fighters.

This is one of the least utilized areas of the game. In other words, lots of kingdoms simplistically choose a given race without navigating the theater of operation. Things work because most kingdom mutually ignore specialization. But I digress....

Dryad = bunker buster, railroad gun, Big Bertha
Orc = heavy mobile artillery that can't button up like a tank
Human = medium tank with excellent range
Dwarf = the ultimate utility tank
Avian = yknow
Dark Elf = Stalin's Organ; katyusha rocket platform

Personality is the way you outfit the thing, like tac has good radar, and warrior has a high penetration weapons platform. There are times you might need both.

Oftentimes I'd choose my race/personality after the rest of the kingdom chose theirs. This allowed me to bolster gaps in the overall kingdom strat. My favorite platforms were elf cleric(rip) and undead(rip) sage. These were the meanest flowers I've played, if not specific to the attacker ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maguirezz

Orc is an obvious choice for heavy attacker, no question about that. I dont understand why Human and DE is not in your list though. In most cases especially in longer wars they are less risky and more useful than Dwarves or Dryad. Generally playing attacker you should expect to be chained so you need the resilience that Orcs, Human and DE posses so you can keep attacking after being chained.

---

Humans were mentioned, but he is currently DE and doesnt enjoy it. He is looking at more of a suicide offense strat, so probably leaning more Orc since defense dies so quickly anyway.

I don't understand the mentality of being heavy attacker means u can run 1 TPA and almost no WPA. That's not suicidal. That's stupid

Dryad Cleric, oh wait...yeah i blame devs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Why do you believe everyone plays in super organised kingdoms?

---

I do not believe that. My questions were basic and could be answered by "I don't know". Providing "I don't know" as an answer would still help us to advise.

Orc/Undead looks strong this age. Every KD outside the top 20 eats a ton of hits, and you want to be able to retaliate those when OOW. Orc is an absolute killer 1v1 OOW because you'll always be out-gaining your opponent with your bonus to gains, and killing a bunch more of their troops than they can yours. Pack on universities to protect your scientists from abducts and hospitals to add to your -losses bonus and you go out abducting over and over - you'll gain many more than you lose if you choose good targets.

Dryad Tact packs on huge offense. Huge. But has no troop loss protection, which means this setup probably costs you a lot of gc in lost elites when retalling. You would need to compensate with high hosps all the time. Running tact balances out the bad attack time, and seems essential to me.

Avian/Undead is very strong for very active players. x3 hits per day with low losses is huge. But you'll have middling offense.

The other races aren't 'pure attackers', which was the question you asked. You could force a dwarf or human into a heavy attacking combo, but why bother? The three mentioned above would be imo the 'purest, best out-and-out attacking' combos you could really run with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

... Having one dryad in the KD is not likely to work brilliantly. ...

---

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. If you have the time to set up your sizes, having a lone Dryad might be fine. You *know* who is getting chained first, every time. Buys time for the other attackers, and lets you tailor your build specifically to the situation. You might not like playing this combo, but it should still be an idea even "unsupported". Other races can do this job as well, but Dryad is the easiest to pull it off with.

Things you'd need if you are the intentional chain bait:
Firstly, top or near top offense - you can't be chain bait if you aren't the scariest thing around to the enemy T/Ms. (Hence Dryad - takes less to be the biggest off.)
Commitment to AIAO. I've blown the login time for war start and been crushed for it. I've failed to hit within 3 minutes of war start in a proposed war and been locked out before I got my 3rd general out. When you are target #1, you *must* have good incoming, always.
High GS, decent rax/hospitals etc. Reasonable defense too - depends a bit on your opponent, but if you can keep them at only 2x (or 3x) instead of 4x from the get-go, you bog them down better. Suicider style is *not* good for chain bait - makes it too easy.
Low TPA but solid WPA - you probably will need to LL if the enemy is good.


The suicider style heavy attackers work well with lots of them - you can't chain them all! You can still use Dryad for that just fine, but it isn't a standout winner vs. the other choices, and it probably wants tact, since warrior is overkill. The lone chain-bait "breaker" style might well want warrior to keep the max offense requirement met with a reasonable total number of troops - and Dryad really shines here since it has so much peak offense.

@Ethan - All good points. I agree with what you said about lone dryads / chain bait. I probably should have said it "may not" work brilliantly. I guess I was making an assumption that OP/OP's KD may not be able to do all of the things necessary to make that work (which is ironic since Korp accused me of believing them to be "super organised").

Dryad makes for a fine attacker drafted 60-65% but not the easiest to play as it is everyone elses favorite target, you honestly should hit on DE hybrids insted those can be downright bad even when fully pumped.

Avian and Orc makes for a bit easier pick but you'll need to draft deeper, always aim for 2 wpa raw and 3 tpa raw and you should be fine.

It really depends on your kd and what your kd needs.

Dryad tactician is very nice if you intend to hit t/m's down with your attacker. Especially in a kd that nm runs, so the -opposing losses arent an issue.

Orc is great if you do need the losses on your targets and could bounce with a 4th general to open up t/m's. I'd prefer paladin over undead on this though and just run 20% hospitals.

Avian gets lower offense, but hits more often. Less likely to threathen t/m's, but if you just need to get more hits in, it might work. Especially if you can massacre in between opposing waves. However, since you said you wouldn't be able to hit 3x/day, you won't be able to take advantage of this and I don't recommend it for you.

Dwarf is more of a hybrid like province; gets sleightly lower offense, more tanky, but you can't be tanky without relatively high t/wpa and if you have the t/wpa, you might aswell use it offensively.

The human seems to be overlooked, can get huge science and through that, high offense. As a tactician (or with a faery tactician in the kd), you could kidnap your province full to keep up with growth and get a huge income, and with town watch you wouldn't have to worry about getting chained on high peasants. Though only 1 or a few is easily controlled with fireballs/massacres.

I don't know why ppl avoid elf as attacker. Full elite elf is actually pretty strong.

dwarf warrior would be my choice. The warrior personality helps to mitigate dwarf's offensive shortcomings, the free build and extra BE is super nice both in and outside of war, you can abuse the stables trick if you're active to free up an extra ~10% of land during war, and having 8/5 leets for offense means less worry about ambush. In my experience playing as orc/dryad in previous ages, ambushes are a big problem for sustaining offense and you may not always have the runes to anon each hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo To

I don't know why ppl avoid elf as attacker. Full elite elf is actually pretty strong.

---

Because it has very low offense compared to dryad/human/orc. Full elite elf is actually pretty weak.

So now you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uhm hoi

Because it has very low offense compared to dryad/human/orc. Full elite elf is actually pretty weak.

So now you know.

---

It's not supposed to break t/ms but it's very tanky, has high wpa and it's hard to ambush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uhm hoi

it has very low offense compared to dryad/human/orc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo To

has high wpa.

---

I think maybe you both have different ideas about what you want in an "attacker"

OP said he wanted to move away from AM. As pure attacker, one needs to be able to threaten t/m's and elf isnt good for that.

....