Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58

Thread: Horses, are they worth it?

  1. #31
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    noobtopia
    Posts
    1,836
    I will just add... homes are a horrible building for undead outside of specific situations. Overbuild TG or emphasis on barracks+gs+wt is good.
    I never said "all undead should run stables because they're awesome", only explained why they are better for undead and orc than they are for most other races. Chances are if stables are good or decent for your province, you don't need to be told so, because you ought to be running the numbers to see if the benefits and drawbacks of stables are worth it compared to other good buildings. And by good buildings, I certainly mean "not homes under the impression that they're going to be entirely devoted to maxing out OPA", because that is incredibly stupid.

    Why is it that people insist on being stupid in this game?
    Last edited by nooblet; 23-04-2012 at 20:12.

  2. #32
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    318
    this forum is hilarious you have like 5 complete and utter noobs giving bad advice and 1 person giving good advice (nooblet) and he is getting ganged up on by people who havent the faintest idea of wtf they are talking about, nearly everything you guys are talking about is static numbers - which is bad talk even for faery but on a race that gets its full bennefit from not having army home.... ever its ludicrouse, seriously to thread starter listen to nooblet, i happen to know a bit about who he is and you wont go wrong, ignore the pretenders.
    The Elf Mystic
    Flaming stupid people since 1999

  3. #33
    Postaholic
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    952
    I read earlier that someone suggested Undeads (non-cleric) don't need hospitals.... you're clueless.

    Undeads (non-cleric) need hospitals. Period.

    As for horses, assuming you're Undead and run like 9 epa. To get the extra 1/0 boost per elite or 11.1111% increase in offense, you will require a matching 9 horses per acres.

    1 stable is 60 horses or 6 horses per acre meaning you will need 15% stables in your build for an extra 11.11111% offensive increase.

    Is this efficient? you tell me.

    P.S. Apologies for any miscalcs. I never actually calced. Just reciting common knowledge.
    Last edited by baka; 23-04-2012 at 08:25.

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    39
    If u dont need that 15% Stables, where would you put it into though? Hospitals?

    Also, im currently running 10% Stables, like nooblet said, i like how horses are almost immune to the effects of warring.

  5. #35
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,524
    The main factors in favor of TGs:
    1st - High rOPA, 2nd - low total% to offense buildings, 3rd - high BE

    The main factors in favor of stables:
    1st - Low rOPA, 2nd - high total% to offense buildings, 3rd - low BE


    For all that most people site BE as a big concern for TG vs. stables, it is usually the least concern. Total Raw OPA is *far* more important a factor. In light of this...

    UD attacker generally should have the following characteristics (exception, "breaker" attackers have high/very high offense buildings):

    rOPA - very high
    total% offense buildings - moderate (high at war start, but needs moderately high overbuild)
    BE - moderate to low


    This gives us recommendations for:
    TG - very strong
    Stables - mild
    Stables - very mild

    Thus we reach the conclusion that, if an UD is better with stables... it was probably doing things wrong. (Excluding breaker roles - if you are playing one at kingdom request I assume you don't need my advise.) Cause the only way to overcome the bias towards TGs is to be running middling to low rOPA... and then what, precisely, are you doing with UD anyway?


    Please note - all those hating on the static analysis - yes, that came from a static formula. Notice the adjustment to the available land for offense? Sure, UD off_build% starts high, but it churns a lot, just like nooblet has pointed out. I'm not mindlessly applying math for static situations... I'm deriving a formula to give me an idea where to start modifying *from*. Did you know rOPA was *far* more important than BE? I didn't till the formula told me.

    And to anyone citing the elite strength of the races... not relevant. The closest you get is that high elite races tend to have high rOPA. But if you have a 80 rOPA faery somehow... stables are no better for it than for a 80 rOPA UD. Offense/unit is a pointless measure for this discussion. [Aka - if you're going to do math, please do it right. The vines gag gets old fast around here.]
    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

  6. #36
    Needs to get out more DHaran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    8,402
    Being able to do math doesn't mean you give good advice at Utopia. You tend to over-complicate any topic you post about Ethan.
    S E C R E T S

  7. #37
    Enthusiast Twyla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    433
    The root of the whole TGs vs Stables debate comes down to several key factors:

    #1 ~ Diminishing Building Effects
    The more you have of a particular %-based building (such as TGs), the less effective each additional % becomes. IMHO, dedicating more than 15%-20% of your lands to any one Building is seldom worthwhile - Banks being the obvious exception, due to both %-effects AND flat-rate income.

    #2 ~ Building Efficiency
    Even with respectable Tools Science, many provinces commonly dip below 80% BE - further crippling the benefits of additional lands dedicated to any particular building. The exceptions to this are Libraries (unaffected by BE) and capacity buildings such as Stables.

    #3 ~ Net Worth Efficiency
    Net Worth is the determining factor for most aspects of Utopia, so gaining the most efficient net effects per Net Worth is important - though not the end-all of be-all as many like to profess. Where TGs offer 'free' increases to OME, Stables add 0.6 NW per Horse.

    #4 ~ Military Statistics
    One must also factor how significant an increase Horses are to your OME. For Orcs and Undead, with their 9pt Elites, a full complement of Horses increases OME by 11.1% and military NW by 8.72%. For Halfers, they increase OME by 20% and military NW by 9.6%. In brief, Stables are far more beneficial for Races with weaker offensive units than those with stronger ones.


    Overall, the best approach is a mixture of both Stables and TGs - the breakover point being determined by the strength of your offensive units.

    One particularly effective tactic would be to build Stables OOW to stockpile Horses then, just before going to War, raze the Stables and rebuild them as TGs - ideally so they complete just as your armies return. Horses out on attack are not lost - only those at home when the game ticks. By making this switch, you maintain net OME despite the land gained from attacks and, assuming you attack again before the game ticks, combat losses are the only Horses you lose.

    Just my nickel on the subject.
    The only people who never make mistakes are those who never try to accomplish anything.

  8. #38
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    noobtopia
    Posts
    1,836
    It's not about TG vs. Stables... TG are clearly superior in most aspects, and stables only come when you have good TG or plan to have good TG in the near future. The decision is stables vs. every other building you want to use.

    There are many downsides to stables, the worst of which is having ponies stolen during the moment your armies are in, and the fact that you are obliged to keep the mounts out every tick once the stables are gone, which forces tactical decisions you don't necessarily want to make. A third is that the land and time needed to fill stables is resources that could be spent towards other useful buildings, whether military or economic, and this applies whether you raze-rebuild the stables or keep them.

    In a static analysis where you don't lose any land and your BE is consistent, stables suck. If the war horse offense does not translate to extra hits in war, stables suck. If a savvy opponent knows the weak points of using war horses and has the ability to act on them, stables can suck. If you get chained while raze-rebuilding stables and wind up with less overall buildings, they can suck.

    I would place stables as a pretty low priority for undead, but still decent enough to consider using if they are backed by 15-20% TG at war start. It is a decision to sacrifice some of your barracks+guardstations during the early phases of hostile war, assuming you run the same economy buildings you would otherwise.

    Of course, who knows how this will work next age with undead getting a giant nerf...

  9. #39
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,201
    Quote Originally Posted by nooblet View Post
    obliged to keep the mounts out every tick once the stables are gone, which forces tactical decisions you don't necessarily want to make.
    um your only forced to do that if u dont want to keep horses. For those who argue against stables if u raze and rebuild them at wars start you are no worse of letting your horses die than if u had never built them. assuming you're able to run your prov correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twyla View Post
    The root of the whole TGs vs Stables debate comes down to several key factors:
    Twyla the arguement isn't as nooblet says are the technically worth it over other buildings, becasue they aren't (in most cases). Its can you make a stronger prov if u use them and run your prov correctly, and the answer is yes. IF you are capable of running your prov correctly building stables gives a tactical advantage, the only question is how many and how do u run the prov.
    Last edited by Persain; 23-04-2012 at 20:44.

  10. #40
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    noobtopia
    Posts
    1,836
    I'm convinced most of the BS in this forum is deliberate misinformation to keep the inexperienced players at a disadvantage...

  11. #41
    Postaholic
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan View Post
    The main factors in favor of TGs:
    1st - High rOPA, 2nd - low total% to offense buildings, 3rd - high BE

    The main factors in favor of stables:
    1st - Low rOPA, 2nd - high total% to offense buildings, 3rd - low BE


    For all that most people site BE as a big concern for TG vs. stables, it is usually the least concern. Total Raw OPA is *far* more important a factor. In light of this...

    UD attacker generally should have the following characteristics (exception, "breaker" attackers have high/very high offense buildings):

    rOPA - very high
    total% offense buildings - moderate (high at war start, but needs moderately high overbuild)
    BE - moderate to low


    This gives us recommendations for:
    TG - very strong
    Stables - mild
    Stables - very mild

    Thus we reach the conclusion that, if an UD is better with stables... it was probably doing things wrong. (Excluding breaker roles - if you are playing one at kingdom request I assume you don't need my advise.) Cause the only way to overcome the bias towards TGs is to be running middling to low rOPA... and then what, precisely, are you doing with UD anyway?


    Please note - all those hating on the static analysis - yes, that came from a static formula. Notice the adjustment to the available land for offense? Sure, UD off_build% starts high, but it churns a lot, just like nooblet has pointed out. I'm not mindlessly applying math for static situations... I'm deriving a formula to give me an idea where to start modifying *from*. Did you know rOPA was *far* more important than BE? I didn't till the formula told me.

    And to anyone citing the elite strength of the races... not relevant. The closest you get is that high elite races tend to have high rOPA. But if you have a 80 rOPA faery somehow... stables are no better for it than for a 80 rOPA UD. Offense/unit is a pointless measure for this discussion. [Aka - if you're going to do math, please do it right. The vines gag gets old fast around here.]
    err.. rOPA is actually measuring offensive/unit.

    Your arguement is self defeating and your mathematics (there is none actually) does not conclude anything.

    You went full circle to explain nothing and came back with holes. Try again.

  12. #42
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    noobtopia
    Posts
    1,836
    10% stables is either 6 raw opa or however much raw total offense it is for your province in horses. Looking at horses as anything other than raw offense is counterintuitive... whether that extra offense is enough to make a difference is a matter of debate. It was useful for me in post-chain situations twice, when most of my buildings were trashed. I couldn't have avoided being chained, or the gold dragon they brought last time, but considering I had some 5000 available mounts and the targets I hit were often dropped to around 15-20k mod defense, they were a pretty big impact in making extra hits.

  13. #43
    Forum Fanatic gergnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,525
    i never liked stables myself. silly buggers.

  14. #44
    Post Fiend Tightpants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    158
    what ever happened to stealing horses

    i don't get the point in stables other than to let other people steal your horses

    edit: about math and utopia - math can work to figure stuff out in utopia. i mean utopia is just one giant math problem really, the problem is that the math is too complicated for most people (i.e. ethan, no offense bro at least you're trying)
    Last edited by Tightpants; 25-04-2012 at 02:34.
    Reptar in Paris - Ball So Hard Babies Try to Find Me
    Summer 2013

  15. #45
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    noobtopia
    Posts
    1,836
    Can't steal horses while they are sent out to battle, and stealing horses is a hard and thief-intensive op - though far from a non-concern against a good player. Unless both players have armies in on the same tick, neither can steal and keep ponies, which further limits the maximum potential of the op. Letting your horses get stolen is one of the worst results of ponies, and usually enough to dissuade people from using stables. So far this age, it hasn't happened to me, which is surprising since I have fought kingdoms with active enough chained people. I guess activity is less relevant than competence, and the kingdom I was fighting in the second-to-last war was filled with incompetent but hyperactive noobs. I would be more wary of nightstrike or tornado than stealing ponies, given the high cost and timing issues to make it work, at least during war.

    On math... it is valuable to put together models, but garbage in garbage out applies as well. If you base all of your calculations on static figures, it stands to reason that those calculations won't hold up when a province is chained or tornadoed. War horse offense, generally, does not go away as easily as the offense you get from training grounds, and of course the war horse offense doesn't depend on having the stables at the moment of attack... so using stables provides a means to boost your offense in a way that remains after you get chained or tornadoed, and the war horses don't lessen in usefulness every time you bring in new land.
    Last edited by nooblet; 25-04-2012 at 06:01.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •