Which of the two would be best in a small warring kd ? The cleric saves some of your precious elites from dying, while warrior gives more offense (and better conversion possibilities?).. Any thoughts or points from the UD players out there ?
Which of the two would be best in a small warring kd ? The cleric saves some of your precious elites from dying, while warrior gives more offense (and better conversion possibilities?).. Any thoughts or points from the UD players out there ?
I have played warrior much better. You can regain your elites with more land grabs. If your in a ghetto or small kingdom. Attacks on you may happen more often so you don't get fat. Of run 25% to 30% barracks.
I haven't considered undead this age so i'm going to share thoughts which might not be 100% correct.
Undead start with 5/0 o specs and convert elites 7/2. Because losses on elites and specs are the same it means that you can get up to a percentage of ospec/elites quite easy but then elite conversions reduce and reach to a point that you lose about as many as you convert. In practice it is almost impossible to get 100% elites and the only way to get there is to keep elites home without being hit and good luck finding targets with only the o specs.
That spot that elite conversions start to reduce can be pushed up by cleric because it reduces elite losses and also you convert more from less o specs as well.
So between cleric and warrior i'd go cleric for more conversions.
The main problem still remains though and it is about the maximum reasonable offense that an undead can get. I really doubt it can reach orc and possibly dwarf/human.
One different approach would be playing undead merchant. In ghetto land you can be help as bank/mage in war, plus free specs credits would make you unstoppable as long as you get/draft soldiers. Oow you can tog so you have top sci.
noone can tell you which is better because it totally depends on your kd goals.. but i can give you some more ideas to think about - firstly, cleric doesnt only save your precious elites, it also saves your def which is just as vulnerable as any other race unlike your offense.. another important viability cleric brings is conquest/bounce options, that may be useful in a handful of situations.. on the other hand, you are probably skipping the most important trait of warrior - which is +1 generals.. in a chained bottom or nm/ns environment, you will be tapping as much as you have gens & those extra hits will turn the tides.. bloodlust (+%15 losses on opponent, +%5 losses on yourself) is also a useful spell for undead, because you suffer much less from the self debuff - while you can always get a mage to cast pitfalls for you..Originally Posted by Jotun
cleric as solo province with totally random races/personalities (most ghettos)
warrior if your province is an attack specialist in a typical warring kingdom
cleric in organized kingdoms if your core is majority cleric (whether undead or not)
cleric as a minority is pretty bad, since it is easier to isolate individual clerics and deal with them through ops or overpop; however if you are in a kingdom with totally random races, then you get a lot less value out of warrior and the sustain from cleric is generally useful. cleric as a majority pick is useful for many situations, but i wouldn't want too many ud/cleric in a kingdom. pairing ud/cleric with dwarf/cleric isn't bad though.
for most kingdoms, and for the setups i would prefer to use, i would want undead/warriors rather than clerics - if i were to play undeads at all. this age i wouldn't want to use undeads, unless i was playing in a kingdom which could not utilize pure dwarf/human effectively - and even then i'd be more likely to pick orcs rather than undeads. undead majority is really bad, undead minority is too easy to isolate but has some potential. there might be some next-level kingdom planning where undeads can be utilized (like CR or AMA setups), but unless someone can think of a firm plan on how they're using undeads then they're kind of crappy.
undead/merchant blows and undead/sage super blows.
undead/tactician can be okay, really depends on what kind of provinces they're paired with.
undead/mystic and undead/rogue are really hard to use effectively, although this age with mystic being OP it's viable with anything not named orc or avian.
**** war hero.
it is really important to think about personalities at the kingdom level, rather than at province level. a kingdom full of warriors has all of its attackers benefitting from +10% OME when they wave, while the cleric's -40% losses only reduces offensive losses in that spot. generally, kingdoms should not split personalities on their core. while there are cases where it makes sense to split attackers between core attackers and offensive specialists (who would operate a very different strategy), personalities like tactician and cleric work best if they're being used by most provinces in that kingdom. warrior works this way too, although to a lesser extent. (the attack specialist role is almost always preferred to be a warrior, as the extra general is a fairly strong disincentive to landchain warriors).
Last edited by noobium; 10-08-2014 at 23:12.
UD/Sage super blows? Uh - whatevs...you can get much higher ME than warriors simple +10% (which is only OME). In a SMALL warring KD your science will go up quickly (if you win)...just know how to pump science. You don't have to worry about food sci so you get more everywhere else. Also - you can get higher BE requiring less hospitals for losses. Cleric only gives you PF...lame. Sage gives you free science and +40% effect. Running 115% BE, you need like 10% hospitals to get the same effect as a cleric gets...
UD/Sage makes you a Warrior/Sage/Tactictian all in one. ;)
Undead Sage blows because any sage brought to low defense = huge science farm with no inherent bonus to back them up. Dwarf Sage has the same problem and is going to make a lot of people really disappointed with the pick by mid/late age.
But please, don't believe me - observe this commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S5PZb8MJE
Last edited by noobium; 11-08-2014 at 04:21.
You always use such extreme/forceful language. :p Undead is not "crappy". Undead/sage does not "super blow", undead/merchant does not "blow", undead/tact > undead/warrior if you're talking about strength as a province, so it's not just "ok." All of these combos must be played well (as with anything), are more demanding, and are probably less straightforward than warrior or cleric, but they aren't bad. War Hero is probably not so good on undead, that's true.
It think it's important to get out of the mold of "this is what you are supposed to play." You can go on and on about how people are supposed to play but it means nothing in practice. Show me a well-played undead/warrior KD and I will show you a well-played undead/sage KD that can do just as well. Yes, ud/sage are probably more vulnerable to being learned, but regaining sci is easy OOW with an attacker race that has cheap training, high sustain both in war and oow, and high native offense. They're even less vulnerable than, say, orc/sage, avian/sage, or dwarf/sage in some respects as chained provs because of plague. Science and sages are plenty this age, so if one KD is learning your chained sages, then you do the same to their sages ;) A chained undead = an amnesia'ing undead, also.
I prefer warrior over cleric. Just use hosps on your ud/warrior and you'll be ok defensively. If you're to compare them side by side it's really 20% offensive 40% defensive losses vs. 10% ome + 1g. Undead already has great sustain. However, both are good. Cleric is a good choice if you don't want to even think about using hospitals. Consider that warrior can also decide not to build hospitals and overload stables/tg/gs due to its high offensive sustainability. PF + emerald + BG + BL + orc on 100% defensive losses will hurt though. Real bad.
Last edited by Nightmare_; 11-08-2014 at 06:10.
i must strongly disagree about %20 offensive losses you mention about ud cleric.. it is still %40 offensive losses, which translates into +%66 longevity compared to warrior (%30 vs %50) & +%233 longevity compared to other attackers(%30 vs %100).. building hospitals on ud cleric is also an option & works wonders when bouncing or conquesting opponent tms - just imagine having less losses than defender when you conquest, isnt it delightful?
totally agree with rest of your post though, everything can perform well given a kd strat that fits..
Oh, CQ. I was thinking more in absolute terms rather than relative but yuh.
Where are you getting the 30% vs 100% from? No hosp?
But did you watch the commercial?
This, i had people in my kd go both undead warrior and undead cleric. to test out which was better in my kd. When everything was said and done i cant tell because 2 different people run 2 different provs. The best u can do is try to figure out what your kd needs, super high sustain or high sustain decent chain survivability.
just comparing losses based on race/pers alone.. things will get too complicated when accounting for hosps, and it wont contribute to the topic at all.. ud/cleric will probably save up from some hospitals and use it for some other buildings, increasing possibilities - but i think its there for ppl to discover how to best utilize..
on undead's crappiness: I suppose, like most ages, the difference between race/personalities are such that only the obviously bad picks are terrible, and something good can be fashioned out of practically any pick. there are some things which are easier to work with than others.
undead as a race has all of the weaknesses it had for the past several ages, plus a new vulnerability to nightstrike (offspec army), and a major elite nerf. in exchange their offspecs were buffed, which opens some interesting strategies in long wars (basically infinite offense), but the same problem with undead/merch last age applies this age as well (can't kidnap, difficult to retain defense or peasants with undead's army and setup), and those same penalties remove a lot of sage benefits as well.
for sage, the primary sciences they want are mil or channeling, and both sciences have personality alternatives - warrior (direct OME boost) and mystic (channeling boost), both of which can if they want compensate for the other science due to their bonus. both warrior and mystic have much better intrinsics than sage; remember that sage is ONLY better overall stats and amnesia, it doesn't have +1 gen, nightmares, +1 mana, double guilds, bloodlust, or a lot of things an attacker province would really want or like to have.
yup, this. undead are "weaker" overall compared to the other attackers. Their main roll is as a support attacker for plague or as a core with good t/m support (think the standard FS unad+feary setup in the past where u can funnel constant gold/solds to sustain while the enemy struggles to conquest down faeries that prop/LL). Realize this limitation and chose cleric/warrior based on what your kd needs not because u think it'll be strong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote