You're speaking more along the lines of A/T, while I'm talking about A/t.......Originally Posted by citadela01
In that case I would be playing Human not Avian.
You're speaking more along the lines of A/T, while I'm talking about A/t.......
In that case I would be playing Human not Avian.
Last edited by BlazingChicken; 06-03-2012 at 20:37.
I never understood why ppl insist on t/T destinctions and such ... I mean I understand the premise behind it but cant you see how pointless it is ? where the borderline ? what's the diference in the end ?
Only thing that matters is if you can do your job or not consistently ... and your job is to NS or your just wasting pop/land.
If an avian tries to get enough to run NS, then that avian would probably lose the ability to double tap as well.
that should a good hint to you what not to atempt with avian.
Perhaps, but I've grown bored of playing with the same old builds all the time. A little variety can't hurt. :)
Im talking about the difference between an orc/undead attacker and an avian/elf/whatever hybrid. The numbers are VERY obvious when u do those comparisons. While its not as obvious when u compare elf/avian hybrids to their attacker counterparts the fact is its still a serious disadvantage to go hybrid over pure attacker.
Its the same concept, most waring kds should have kd wide 3 mod tpa and 10% WT at a minimum if you come along and want to go A/t you need 4 raw tpa add in the TD and your 100% science and then if you arent a rouge your going to have at least 10% LESS land to dedicate to such things as banks/GS and are going to be running considerably less offense and be set up to be easy meat for a chain. All that is needed just so u can NS, now as a kd your not ALL going to be hybrids as you need actual attackers. The hybrids get chained while the attackers get shelled and u loose. Thats my point. and chained attacker>chained hybrid.
You've made your point. :)
Really I'm just bored of playing the same old builds all the time that's all. :O
Congrats, you've described an A/T. Runs NS on enemy. Now, I'll make blindingly clear the difference between A/T and A/t. A/t's job: attack.
Again - A/t's job: attack.
Which, btw, will happen to include stealing stuff you need, so you can attack better. Like pes - so you have that econ thing... so you can actually train units in war, unlike all the mindless attacker strats that thing 120 OPA going in is all that is required, with no thought to what they'll look like at 3 days in. I'd take 100 opa for 3 days straight over 120 falling to 60 (linearly) - so how fast does the attacker fall? How much slower does the hybrid A/t fall?
Take the simplest example. Imagine stealing horses just wouldn't work as an attacker, cause everyone has too even a TPA, plus the WTs. Imagine all the straight attackers have horses to steal (someone always has some at home.) Imagine the A/t can actually get the op though, cause it isn't *that* hard. So... A/t is worth between +10-20% offense. As in ya, from 100 opa to 120 opa. And that takes up stealth only for the first day! So.. same offense... same defense etc. - only difference is the A/t has better thievery defense cause it's mod TPA is just high enough to give even the T/Ms problems... while the straight attacker is shackled to the WTs for any hope of surviving the T/Ms.
I know the above is *too* simple, since often you can't get a target to take horses from, and even attackers can get the op off often enough to use the same plan. But that's the basic concept of the A/t.
Look at it another way - you've got to spend resources on thievery defense, right? So there is a minimum "effort" needed, no matter what - otherwise the T/Ms have it too easy. Now, instead of spending that effort as thieves and WTs, we spend a little bit extra, and make the WTs into dens - hey presto, you've got an A/t. So saying A/t needs 4 rtpa and 15% dens, which is a huge cost (the tpa alone is around 40 mOPA) - you started by assuming 2 TPA and 15% WTs anyway... so the only difference is the 2 *extra* tpa - all of 20 mod opa. That gives you *both* better defense, and good chances to mitigate the offense loss (and maybe even come out strictly ahead) while doing a bit of damage.
There is a chance the hybrid role mostly works because attackers usually do a bad job stopping T/M ops as a group. Maybe the top really does always have 40%+ autofail with 3 mod tpa min. I sure wouldn't try to run an A/T or A/t against that kinda defense! But I never face those kingdoms - I find kingdoms that average 2 tpa with poor mods, and will almost always have 2-3 people running 1 tpa. So 3 rTPA with heavy mods from sage *is* enough to do an A/t role, and costs low offense "off the top", while still giving all the "offense benefit" of the A/t role. Somewhere there is a cutoff where the role stops working - I've fairly sure 'tis above the 50% mark though.
Also note - even as halfer planning A/t or A/T, I spent my first war with all of 2 tpa, 0% dens, and played pure attacker with tpa instead of WTs for thief def. No science = no hybrid, IMO. Also note I expect to have better science than most else my size - I'm good at getting science. So I can either up housing forever and eek a last few opa out, or I can branch out into hybrid land. Due to the ^.5 effect on sci, diversification is rewarded, so at some point I gain more "marginal utility" from adding a second role instead of upping the first. Nowhere here will you see me claiming the hybrid is king of all - just that it *is* the clear best choice in specific cases, and is often perfectly comparable to straight attacker in many more.
Last edited by Ethan; 07-03-2012 at 17:40.
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
^ what he said :)
But a well all depends if you see a nice wartarget with allot of A/t's A/T's just addept :)
ARE THERE HYBRIDS STILL???
Is there courage still?..
Hybrids can work if you work it and don't let it work you.
Seraiace
@ethan
what you are describing isnt A/t as you like to call it ... its just weak atacker who wasted land on dens. You also rely on oponent beeing stupid to do well with that strat ... that doesnt make your setup good. As soon as you get out of ghetto conflicts and face good warring KD's you will find out WT's are mandatory building utilized on a KD level for every non thief in a KD. You wont be able to do anything and in return will present good target since your lacking tpa makes you weak link in a KD setup since you got no wt's.
If you have bad luck you will be facing heavy attacker setup with only few t/m's for suport and they will eagerly demonstrate to you why lots of opa+wt's > weaker opa+dens.
I do find it amusing how you consider somewhat sustainable weak opa setup superior to highly sustainable high off setup. Dont you realize that if all works out for you and your draft/income doesnt gets wasted by ops/chains and you really do manage to outtrain pure attacker in the same situation (and theres a whole lot of if's there) only thing you managed to do in 2 days is to get where he started from ? Your whole premise is flawed.
there are 2 types of wars ... in one you want to gain land, in that case what wins the wars is offense, atack speed and gains mods. Other type you want warwins/honour, in that case what wins is off,reliable ops and effective chaining/disabling. In neither of these your setup rly works and in case you missed it in both cases off was number one for a reason.
hybrids have hard enough time as it is ... no need to further polute the pool with some bastard offsprings of the allready endagered species that can only work against bad players.
What mTPA are the (Faery) T/Ms running up near the top? I figured most of them settle in at around 15 mTPA, but I'm not playing there, so I know it is just a guess. So if I top out at 6 mTPA... they've got a 5:2 ratio against me... IMO, not good enough. It'll stop some, but WTs would work just as well. But if I'm up at 9 mTPA, I don't really care about a 15 mTPA faery, because the 3:2 ratio isn't good enough for them to damage me much. Now I'm able to op the attackers that rely on WTs (though losses are a problem!) and the T/Ms still don't bother me because our WT attackers are better targets.
If you tell me the strong warring kingdom T/Ms run 24 mTPA... ya, I'm not gonna run 16 mTPA, the offense loss is too big. If the T/Ms only ran 12 mTPA... getting 8 mTPA isn't hard later in the age, and that's enough to find some good targets with. The offense loss isn't that high, I'd usually "gamble" on the thieves to pay for themselves. Somewhere in the middle is the "break even point" where they hybrid stops being better.
Remember to, player skill *does* factor in. I'll stop trying hybrid a lot earlier that some, because I'm decent at it, but not great. If I stunk, I'd never bother trying, and if I always knew how to light an enemy up with thieves, I'd stick with it longer. Player skill + T/M mTPA are the two big drivers of if A/t works.
If your war strat centers on deep chaining, you want A/Ts and pure A generally, because you need NS. If you plan to max gain (for a win) the A/t and A/M is naturally stronger because you will do an econ kill/contain setup. And, as noted in my kingdom sitting at the 50/50 bubble... if you getto flail, anything active works.
And as is typical in most of my "suggestions", moderation is key. 25 A/ts is totally dumb, agreed. Maybe the T/M mTPA factor pushes the A/t (and A/T) out at top play, maybe not. But anywhere except the top an A/t should be seriously considered, even if it is decided against due to personal strengths. And I, at least, would stick a strong A/t player into that role even at the "top", though I grant 'tis a hair's difference either way.
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
From what i've seen via top 15-75 typical numbers range from 12-18 mod tpa with no real reason to break 20 mod tpa. Being a hybrid with say 6-9 tpa just means that the attackers deal with you not the t/m & hybrids. And as i've pointed out before hybrids are worse at surviving a chain than the attacker so your kd ultimately is ahead by having more attackers being chained than hybrids being chained.
A war strat that does deep chaining and REQUIRES A/T to pull it off is doomed to fail simply becasue u CANNOT rely on hybrids always being effective, sure u can get lucky and win but luck is less and less against good kds. A pure max gain war with random hits on both sides your right that having A/T & A/M is nice. However any kd fighting hybrids that is stupid enough to not at least semi chain the A/T & A/M into loosing effectiveness (thieves/towers to cast ops) was also going to loose the war regardless of your kd's setup. As much as i dont like his arrogance realest sums that up nice as whats the most important part of a kd.
This amounts to saying that i know my players are more skillful than theirs so as we war below our level lets have fun running hybrids. No arguments here, but i've had some wars where the other kd had went into war and afterwords they admitted a few people in their kd had no expectation of winning but were willing to try a harder opponent to figure out what to do next. Heck i've been in kd's where the leaders picked a fight they doubted we could win to help determine which people we needed to screen out of the kd. Both are fine methods to war, but as it stands right now lots of hybrids should only be seriuosly considered if you dont want to strive to fight the hardest wars u can.
So, being a massive noob, I've been perusing this thread as much as possible. I just got back into the game end of last age and ended up, on a suggestion, going undead/rogue for this age. I have been regretting doing such a thing, as I really did want to be a heavy attacker. Are there any suggestions for maximizing a sub-par race/class combo to make this work?
edit: Unless of course undead/rogue is actually a good idea, I don't know jack about this game
Last edited by Jiodi; 14-03-2012 at 22:09.
Science is an essential part of being a hybrid, and as such undead with its -20% science effectiveness is probably the 2nd worst race suited to be rogue. The worst being dwarf.
Edit: On second thought, Orc would be the worst. :O
Last edited by BlazingChicken; 14-03-2012 at 23:03.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote