Undead attacker build

[Smurfling]

well if your plan is to play UD and not war and arse around in a ghetto, then id revert to my first statement: terrible strategy, in fact, its not strategy at all, you can just run whatever the hell you like, if you don't intend to do anything or compete for anything with it you might as well fap to pictures of zombies.

I bet you're a pretty chipper fellow IRL

[coboss]

What about this built ?

Undead Cleric
15% hospitals
30% watchtowers
20% TG
15% Guilds
10% Banks
5% Dungeons
5% towers....

He's undead, so cleric and hospitals are redundant. He's not going to war, so he doesn't need WTs, he just needs to use resources frequently. Otherwise, the rest isn't bad at all.

[crionnacht]

hum...
I never said i didnt want to war...
its just a build proposal for undead...
of course i want to war.
this build is sensed sustain long wars..

[Bishop]

undead doesnt mean hospitals are redundant

[Hooah]

undead doesnt mean hospitals are redundant

even for a cleric though? No offense loss, so even on defense their losses are converted to sols. I guess hospitals reduce the amount you lose so that you dont have to retrain as much but couldn't tthat space be put to better use?

[John Snowstorm]

Undead doesn't mean hospitals are redundant, it means everything is redundant because you're still playing undead no matter what you build.

[Lestat]

Did you get molested by a Zombie in Age 10 or something?

[TheDeathtroll]

no, I just know that undeads are useless.

[EdibleUndies]

Those of you that think UD is worthless are simply lacking in the intelligence department. Strength in this game lies in activity. An active UD would be able to dominate in war with no losses on attacks, spread plague, and attain a high percentage of elites due to army-in army-out OOW.

Snowstorm...you have yet to make a post that provides any indication that you know what you are talking about. Simply babbling about how the ideas of others are "stupid" or "worthless" is pointless when you can't afford any original thoughts of your own. As I read through the forums now I simply pass up on all of your posts, and I am sure most people will start to do so as well.

[Palem]

Please don't call people who disagree with you stupid. Not only because it's rude but because it makes you look like a hypocrite when you criticize others for doing it to you.

Also, strength lies in strategy. I've beaten more active kds with a superior gameplan. From a strategical standpoint, Undead in an inferior race.

[jamad14]

I am going undead/cleric as a heavy attacker,
please post ur thoughts

[justhoop]

i think taction or warrior would be better for a HA

[Ordray]

I'm inclined to agree with justhoop, but a Cleric isn't a terrible choice imo.

[testsubj]

Yeah, I play for fun. This game doesn't interest me enough to get all srs bsnss about it. I honestly don't know why some of you are so up-tight about this game. If I were this anal about something, I'd honestly have trouble enjoying it. Sometimes work =/= fun. And with those kind of posts targeted at a "casual" player, it's no wonder the game is having trouble getting new players.

i've been saying this in UT for years

1st 3 years of wol = xls sheets, 4am waves, sms, email, icq, msn
its a wonder i didnt assign my KD employee numbers with a clock-in punch card

[testsubj]

First, I'd like to say that I'm a very casual player. I just don't want to make a commitment to joining a "real" KD and warring all the time (so, essentially, I'm a ghetto troll). I enjoy having the ability to walk away from the game whenever I no longer have the time / attention span to deal with it.

you cant have a "heavy attacker UD" as a "casual player"
even tho you atack 2-3x/day, your troops will be hit/lose more than you can
defend when you ARE/arent there by provs with more casual activity than you

you're better off with HU or AV or DW heavy attacker
better econ, less vulnerability when you arent there and worry
about being elite conv. dependent to compete if/when you assume ghetto monarchy