Basically, are armouries worth it in protection? they help with draft and training costs, but it costs money to build them and then raze them after protection...
What do you guys think?
Basically, are armouries worth it in protection? they help with draft and training costs, but it costs money to build them and then raze them after protection...
What do you guys think?
If you use armories in protection, then you'll have more troops trained by OOP due to the lowered draft costs, training costs, and wages (though the last 2 don't really kick in until 19 hours before OOP if you don't train until then, which is advised.)
Retired at one time but no longer retired.
20%
I normally use 20% or 25% in Protection myself.
I do *not* recommend them if you are not exploring at all and have cheap troops - but for most, at least some are useful. (There is a limit to how many banks you can use effectively.) If you are exploring more than the initial 125 acres armories are effectively required.
You can keep them around for a day or two after protection to help get to target draft faster too, so the point where you have to raze is fairly far into the future.
it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)
Think Different
.... yes Armouries are good, whether you are exploring or not. Don't listen to Ethan.
S E C R E T S
Even Human/Merchants should run some... cheaper is better, besides, you are on Protection.
"There's no Knowledge that's not Power."
25*415*60%*350 = 2,178,750 gc. I don't think you can actually get to 60% DR by OOP, but I grant that is a lot of money. If you are going pure spec on min acres I think you can get better mod values by using TG/Forts + Banks... but that's a fairly weird situation. If you are staying small you probably are trying to train elites, which makes the armories very worth it. While I still claim there are cases where they aren't good (in prot, of course), they are rarer than my first post would imply.
I think I was mixing my thinking on armories with my thoughts on mills. Got something kinda in the middle of the two - slightly too "pro-build" for mills, a bit too "anti-build" for armories.
it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)
Think Different
@Ethan: The point of arms is to reduce costs.. reduced costs = more income = more troops trained in a shorter period, For example; by oop, Given that you got the troops waiting.
Clarification:
Draft rate @ 20%
Soldiers drafted per tick: 200 .. Before: 200 x 75(price of aggressive stance) = 15k
Soldier cost to Train: 350 .. Before: 200 x 350 = 70k
Soldier's wage per: 70(random number) .. Before: 200 x 70 = 14k
Total: 99k
After adding 20% Arms...
Draft: 11,822
Train: 58,255
Wage: 11,034
Total: 81,111
*Special Note.. These are whole day numbers. But if just so happened to get 162k(2x81,111) total per whole day, You just doubled your army production.
@Ram: Yes, use arms in protection.
use accelerated cons to build them?
I wouldn't, that first 16 hours you're only drafting soldiers.
You're not training troops, or paying wages. Basic soldiers collect no wage.
Your not doing anything but drafting soldiers, up until the last 19 hours.
Cost of Double speed, is far greater then what you gain by having them 4 hours earlier.
Last edited by Gawd_oOo; 22-07-2011 at 14:57.
I wouldn't start drafting until you get your arms in, at least.
ah so its not worth it to build 100% (in the % of banks/arms) banks at hour 0, then 44 hrs before OOP switch to the appropriate 25% (of total) armories because its just not enough time with those extra banks b/c only 72 hrs protection, with 20hr build times thats 72-20=52, then 20 hrs for armories to come in + 24 hrs to train the troops = 52-44 = 8 hrs of the extra banks. is this making any sense at all?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)