Expand on your trader concept, this is new to me.
When you say 2:1 off to def...how do you actually achieve that? At best I can see doing is 3:2
Expand on your trader concept, this is new to me.
When you say 2:1 off to def...how do you actually achieve that? At best I can see doing is 3:2
hey guys. pretty new to utopia, and finding these threads very educational. have been crunching the numbers on different builds and it seems to me that there really is very little to separate a build with high homes against a build without homes, from the point of view of offence/nw and def/nw, daily income being equal. one thing though seems to me to be affected by homes though seems to be the viability of stables. to illustrate my point:
1 horse/orc elite= 12.5% offensive bonus
for a 0% home strat, i need about 8.5% stables to outfit all of my elites, therefore
8.5% stables = 12.5% offensive bonus
whereas 8.5% tg with 100% BE = 11.65% offensive bonus
and with 0% homes, i'm running closer to 85% BE which would give 9.9%
offensive bonus. also, due to diminishing returns from tgs, your bonuses would be
somewhat less than 9.9% if u have a high tg build.
my conclusion from this would be that the less homes u have, the more viable stables are, being that they are not affected by BE and also a build with no homes would have a smaller army(more dependent on building bonuses) requiring less stables. as an added bonus over homes, horses do not incur, wage costs or training costs.
so what am i missing about stables?
Your province seems to be rather defensively oriented. I would say that the majority of the orcs in the game would need much more stables than 8.5% to have one horse for each of their elites. The less offensive units you have the better stables obviously are, so your argument about homes and stables is viable in that aspect as well as the BE aspect. However most players would try to take advantage of the orc elites and have many of them, they are the best military unit in the game.
Also for your off and def calculations (in case you didn't take this into account) you should note that horses are 0.6 NW (probably :p was a while since I last checked) whereas TGs don't add any NW.
Expand on it how?
It simply takes and maximizes the benefits of being orc while having the potential to being a major bonus within the kingdom.
Each kingdom should have at least 3
I forgot to mention that they should also have at LEAST 1 wpa/tpa too. That way when things go south they can still be of use within the kingdom.
Best of all, it doesn't detract from an attacker's overall mission (of being aggressive as hell) while adding a substantial bonus within the kingdom.
Not only would they be able to rebound 3x faster than others they would almost always be in a position to help the kingdom to do so. Not to mention the money that would be kept within the kingdom through avoiding drafting costs.
Your biggest obstacle as a trader would be balancing the trading tax. The trader could be used to 'launder' it for players. That way you could use the old tactic of pooling resources to make a few provinces sling shot in size.
If your kingdom really likes the idea, you really won't need farms at all. Because if you are selling troops for less than their value, you will have to offset the balance some way.
Only prob with above is whether you use food or runes to offset it the trader usually accumlates so much that they have a high rate of decay.
As far as having 2 to 1 ratio of offense to defense, I mentioned that as a minimum only.
Following build I gave you, it shouldn't be difficult to obtaion 2.5:1 ratios raw.
With bonus's you should be able to push it to almost (but not quite) a almost 4 to 1 ratio.
Yes, even while maintaining a 1 wpa/tpa.
You will be a bit light on defence though...to accomplish above feat you would have no more than 30-35 dpa (even that might be pushing it)
Obviously, the above is meant for a topfeeder who relies on gangbang protection in order to thrive. It won't be spectaculer, but the growth rate should be about average/above average running this strat.
It seems quite pointless to have "3" provinces run insane off/def ratios (yes 4:1 really is too much). It might work OK out of war but once you enter a war this gives the enemy 3 targets to drop with relative ease, after which you will have 3 attackers that are considerably smaller than what they started with who will look just the same as a regular attacker would have looked after being chained down. The only difference would be that the enemy would have a harder time dropping regular attackers.
One difference AFKain:
They are the bait. They are meant to get harassed.
You now have 3 attackers that can now attack for higher gains with less land losses on retaliations and who are now t/m proof. Not only that, if they know their t/m business they can run considerable amount of damage against the enemy in all 3 disciplines (I'd shy away from the thief ops myself just cause you'd lose that advantage quickest)
It allows the kingdom to become more effective by the elimination of some redundant buildings for ones more focused on that particular province purpose while allowing gc that would of been lost anyway within the game mechanics to be kept within the kingdom.
How much gold are you spending on drafting costs in 24 hrs right now? How fast is your army growing?
This allows you to in reality have your soldiers at the overdraft speed for a portion of the costs of even a normal draft rate with none of the gc leaving the kingdom.
Are you serious? Your strategy is absolutely illogical.
1. Your bait attackers are easier to bring down than other attackers since they have crap defense.
2. When your bait attackers are brought down they are forced to release troops.
3. When your bait attackers have released troops they will not look any different than what a normal attacker would look like after being brought down.
Conclusion: letting your enemy take down 3 provinces much more easily than they should have was a stupid move.
And that you actually argue that landdropping the provinces would be beneficial since they now have awesome t/m abilities is just silly.
4:1 is retarded, but please keep doing it..
I've run 2:1 O:D before and was a major target then. Running 15% GS and 20% Hosps I wasn't losing any troops to overpop as I was sending them out constantly and losing so many def specs to hits.
Its always fun to watch people quad tapping you for 20 acres a pop then you hit back 1 of their lower NW guys for 150 acres then another for another 100.
Having more than 1 province using this strategy completely ruins it though as GB protection is reduced considerably. 1 Province, once dropped to the bottom 10% of acres/nw in the KD can effectively maintain themselves with the right build and high offence, indefinitely, while soaking up around 30-50% of the enemies hits.
Obviously if they throw too much T/M ops it can push you over the edge ;)
post your survey and i'll tell you... i need the advisor page. i say run up to 33% homes for max benefits, so no, you are fine , keep them from getting burned down by arson in war by adding a few Watchtower to your war build...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote