The Real Dwarf/Cleric

[fawk]

Since Beta if you must know. I was an Earth 2025 guy, which was a game that Mehul made before Utopia, I came over to utopia for Beta when he asked players to come try it. And yes, 10% Forts. Without them you are not hitting 100+ OPA and keeping it longer than your first 2 waves. As you gain unbuilt land, it is better to share that loss of buildings across some TGs and some Forts instead of on a single source. Disagree if you want, but the math doesn't lie on it.




I've thought about that. But I am keeping the Racks off my initial build and if an enemy kingdom is built a certain way, I will add them in.




If I was going up against an mostly Orc kingdom, I'd probably adjust my build to out gain them as described below.

Lets say the Orc has 25% GSs at 80% BE, that is -30% loses for the orc, right ?

Before going to the specifics, you gain against that orc 100% * 0.7 = 70% of the land. This is clear.


A dwarf has 104% BE, 80 * 1.3. He saves up around 20% of land having the same effects as orc. Is this clear ? If i get exactly what the orc has, it 30% more BE, i fill 80% of my land as dwarf. I have 17.5% GSs that are the equivalent of the orcs 25%. Dwarf has 17.5% GSs at 104% BE, with 80% of the land built up only, is this clear ?

If he puts that 20% empty land left to build more GSs, the dwarf would have 17.5% GSs + 20% GSs that finishes building all the empty land. That is 37.5% GSs at 104% BE which is -48.75% gains against the dwarf.

100 * 0.5125 = 51.3% of the land taken. Are we on the same page so far ?

70 / 51.3 = 1.365, meaning that orc loses 36.5% more land.
With 10% sci, since both can get the same sci, actually dwarf can get higher military sci because of the orcs sci penalty, but let's ignore that.
Orc vs dwarf:
130 * 1.1 * 0.513 = 73.36% land taken
Dwarf vs orc
90 * 1.089 * 1.1 * 0.7 = 75.47% land taken
The orc loses more land when attacked by the dwarf, compared to the orc attacking the dwarf. Where is the orc gains bonus ? If i include the dwarfs better sci, the gains would be even higher from higher military sci.


This doesn't even take into account that I am probably going to ambush the Orc 1-2x before I make my DT on his province. Reducing the Orcs gains even further.




I am going off of the formula in the guide.

Mod Living Space = (((Raw Living Space - Homes Bonus) * Race Bonus) + Homes Bonus) * Population Science * Honor Population Bonus

Is that inaccurate? If so, then they need to fix the guide.

Lets set aside the fact that running 37.5% GS is unreasonble.
You seem to be missing the fact that after all you number crunching you said:
Orc vs dwarf:
130 * 1.1 * 0.513 = 73.36% land taken
Dwarf vs orc
90 * 1.089 * 1.1 * 0.7 = 75.47% land taken

You are at best only equal to orc gains, with same building effects, you can now enjoy free building credits, while orc enjoys free draft, +15% enemy casaulties, and a powerful offensive elite.

Dwarf is a Jack of all Trades, but master of none. They will not achieve the same results as an orc attacker.

As for homes i think the guide is correct.

Forts are not good because they do not help attackers achieve their goal.
Instead increasing offense and therefor increasing gains, they increase your defense and there for offer less benefit to winning a war.
The bonuses from forts don't stack well because of 3 on defense of elites and 4 on defense for specs. So 10% bonus would grant you roughly 0.4 bonus def per spec roughly..
TG's 10% bonus would grant you (6+1)*0.1 bonus so roughly 0.7 bonus to OME which is multiplied again with honor bonuses so even greater. Basically double the bonuses achieved from Forts.

An important thing to note is this:
While your dwarf kingdom is running all forts, only about 2 people get chained per wave. so only 2 people can enjoy the benefits of the forts. And it is a small benefit which doesn't avoid you being chained and overpopped.
However running barracks means you have 18 attackers now enjoying the full benefit of increased attack speed at all times.

Forts are widely accepted as a very bad building for attackers to build.

[gergnub]

unless being UB, then forts have their place but thats not the case here.

[fawk]

remind me what bonuses does forts synergize with? minor protection? thats basically it.
tg's synergize with your stables, honor OME bonus, high offense elites, quick feet, barracks, and military sciences.
this is also a good reason to drop some homes and all lose all the forts and build barracks, it just stacks better with the other buildings and bonuses you have.

18% homes seems overdoing it. I wouldn't go over 10% personally. (personally i keep 0%)

[DeDLySMuRF]

You are at best only equal to orc gains, with same building effects, you can now enjoy free building credits, while orc enjoys free draft, +15% enemy casaulties, and a powerful offensive elite.

Correction to your statement... At best equal to orc gains with same building effect, I can now enjoy free horses, free building credits and a leet with defense, while orc enjoys free draft and +15% enemy casualties, and a powerful yet easily ambushable leet.


As for your argument for forts, we will agree to disagree. I have had forts on many of my attackers and they have worked out great. Forts = less def specs you have to train therefore more leetz you can train instead. I'd rather add more physical leetz to my army than continue to boost a building bonus which will diminish because of unbuilt land.

[DeDLySMuRF]

And before someone gets the wrong idea, Orcs are Amazing and have there own advantages. Don't get me wrong. But this thread is about Dwarf/Cleric. I guess I should have left out the part about this being the best heavy attacker build in the game. Now I will have to defend the build against all other Heavy Attackers.

For the sake of the argument, I will run the numbers on lower homes, but I do think that BR is going to be needed with the low WPA. I am assuming that they will be FB'ed pretty frequently.

[Lestat]

Are you actually asking for advice or what's the purpose of this?

[DeDLySMuRF]

Yes. I am asking for advice. And I would assume that since this is the strategy forum, and since I posted an intelligent thread, people wouldn't just say lose forts, less homes, more guilds without putting some math behind it.

[Persain]

Yes. I am asking for advice. And I would assume that since this is the strategy forum, and since I posted an intelligent thread, people wouldn't just say lose forts, less homes, more guilds without putting some math behind it.

you can run the math all you want but having a fluid build thats based on experience and not just numbers is a big difference between a kd to does a theme/setup and a good kd thats actually succeeds in war. to that end if u want more...

Is there any changes I can make to make them more efficient?

run more guilds...you'll need more guilds to get all your self spells off. im used to about 15% on an orc/undead so at least 8-10%

w/out rax 4% towers and 6% guilds is never going to be enough to cast things like quick feet on all your hits. You wont be stealing runes many with your 2 tpa even from orcs. Thus personally i'd run rax and about 8% towers so u can fireball growers, and dont 100% relly on QF. (better to +hours than - them)

Homes: i'd lose them. Homes hurt you when chained. Its been shown again and again. IF your useing the raze stables & build homes, your gonna have a better econ if u build banks, and your not stalling for little birth rate bonus.

Dungeons, simply put they are mathematically the best building in the game. its always good to run 2-3% of them on an attacker pre war.


Finally 2 things i didnt comment on in my initial read-through:1"20% Stables Pre-War - Convert for free using credits into the other buildings - " but u never said what the stables are getting put into. Thats semi important....for example gs? WT...kinda matters.

2.Draft - 68%.. up that to 70-75% depending on your science. You assumed "Peasants-13341" for 1500 acres, thats WAY to much i'd expect a war build comparing races/setups....aim for 5-7 peasents/acre. The reasoning for that is those peasents are gone via FB anyway might as well have them in your military.

[Lestat]

Yes. I am asking for advice. And I would assume that since this is the strategy forum, and since I posted an intelligent thread, people wouldn't just say lose forts, less homes, more guilds without putting some math behind it.

Then you should listen to Persain IMO

[JackRabbitSlim]

I know that many of the people making comments and giving ideas on your build didn't use math to explain themselves. You seem to be very good at math. I think they were going more along the lines of what they had experienced in their game-play in the past. More like what the person said about fluid game-play and not math being the deciding factor in a building strategy. I'm not quoting. It was just something similar to that.

Also, from the beginning, it didn't seem like you were wanting advice. It seemed to me that you had your mind made up(due to the title of the thread) and that no one was going to sway you(due to further comments by you). And YES it was a mistake to make a bold statement like you did saying that Dwarf/Cleric was the best heavy attacker in the game. There are many, many people that would jump on that argument on the side of Orc/Cleric(sustainability), Orc/Warrior(pure power), Avian/Cleric(speed and power), and Undead/Warrior(pure power) with a few others. Even an all elite Human/Warrior has some power to be looked at this Age.

Yes, Dwarf/Cleric is an excellent choice for a heavy Attacker this Age. But there are others that are easily as good and arguably even better. So in the future, if you are really looking for advice on a race/pers choice, I think you should change your approach. You came across totally different than you say you wanted to.

[Persain]

Then you should listen to Persain IMO

<3

And because i feel like a glutton for punishment

As for your argument for forts, we will agree to disagree. I have had forts on many of my attackers and they have worked out great. Forts = less def specs you have to train therefore more leetz you can train instead. I'd rather add more physical leetz to my army than continue to boost a building bonus which will diminish because of unbuilt land.

This is true in a static sense. However when considering how your prov works there are a whole bunch of reasons forts are bad on an attacker.
First its it unwise to have your def slowly fall simply because you have incoming acres. I.e. if i were waring you and i saw 10% forts i'd chain someone else, wait for you land to come in and watch your def drop 5-10%. Now you are easier to chain.

You also have less def you can send at a dragon, you know that 1k specs u have to send to kill my dragon well you just lost a higher portion of your def than someone not running forts because you had those specs modded by forts.

As well when chaining you its easier. Because land is taken from built acres first you lose your forts as I hit you, as a % of your land forts goes down every hit. That means your def is lowered more each time I hit you than just your defensive losses. Similarly if you are overpoped and I wait 1 tick for your def to leave, that 600 specs you lost costs you a lot of def.

Finally lets say by some miracle you are close to becoming unbreakable. Now you want a quick boost to your def. That’s gonna be hard, your already running Forts adding more forts gives you a boost to def but as theres a lower per acre effect. Ultimately you wont be getting that nice boost that we want.

[Nightmare_]

<3

And because i feel like a glutton for punishment



This is true in a static sense. However when considering how your prov works there are a whole bunch of reasons forts are bad on an attacker.
First its it unwise to have your def slowly fall simply because you have incoming acres. I.e. if i were waring you and i saw 10% forts i'd chain someone else, wait for you land to come in and watch your def drop 5-10%. Now you are easier to chain.

You also have less def you can send at a dragon, you know that 1k specs u have to send to kill my dragon well you just lost a higher portion of your def than someone not running forts because you had those specs modded by forts.

As well when chaining you its easier. Because land is taken from built acres first you lose your forts as I hit you, as a % of your land forts goes down every hit. That means your def is lowered more each time I hit you than just your defensive losses. Similarly if you are overpoped and I wait 1 tick for your def to leave, that 600 specs you lost costs you a lot of def.

Finally lets say by some miracle you are close to becoming unbreakable. Now you want a quick boost to your def. That’s gonna be hard, your already running Forts adding more forts gives you a boost to def but as theres a lower per acre effect. Ultimately you wont be getting that nice boost that we want.

Seconded

[Lestat]

Motion carried

[PhoenixScorpion]

Motion carried

motion passes, thank u gentlemen....

[DeDLySMuRF]

Then you should listen to Persain IMO

I agree. This was the first intelligent response and I will be making some changes from Persain's suggestions. I am going to post a new build shortly.