Humans vs Avians

[johnnydoe]

Why aren't Humans considered better than Avians?

They both have 8/3 elites but, Humans have stables and better def. spec.

So, why isn't Human race beating Avians in race surveys? Isn't human a better attacker since, it can add on the horses for off and have better defense?

What am I missing? -25% attack time? Stability more than makes up for it no? Besides, one can run a "homeless" strat w/ humans since, they have a 15% birth rate bonus. Then put those acres in rax.

Please explain in detail as I am a newbie.

Thanks in advance.

[DeDLySMuRF]

@Avian
Attack time: -25%
Gains on Attacks (NEW): +30%
No Stables
Immunity to Ambush
Specific Spellbook: Clearsight, Townwatch
Inf: 1/1
Def: 0/5
Off: 5/0
Eli: 8/3 $800 6.5nw


vs


@Human
Income: +25%
Spell success: -25%
Defensive Specialist Strength : +1
Offensive Specialist Strength : -1
Specific Spellbook: Greater Protection, Aggression
Inf: 1/1
Def: 0/6
Off: 4/0
Eli: 8/3 $800 6.5nw




IMO its not a hard decision. Avian gets the Nod as they have not only -25% attack times, and immunity to ambush but +30% gains. That more than makes up for the 25% income bonus humans get. Especially if you use an Avian/Sage. Its not hard for an Avian sage to hit 40% income in sciences as well as another 30% gains.

Some will play Humans, Others will play Avians. I personally think Avians get the Nod this age if I would have played one or the other.

[Bishop]

Humans are too slow (both in attack speed and in province readiness oop due to that weak o spec) and can be ambushed easily - forcing them to anon which makes them even slower. Avians also have better gains and better spells.

[Palem]

Human's durability is also in question. It's tough for them to hold out in a long war since they have to retrain with a 4 off spec. That's a huge hit in the most important aspect of the game.

[Lestat]

Ambush fodder.

[johnnydoe]

Then I guess, what I was thinking was wrong. I thought, their D spec +1 would give humans the advantage in long run. I've been playing avian/warrior this age and was wondering about human/sage the next one. I found avians very weak defensively. I was looking at it only from that aspect.

Thanks for the replies.

[elozop]

hummie can work in ghetto, tank up and anon so ppl dont ambush u and u'd be right. at least far better off than a solo avian that is

[Ethan]

You are partially correct in your thinking. +1 Def Spec *is* a very large bonus. Excluding elites, I'd argue it's the best either of those races has. Remember, the human d-spec is 6 NW, so the savings is only in making them need less space to hit the target def - but that is still a huge gain in NW efficiency.

The (simple) reason Avian wins out though is this...
It isn't:
+1 d-spec
vs.
Attack time: -25%
OR Gains on Attacks (NEW): +30%
OR Immunity to Ambush

but:
+1 d-spec
vs.
Attack time: -25%
AND Gains on Attacks (NEW): +30%
AND Immunity to Ambush

"And" makes all the difference!

[Magn]

You are partially correct in your thinking. +1 Def Spec *is* a very large bonus. Excluding elites, I'd argue it's the best either of those races has. Remember, the human d-spec is 6 NW, so the savings is only in making them need less space to hit the target def - but that is still a huge gain in NW efficiency.

The (simple) reason Avian wins out though is this...
It isn't:
+1 d-spec
vs.
Attack time: -25%
OR Gains on Attacks (NEW): +30%
OR Immunity to Ambush

but:
+1 d-spec
vs.
Attack time: -25%
AND Gains on Attacks (NEW): +30%
AND Immunity to Ambush

"And" makes all the difference!

The +25% income also play in the human's hand, especially given how strong sages are.

A human sage will get war ready quicker (assuming they both try to go for an all-elite off which is a reasonable assumption) and thus have more time to pump and is more likely to be able to maintain a 2 BPA/hour draft than avian.

Alternatively, he could also leverage his higher economy to get a higher draft and an even stronger army.

For a fairly active player who can only attack twice a day, I'd say that human might be slightly better if he manages to properly leverage his stronger army (which is not a trivial achievement) and puts SOMETHING in his military science.

For a crazy active player, avian beats human hands down because of the possibily of making 3 attacks per day (in addition ot the increased gains).

[Lucky75]

A human cannot attack twice a day unless they have barracks. Avians can have an attack time of 10-12h with 0% rax, which they can then use to build banks or something which offsets the income bonus. Banks + science stack better than income bonus + science, since banks give additional base income to stack up.

As an avian sage, I've had almost no problems with rebuilding quickly.

In general, you are correct in your assessment that how active you are determines the effectiveness of each race. I think that humans are only superior if you play laid back, attack at most twice a day, and don't like to get hit. Avians are far better for active players and semi-suicide builds due to the immunity to ambush and the extra gains.

[carter]

Normally good races (such as Avians) don't need stables. If you have leets strength 7 or higher (unless you are a Dwarf), chances are that it's better to have homes than stables. Humans have better income to train more leets.

[Ethan]

Normally if you don't overdraft and get useful science, non-be buildings, both homes AND stables, aren't worth it. 110% BE + good sized army makes TGs and Forts a much better bet. Dens/guilds, hospitals, rax etc. make for a better prov (usually), but eat up so much space that everything left should go into TG/Forts.

Yes, this applies to *all* races, even those with low elites. Total OPA, BE, and total build% for military are the only effects on when, or even if, stables become worth it. Elite strength only matters in that it impacts OPA - but 80 OPA is 80 OPA, regardless of whether it comes from 8/3s or 5/5s.

If you increase the total build% high enough eventually stables become worth it because of DBE. On a good, high off prov, this is only normally above 20% TG, 10% forts. Sometimes higher if sage or otherwise high BE.

Remember stables add NW, TGs don't. Forts add NW/A because the elites are higher NW than the specs you saved with forts - but the NW/point is lower. So forts act a bit like GS for land. Homes help BE and give the best raw numbers, but up NW a lot, balancing them and making them a decent choice - but they lose out to TG/Forts in most cases. I like some homes because they work as an econ building while not in war build, so I can convert faster. (Intangibles matter! Likes stealing all those horses instead of wasting the space housing them.)

[Lucky75]

I have 120 mod opa as an avian, with 55 dpa. If I had stables too it would just be silly.

[Ethan]

I'd contend that your OPNW would *decrease* if you built stables instead of TGs. That much OPA means your key is to max out the mods - I think at those levels it almost doesn't matter what your BE is, as long as it isn't totally junk.

BTW - you don't get to steal the stables from some other building. Because if the stables were worth it - you should put that land into TG/Forts right now, and it would be even more worth it. If it isn't worth it for the TGs, it probably isn't worth it for the stables either.

Now the ability to *steal* the horses while keeping the TGs would make your mod OPA truly scary.