HU heavy attacker ,how viable ?

[Ethan]

@Cryticterror - Replace everywhere you just said "human" with "orc", and your statements is just as true. What, precisely, does claiming a dedicated T/M can op an attacker really show? It shows (gasp) attackers aren't immune to T/Ms! Or maybe we take the talk of chaining... and we find, much to our great surprise, that deep chaining does damage! Well golly darn, that's big news!

I've made a fairly specific claim. I see human attacker getting 96% of orc attacker's strength under the set of assumptions I used. So now I've ask someone to put forward *their* assumptions for a good orc attacker. And I'm going to try and show exactly how a human gets within a handful of % of *that* orc.

The opposition's response?

You're hopeless...

Well, I guess that really shows how great orc is. Can't be arguing with them numbers.

[BlazingChicken]

Calm down Cryptic. O.o
I already said other races were better than human in most cases. Whats with all the rage? ._.

[nooblet]

The problem with assumptions is that they make an ass of you and yourself...
What isn't an assumption is that 9 is much greater than 6. We could posit humans having far better science and putting all of their extra population into offense, and invent the worst possible numbers for Orc, but the game doesn't work like that. Both of your proposed numbers fall apart after the first hostile wave, and it's very easy to dismantle paper tigers that overdraft.

[BlazingChicken]

Why did this thread become an argument of human vs orc kingdoms lol. I think its clear orcs would win in a short war, and humans might stand a chance in a long war....but probably not.

[nooblet]

In addition...
This is not a province vs. province game, but a kingdom game, so looking at an individual province tweaked for maximum OPA is the wrong way to go about it. Hypothetically, if your Human kingdom goes against an Orc kingdom, some Humans are going to grow away, and some are not going to grow away, most likely. If the humans want to win, they're going to play to their racial advantages rather than playing to Orc's racial advantages, and one thing the orcs lack is a way to hold on to their acres easily, whether they get ambushed or simply too big and can't turtle behind their elites.

But if people want to continue thinking "rarrr imma gonna throw offense and pwn j00", go right ahead. You will get owned by every Orc kingdom if you think like that, because you're playing the kind of game Orc is best able to exploit. Undead might be able to play that game, but even they have to approach the conflict differently.

[Palem]

Both Undead and human fail lol

[nooblet]

Eh I think Undead are alright, but they're not Orc. I'm surprised people are having such a low opinion of undeads, but after last age's top-level undead kingdoms floundered horribly I shouldn't be...

[BlazingChicken]

I'd say undead looks fairly good this age, with town watch and animate dead. Loss of war spoils is saddening though.

[Ethan]

The problem with assumptions is that they make an ass of you and yourself...
What isn't an assumption is that 9 is much greater than 6. We could posit humans having far better science and putting all of their extra population into offense, and invent the worst possible numbers for Orc, but the game doesn't work like that. Both of your proposed numbers fall apart after the first hostile wave, and it's very easy to dismantle paper tigers that overdraft.

In my 96% number, both had 8 pes/acre, both had 3 mTPA and 2mWPA (defensive), both had +10% pop sci and +15% BE sci. Both had 30% land split between TGs and Forts. Both had 65% offense 35% defense. Human was given 4.88% exra sci to represent FoK. Orc got fanat, but did have to take the def decrease. (Fanat is about +2% in this case.) Income/econ was *not* represented, nor wages. Both got 10% homes - human racial was correctly excluded from this bonus. (Thus technically hurting the human a hair.) Human was run as 6/5 @ 4.8/5, Orc at 9/5 @ 7.25/5, thus real humans will get slightly lower with slightly higher NW since they will use some elites on attacks. Ambush/gains were not modeled. DR wasn't modeled, but both got 8 pes/acre, so DR is close, though the human's will definitely be higher from higher base pop.

So - yet again - were is this magic bpa I gave the human? Where is the extra offense to skew NW/A? Where is *anything* relating to "top line" numbers that isn't held as close to equal as possible?

Maybe you hate homes and want 20% TGs 10% stables. K, on Monday I can run numbers for that too. They'll show the same thing again - 9 vs. 6 is totally misleading, 9 vs 8.6 would be a *much* better comparison. Whatever it is that makes my assumptions a "paper tiger", I made the *same* assumptions for orc, so it should be that much cooling looking (and less useful) as well.


Perhaps the funniest thing is, against a bunch of the others you are arguing *for* the humans! Your gut *is* smart enough to tell you there is more going on here, but it isn't sure enough to actually back them at the power level of orcs. My gut said the same thing, but I ran my math and it surprised me how strong they really were.

I've been surprised before, and my math has held up just fine. Example: the faery attacker - everyone said it was stupid, I said it was 83% orc top line, and had ToG + Fog + AD + QF, so I'd try it. Guess what - 18% is *too big* to make up against good players... but the intangibles were just good enough to make it a fun, and very close, fight. And a fight I'd win against anyone that wasn't as good as I was. It was clearly not *best*, but it was clearly *good enough* - basically just as I expected. I think that age elf was such a bad attacker I was *ligit* a better attacker than elves. (Elf was like 88% power ranking, and no ToG/Fog.)


Your later post also makes note of how a large/UB human is more valuable than a large/UB orc, I presume because ToG gives it a big gc buff. Again, you argue *for* the human, while also trying trash it. I'm claiming human can nearly match orc at their own game, and have clear advantages in other areas they can use. So far, you object to the first half, but we agree on the second part. (LL for chain slowing, holding land when trying to go UB, etc.) I'm really not clear *how* I could convince you the first half (human offense rivals orc) is also true, except by having rock solid numbers to back me up.

[Luc]

If they're chaining you properly then they should be able to hit you down to about 25% of your land within an hour or two. Suppose your raw WPA was 3 or so, if you get deep chained quickly then you'll have 12 raw WPA. With some science mods it should be more than enough to landlust. If they just semi-chain you, then you can just keep ToGing or spreading minor spells like greed.

And by the time your wpa is high enough to easily do LL, you're too out of range to make especially good use of the damage bonus. Also, as soon as the rune supply is gone (which happens fast) you're sitting on a wasted personality that does nothing for you. Even in the other case you describe, Mystic is a complete waste. Sage would do just as well casting greed on people, and the science bonuses would easily compensate for the lesser amount of ToG cast.

Certainly a human/mystic would require more activity, but its also less likely to be chained than a sage or merchant. If they chain you deep enough, then land lust would grab more acres for you than trad marches hitting up due to networth difference and the fact that you would be so overpopped that you will have to choose either between landlusting or sending most of your specs to the dragon or releasing some elites. There's more reason to chain down a human merchant than a human/mystic. At the very least the mystic would have more mana needed to pull itself back up with land lust.

It's less likely to get chained because it'll be weaker. That's not a good thing. As your opponent I'd gladly see you sit there and waste your kd's rune supply on some LL. Since you're a mystic, you'll be going down faster due to your unimpressive army, so the extra hits required to take away your LL gains only put you on the same level as the rest again. And if you don't get the runes (which you likely won't in many cases) I've not only chained you more easily, but I've also negated your personality's bonuses to a large degree. Or I can choose to not touch you, and focus on the real threats in your kd. Either way I win.

[nooblet]

I am arguing for correct numbers, not for which race is superior. 9 vs. 8.6 is very misleading, when comparing two races unit for unit. You have a 9 point unit, and a 6 point unit for a race that hypothetically puts all of its extra population into offense to try and match an Orc's offensive output - which is impractical and not even the best use of a human's population in all cases, but I guess you can go with it. You should first throw out buildings in your model, because the game's environment throws those numbers out of whack the moment the first blow is struck, if not beforehand with some skilled manipulation. Keep it to things that you can solidly control for and predict when making race comparisons, whether they're static or dynamic.

[Humanoize]

I did a similar calculation 89k off for undead and 56k for human with same def specs tpa

useless comment without showing the calculation.

[BlazingChicken]

And by the time your wpa is high enough to easily do LL, you're too out of range to make especially good use of the damage bonus. Also, as soon as the rune supply is gone (which happens fast) you're sitting on a wasted personality that does nothing for you. Even in the other case you describe, Mystic is a complete waste. Sage would do just as well casting greed on people, and the science bonuses would easily compensate for the lesser amount of ToG cast.



It's less likely to get chained because it'll be weaker. That's not a good thing. As your opponent I'd gladly see you sit there and waste your kd's rune supply on some LL. Since you're a mystic, you'll be going down faster due to your unimpressive army, so the extra hits required to take away your LL gains only put you on the same level as the rest again. And if you don't get the runes (which you likely won't in many cases) I've not only chained you more easily, but I've also negated your personality's bonuses to a large degree. Or I can choose to not touch you, and focus on the real threats in your kd. Either way I win.

You're making it sound like sage is some magical personality that would grant you numbers far better then a mystic. Not really, especially not early to mid-age. Especially not during this age where sage bonuses just aren't that good. Mystic could save on guilds and towers which could be distributed to other buildings so it would allow for better flexibility.
You don't get hit: you ToG.
You get hit lightly: you ToG.
You get semi-chained: you fireball
You get deep-chained: you landlust and you should be able to do this shortly after they chain you or during the time they're chaining you so your networth should still be somewhat decent if you're active enough since your army wouldn't have deserted to a high degree yet.
Of course if you get massacred you'll get screwed no matter what your personality is.

[Bishop]

You're making it sound like sage is some magical personality that would grant you numbers far better then a mystic.

That's probably because it is for a human.

[BlazingChicken]

That's probably because it is for a human.

I suppose that's true. Still would require a fair amount of pumping though. I think it comes down to how often a person would jump from war to war.
Orcs and undeads could probably get more science than a human in mid-age to late-age since they can hit around at faeries with learn attacks. While that's not really an option for a human that isn't suiciding.