Human Attacker

[Seldum]

in general I think the rule of: Get as much science as possible - applies, but how much science does a human need as minimum to really be competitive?

I also use the rule of thumb with: For each 100 bpa (in the primary categories) I get I should run 2-3% libs.

[Brilliant]

its 5% libs for about 700bpa total and then an extra 1% per 100bpa afterwards if i remember correctly from when i did the maths ages ago. as for sci it depends on kingdoms and cfs you have, but basically when human your sci should be on active if in fort/war - rushed/extreme oow.

[StratOcastle]

I never understood the dislike of war hero anymore than those who questioned the 7/1 elites of orcs. War hero because you will see plague and dragons. In my idealized 25 kingdom I slot 3 dwarf war heroes. The cuteness factor is you can carry plague without suffering, in case you're subject to chaining( unless that's been modified).

[octobrev]

Most of war hero's bonuses come into play minimally. +50% honor only matters if you're hoarding hp. -50% train time and draft costs are irrelevant in war since you should had already trained before exchanging. Not positive what you're plan is with that... Immunity to dragons is ok I guess but it certainly doesn't outweigh -50% losses. And then immunity to plague. Natures blessing. So there's that.

I picked a pers to use for the entire age and all I got was this stupid dragon immunity.

[idiocy]

plague immunity is nice to have, since it frees up mana and runes for tog and ops, and if a lot of hits are exchanged nb can become impractical. it's still very weak.

[octobrev]

I'll have to address the home builders union as a whole here. You are wrong. The only reason you see success with homes is because of the level at which you play. You can log in every other day down there and still win a good number of wars. It doesn't make being inactive a sound strategy. It doesn't make building homes a sound strategy. The belief that homes are good is carried like a bible among the ignorant, who can't evaluate dynamic bonuses that don't reflect directly on the throne page.

[octobrev]

If you're exchanging a lot of hits, you're not going to have the peasant pool to make tog valuable to begin with... TOGing at high draft is like drafting and training specs in the first hours of protection. Until you're in an unbreakable position and free to transition back into an economy, whatchucastin?

[StratOcastle]

I get the constant bonus point. There was a thread, merchant vs sage, that made a clear argument for merchant a few ages ago. Kingdom synergy is a topic that plays in every case. I've been in the habit of choosing my race/persona later than most BoA to strat toward kingdom leverage. This age it was choose before you see and the kingdom strat was economically lacking.- as for the player, I recommend getting a feel for the more sophisticated builds. It's late in the age, and humans offer a malleable design that can reward or backfire. My time as a human mystic was rewarding; as a high activity player I was there to offer aid to attackers and quick to exploit the enemy when the iron was hot.
* the fast training of soldiers/ToG offers it's strength with the enemies 2nd dragon.

[Bishop]

I'll have to address the home builders union as a whole here. You are wrong. The only reason you see success with homes is because of the level at which you play. You can log in every other day down there and still win a good number of wars. It doesn't make being inactive a sound strategy. It doesn't make building homes a sound strategy. The belief that homes are good is carried like a bible among the ignorant, who can't evaluate dynamic bonuses that don't reflect directly on the throne page.

That only partially true. If at that level homes are effective then they are a good building for that situation. Much like 2 wpa is decent protection for low range attackers but would get you eaten higher in the charts.

I agree that homes aren't useful though in general.

[Seldum]

You can log in every other day down there and still win a good number of wars. It doesn't make being inactive a sound strategy. It doesn't make building homes a sound strategy. The belief that homes are good is carried like a bible among the ignorant, who can't evaluate dynamic bonuses that don't reflect directly on the throne page.

What a piece of BS right there. If you think you can log in every other day and win wars, you must talk about another game.

If you take the time to build a simulator, you will see that you can have the same/better economy with some homes than running 0%. But again, if you get fireballed to 3k peasants at the start of the war, homes won't do you any good, so then it would be better to have some flatrate buildings.

If you do a survey of one of the biggest humans in the world 28k+ acres you will see he/she also runs homes. But then again, I woulden't run it as pure attackers.

[Bishop]

What a piece of BS right there. If you think you can log in every other day and win wars, you must talk about another game.

If you take the time to build a simulator, you will see that you can have the same/better economy with some homes than running 0%. But again, if you get fireballed to 3k peasants at the start of the war, homes won't do you any good, so then it would be better to have some flatrate buildings.

If you do a survey of one of the biggest humans in the world 28k+ acres you will see he/she also runs homes. But then again, I woulden't run it as pure attackers.

You are making the mistake that octo is talking about. Equating power in a static simulation with power in a dynamic situation. Homes are actively bad for the vast majority of players. This is an old argument and one that has been shown time and time again.

The fact that massive humans can run them is irrelevant to your situation.

[StratOcastle]

Yeah, my point off applicable build is based in the predictability of efficiency you see in top kingdoms. Ghetto kingdoms can get fairly exotic in build. A midrange staple this age runs a 'dragon cannon' strat with a HA compliment of war heroes. Merchants and t/ms round out the design. The change I've seen this age is 'dragon canon' strat that loads offense more than the standard heavy defense I saw just 2 ages ago. Another was a mystic personality based core of dwarves that had a proactive intel doctrine. They shelled like nobodies beeswax.

[octobrev]

I wouldn't exactly consider a province in havoc of absalom to be an authority on strategy. Their leader spent his entire career in the ghetto. I'm not sure how economy comes into play in war. Could you explain? It should be your goal to start the war on 3k peasants. If the other kingdom has to do it for you, your draft was too low to begin with.

[goodz]

I think most top kingdoms run homes !

although i doubt they bother to pump to a high enough draft for the homes to make sense.

[octobrev]

^case in point. That human is also ridiculously overdrafted for it's current situation.