Orc attacker strat some feedback please

[Kitzz]

Agree with what Persain wrote.

Utopia is a fluid game and your build should reflect on what phase you're at. Eg different kind of pump phases.
Also depending on who you war, dictates what buildings to counteract or assist your kingdom war goals.
I usually go for raw numbers and use building effects to mod what I need.
Not a fan of rainbow building strats persisting throughout the age.

[Verbal Abuse]

Persain you are incorrect. Forts save more peasants for offense pumping of raw military. Like i said do the math, i am right. Your thoughts or feelings on the matter don't count, do the math.

[Persain]

Persain you are incorrect. Forts save more peasants for offense pumping of raw military. Like i said do the math, i am right. Your thoughts or feelings on the matter don't count, do the math.

i have many times in the past your advise is garbage to run that many forts...as an orc you should NEVER have more forts than TG. I mean there is literally no scenario where that is ever viable as part of a planned build. The only time it could even be considered is in a VERY long war where u are geting mass aided to become an unbrekable orc. However if your kd is trying to pump up an unbreakable orc there's probably something else going on as orcs are litteraly THE worst provs to run an unbreakble on.

For what its worth, the math doesn't pay out for REAL provs. In the past i remember the numbers being something like 5-6% forts and 25% TG to give the literal most military /acre**(i do the math here)*. However there are MANY issues with even that.

Issues:
1. your attack time in war is 12 hours, your build time is 16. i triple tap for land and gain say 30% land incoming. That land comes in, i build it, i attack again and hit for an additional say 25% land of my orginal size. That land comes in. Now for 4 hours i have the original 30% incoming and the 25% i just hit for incoming. This means i'm on 1/(1+.3+.25)~64.5 % of my land built. Any of those forts i relied on for def.....well they are 1/3 less effective than i planed them to be because i have 1/3 less of them built.

2. im already on forts in my build, if im geting MS/NS'ed/NM'ed i cant easily switch up my build by adding a few extra % forts to boost my def. I'm already dedicated to the 5-10-15% forts in my build simply to keep my def at a minimum level.

3. When geting "Chained" built land is taken first. If your build started 10-15% forts and you end up with like 50% of your land "in progress" chaining just crushes you. The enemy will easily finish you off with quad taps as you not only had desertions to your military you lost that 10-15% DME bonus as you lost the majority of your forts.

Implications:
These 2 things couple together really strongly in that if i started with say 48 "raw" def added in DME/MP typically thats going to jump to say 57 mod dpa. As war goes i can add in 5% forts for a free 7.5% or so def as ms/ns hit me....meaning i'll hover at 57 mod dpa even if i lose 7.5% of my def.

Alternatively lets say i did what you are suggesting and ran like 10% initial forts and hit the same 57 mod def.....lets pull out the #'s to determine how screwed u are ~13 hours into war when my #1 case hits.

57 mod def 1.076% wages, 1.08 science, 1.05 MP...you had 10% forts at 80% be~~1.144 forts....pulls out to
57=1.05*(.144+1.08*1.076)*x=41.5
So you have 41.5 raw dpa. i'll pull out the 7.5% dead military and lower the forts from 10% to 6.45% as unbuilt land comes in(9.72% def instead of 14.4%).

41.5*(.925)*1.05*(.0972+1.08*1.076)=50.75.

50.75 v 57 mod def ~12 hours into war may not seem like a lot...but if the enemy is trying to say quad tap you....203 opa v 228opa is a sizeable difference that the enemy has to run if they want to quad tap. Alternatively thats about 8 casts of NM you are saving the enemy if they plan to nm you down as your def is already smaller.



*** if we dedicate 15% land to tg/forts as i was suggesting and 10% to stables as i noted its really easy to look at the math. i said
12 epa---(12*12+8*2)=160 raw opa using leets/horses
8 dspec/acre---8*6=48 raw dpa.
We'll also look at 80% BE
Now lets look at the TG/Forts mods directly to raw military. (note 5% protection v generals bonus washes out the multiplicative modifiers)

Now the easiest way to see when tg~=~fort is to look at how much we're modifying 160/48=3.3333. That means for forts to give more of a bonus than tg 1% forts needs to give 3.333 times the bonus of an additional 1% tg. 1% forts at 80% BE gives 1.58% def boost. 1.58/3.333= 0.474. i.e. once 1 additional % of tg gives less than 0.474% boost to offense its time to run forts. This happens ~30->31% TG. i.e. with the epa/stables and current raw numbers on orc u really shouldnt run forts unless you were running more than 30% TG.
15%<<30%...so yea dont run forts. On a side note if your giving advise it should at least be semi reasonable. You really need to not give advise if its THAT far from correct.

[Ethan]

While there are rare cases when attackers do want forts, these are *always* "flex" attackers that run significantly higher defense than normal, yet aren't hybrids. Someone that has high def elites that let them suddenly turtle up and threaten UB, or if your kingdom strat is to have 10 T/Ms opening each attacker with crushing NM waves, or something weird.

And in all these cases... the attacker isn't an orc. Orc forces an aggressive attacker stance, which means the TGs are modding at least twice as much offense and the forts would mod def.


Show us some math making forts look better, and I'll show you a flex attacker that was baked into the assumptions. (Or just a bad attacker, perhaps more likely.) I can make 1 + 1 = 10 just by taking a slightly different assumption, so claiming "do the math" is kinda like saying "make stuff up... but really confusingly". Turns out a lot of a real mathematician's training is about learning how to make useful assumptions about the problem - everything after that is just a fun little game we like playing in our spare time. Defining the assumptions is where the work is.