I have always run 7% Towers and 3% Dungeons in all of my builds. However, would 3% homes be more effective than the little Off and income prisoners provide?
I have always run 7% Towers and 3% Dungeons in all of my builds. However, would 3% homes be more effective than the little Off and income prisoners provide?
If you can keep your Dungeons more or less full I'm guessing you will get more out of the Dungeons. Don't forget the extra pop gained by the homes (then turned into troops) would increase your NW while Dungeons don't.
Towers make a terrible place to live.
EDIT: I just realized what you were saying, nevermind.
I would definitely make room for homes. More than 3%.
Last edited by peteyb22; 30-04-2011 at 22:01.
- "He's kinda awesome..."
I don't think he is talking about running just 3% homes but rather trying to compare the difference between the same % of homes and dungeons.
3% homes on 1k acres is only 240 population the same 3% land in Dungeons would be 600 prisoners. The troops add to your NW and cost you upkeep the Dungeons give you income and no NW.
It hinges on what your Elite value is and how you personally value the minor change in total offense (for human 240 Elites = 1920 Offence, 600 prisoners = 1800 Offence), compared to the lower NW and slightly higher income from the Dungeons. Personally I'd stick with the Dungeons.
higher nwpa isn't a bad thing.
its been said that dungeons are the most NW efficient buildings in uto. problem is keeping them full all the time which makes running 20% dungeons almost impossible.
higher nwpa is most certainly a bad thing. the dungeons are primeOriginally Posted by Hood
theHERETICS - Brute Force - Sonata - Dreams - The Pulsing Trollfags - The Expendables
Visit my home for banned, neglected, and otherwise disenfranchised players on Discord!
I ran 60% dungeons, my objective was to get to 100% dungeons.
I did manage to get 60% full dungeons at 1000 or 1100 acres, and then i got razed, end of story.
Dungeons suck
It was fun to fill them up though , i had to make tons of attacks
- Get the best out of your gameplay, go 45% homes minimum .
-Successfully tested over 13 war wins in a row and many that number of non war conflicts .
7 out f 7 war wins age 50 guarantees.
High homes = good
"higher nwpa is most certainly a bad thing. the dungeons are prime"
unless higher nwpa brings you to the point where you can't break people the same nw as you, it's much better than low nwpa.
It's the opposite of that. Unless you can now break someone you couldn't by having higher nwpa, then don't. Otherwise you're seeing reduced power of ops/spells and less land gained from people similar size.
"Otherwise you're seeing reduced power of ops/spells and less land gained from people similar size."
wait, what? similar size = NW. if someone is 140 nwpa and I'm 180 nwpa, they're ~29% larger than me in land. if I can still break them and we trade attacks, I gain ~29% more land than they do. it's that simple.
Your operative words are "if I can still break".
Lets give you 40 nw worth of alchemy sci.
Using halfling to make the point easier, the same builds and same draft + allocation would result in a 29% reduction in elites. Your opponent needs to send less elites to break you, and you need to send more to break him... and if things move in his favor he'll be sending far fewer elites than you for more taps thus forcing you to either suicide to break him (even fewer elites sent by him on next attack) or give up.
"But I can still hit" is ignoring the truth. Sure you can gain more land... IF you can hit. But others can draft up more def / nw with their NW efficient builds. And pull up more off / nw... and thus make more taps or even block your own attacks.
Just say "yes" and I'll go away.
Uhh... how did this happen.
Last edited by Hallo; 03-05-2011 at 07:00.
Just say "yes" and I'll go away.
On dungeons... it's more a question of Offense / NW vs Offense / Acre.
Homes can only increase your Offense / NW and Offense / Acre. Remember, your elite's offense / nw is the main determinant in NW efficiency, having more of them may increase your nw, but it will also increase your offense at the same fixed rate.
Dungeons will always increase your Offense / NW, but only if your elite value is < 7.5 (60 prisoners / 8 pop ) are they as offense / acre efficient as homes... and this isn't including population bonuses ( or penalties for that matter ).
Dungeon overflowing and reusing prisoners does make them more desirable than additional elites... however.
Just say "yes" and I'll go away.
"Your operative words are "if I can still break"."
it's pretty much granted that I can break anyone within 25-30% of my land. a human (applies to avian as well, why I chose it) running 80/40 will be sitting at ~63 dpa with his elites in. even at the far extent of my 180/140 scenario (160 is much more common, and a human with 180 nwpa will be running much better opa), the smaller province is 1 opa short of breaking w/o generals. it really isn't a matter of "if I can still break" so much as "do I want to break?". and when it comes war time, higher nwpa is an absolute must unless you're >2k acres. a high nwpa makes it all the easier to keep within NW range of targets.
if you visit a much more reasonable split of 160/140, the smaller prov has all the advantage. and by all the advantage I mean he can break the larger province w/o opening to a dt in return. and this is ignoring the fact that to achieve such low nwpa, you are likely not going to be putting out very good offense. it's a rather ridiculous thought of seeing a human at 140 nw putting up 80 opa.
the problem with your halfling scenario is that turtled halflings simply aren't targets. unless you're running a suicide strat, a halfling with armies in just isn't worth attacking for anyone. there would be no confrontation in that scenario.
not to mention it's ridiculously unlikely for anyone at 140 nwpa to be putting up the same /acre numbers as a 180 nwpa prov. it's almost unlikely that they'd put up the same mod values.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote