Orc attacker strat some feedback please

[Persain]

First my original response was .....

Still a terrible suggetion. The spread i suggested of 12 epa +8 dspec/acre is pretty standard in "good" kds. even in semi ghetos if your running an orc your running it for the offensive power it provides and this means being able to hit out alot v running trutle.

The fact that you think that it is best to be able to triple tap our own province says more than anything about what YOU feel an orc should be able to do. You think having a ridiculously high opa vs stupidly low dpa as an orc is the perfect scenario is simply simple minded. He did not say his goal was to be the first target chained in a war and every war, cause that is what you described.......................That means running decent defense, which means running more def specs, which completely changes the fort TG dynamic.

I described a usefull orc. Running something like 5 epa and 15 dspec per acre means your prov is worthless to the kd. you arent actually able to support a kd. Even if you ran say 8 epa and 12 dspec per acre btw forts are a terrible choice on orc.

8 epa= 14*12=112 opa
12 dspec=12*6=72 dpa

112/72=1.55555. The FIRST 1 percent of forts at 80% BE provides 1.58% defensive boost. Taking the math from my previous post we can see that forts>tg when 1% TG provides less than than a 1.58/1.55=1.01% bonus to military. This happens at 8->9%. So even if u went something backwards and went heavey dspec orc your looking at something like 11.5% TG and 3.5% forts....or say 16% TG and 8% forts......FAR away from the "run more forts than tg" that you suggest.

Every kd, mine included has those provinces who KNOW they will be chained first because of their really high off and little def, they know it is going to happen and they relish it. Saying that that should be the NORMAL build for an Orc is a big assumption and i would love to war your kd if that is how all your non undeads are set-up.

It should be normal for an orc and a kd should be setup such that they use this offense and it helps to win a war. I know my kd has run orcs on 10-12 epa and 6-8 dspec/acre every age but 2 since age 51 and have very few losses (like under 10 in 20 ages). We use races as they fit into the game. its also why i post in the strategy thread as i've seen soo many terrible setups/builds and stupid suggestions that equate to fitting a round peg in a square hole.

But you go ahead and act like you know everything and everyone elses input is crap. Yeah i got snotty after you became a jerk.

And no, I am not gonna do the math, you keep on believing that forts only work for a dwarf. You go ahead and convince everyone that is the best strat. It will make our kd wins even easier. Thanks

No, theres other good suggestions here, ethan points out there are flex attackers that want more def....and should run forts ( JerseyJoe gives a nice list too, others have a few nice points as well). Dwarfs, humans, elf, halfer, feary all work in this roll, they are often referred to as "Tanky" attackers. But orcs are designed solely to be pure attackers with mods to gains/kills. They have zero lasting defnse to ops (a lucky RM isnt a real defense) and actually have -science to negate their defensive tpa/wpa. Its completely ludicrous to suggest to a new player horrible builds that make them completely useless to the kd they are in. If they dont like the feel of an orc they can experiment in builds/training goals but the second they end up on something like 5 epa and 15 dpsecs trying to "be an attacker that has def" they should look at suggestions and realize...hrm maybe im not being successfull as an orc because my build is off what defines a typical orc, maybe i should try a new race.

[Verbal Abuse]

Now that you are being more reasonable I will add this. You are looking at it from the perspective of pure increases and not a goal of net off/def. If you go with a set amount of def and off as a goal, then forts reduce the number of def specs by more than elites reduced by TG. Meaning a net increase in available peasants for improved economy, BE, or if you want to readjust your net off/def goals.

Again, the def you are suggesting is just too low. The lower the def the more provinces who can break you, obviously. Not being smart. A realistic off/def ratio is no more than 2 to 1 unless the orcs job is to break the unbreakables, or be the chain target. Otherwise undead would be better for any scenario you put up, in fact as i read your earlier post it looked exactly like a post for undead strategy, not orc. Which is probably why people are not playing orc that much and why your strat is not the best, for an orc.

An orc running 2 to 1 can be a twice a day attacker without being a chain target. Yours is just a chain target, no matter how you spin it.

[Verbal Abuse]

Also, not everything is either all offense or turtle. Not being able to be double tapped by an equal sized opponent is not turtling, its just good playing.

[Persain]

Again, the def you are suggesting is just too low. The lower the def the more provinces who can break you, obviously. Not being smart. A realistic off/def ratio is no more than 2 to 1 unless the orcs job is to break the unbreakables, or be the chain target.

The def im suggesting is one that should be run kd wide on pure attackers. Pure attackers job is to keep good incoming to survive chains, hit high priority targets early war and chain. To that end the standard mid-late age orc warrior is going to all out 1 tap be running 165%+ OME on just 15% TG and if no forts in the neighborhood of 120 DME. (as honor effects only OME it gets even worse with honor).

To end up with a ratio of 2:1 offense/def and 20 raw military your looking at something like

7.75 epa=>14*1.65*7.75=179
12.25 dspec/acre=> 12.25*6*1.2=88.2

you add in like 10% forts in addition to that 15% TG and all that happens is DME jumps to like 135 and this turns into

8.25 epa=>14*1.65*8.25=190.6
11.75 dspec/acre=> 11.75*6*1.35=95.2

Compare that to the same orc warrior i had on 12 epa 8 dspec..with 0 forts and your looking at
12epa=>14*1.65*12=277
8 dspec/acre=> 8*6*1.2=58


Sure 1v1 we're looking at i tap you 277/95=2.92~~~3 times and you tap me 3.29~~3 times but to get that i even had to add in an extra 10% buildings in forts and we're still both ~3 taping each other (both are close enough to 3 that non EXACT size will mean 3 taps in war). This concept ALSO completely ignors all other threats in the kd and t/m ops. The big ones being NM and MS....those 2 factors alone cant be ignored and its even worse when you look at things like overpopulation, ns, t/m support..... all that stuff adds up and it doesn't favor the side with more def.

This ALSO ignors that your 2:1 ratio of off to def is 8.25 epa 11.75 dspec and i showed on an even more def heavy orc (where forts should help out more)

Even if you ran say 8 epa and 12 dspec per acre ..... your looking at something like 11.5% TG and 3.5% forts.

That forts are almost useless...you still want ALOT more TG than forts.

Thus i go back to

Forts will save more pop than TG will up to a point. You should have more forts than TGs as an orc. like 10% TG and 15% Fort, or even better 8% TG and 17% fort. If someone wants to do the numbers, it should pan out.

is garbage advise and yes look up #'s are there. u should avoid giving advise to new players when u dont know what your talking about.

edit...added so no double post

Otherwise undead would be better for any scenario you put up, in fact as i read your earlier post it looked exactly like a post for undead strategy, not orc. Which is probably why people are not playing orc that much and why your strat is not the best, for an orc.

orc and undead are semi interchangeable. The strategy/builds i suggested are based on orcs. Its alot easier to go all orcs than orc/undead mix or only undead because orcs have +gains...+gains are insanely strong espically if you can manage to set up your targets such that your already using max generals/hit. the differnce between them is that unless your setup is based on PURE sustain, undead almost always fall into the support roll as a lucky plague is nice but +kills orcs have are almost as effective and much more reliable. When running a pure attacker that is "support" your build should closely mimic those you are supporting (other pure attackers) just with your "extra" stuff mixed in (that lucky plague).

[emerix]

As Persain has posted his numbers, I would be really interested in seeing yours Verbal.

Forts will save more pop than TG will up to a point. You should have more forts than TGs as an orc. like 10% TG and 15% Fort, or even better 8% TG and 17% fort. If someone wants to do the numbers, it should pan out.

[Verbal Abuse]

Your fluctuating the opa/dpa between the two, my point is that utilizing what i call a better dpa, meaning more specs and using forts, uses less peas to maintain the military and have a better economy, etc....you have to have all else being equal. You keep falling back on scenarios where you are attacked more because of the low def, i am saying you will not be attacked as much so your scenario is a dynamic one that you can tweak however you want to and you keep doing it. i am talking about a static all things being equal and running the EXACT same DPA. Yours will always look better as a suicider, mine will look better as an attacker that can hit without someone his own size being triple tapping him and he still has great off.

Even if I break down and do the math, your still just gonna disagree with me on that point. So i will say i agree, that TGs are better for an all offense suicider, and disagree with you that forts are better for an attacker who actually tries not to get hit as much as you like to be hit.

[Verbal Abuse]

Emerix, his numbers are based on fantasy war scenarios and a constantly changing dpa that to him does not matter. He is comparing apples to oranges. He is using his best guess as to what is going to happen in a war from the standpoint of his high off and low def. You can't compare it the way he suggests because he completely ignores what i have said several times. Sure he inflated the dpa, but kept his same scenario going. We might as well be talking about two different things.

For the last time keep the DPA the same and have it be decent, not a suicider, and the forts save more peas per acre than TGs.

[emerix]

Emerix, his numbers are based on fantasy war scenarios and a constantly changing dpa that to him does not matter. He is comparing apples to oranges. He is using his best guess as to what is going to happen in a war from the standpoint of his high off and low def. You can't compare it the way he suggests because he completely ignores what i have said several times. Sure he inflated the dpa, but kept his same scenario going. We might as well be talking about two different things.

I actually agree with Persain though, in war, all sorts of things fluctuate, build composition, elite numbers, def spec numbers, income etc. Unless of course, you're untouched the whole war.

For the last time keep the DPA the same and have it be decent, not a suicider, and the forts save more peas per acre than TGs.

Why don't you come up with numbers in your example then. Running fae sage attacker this age and want to see if your point has any merit.

[Verbal Abuse]

A couple years back I was in the same mindset as Persain was. Me and this guy into a multi page arguement over forts and TGs, me thinking just like Persain is. And this guy finally broke it down, with math 10 fold more than Persain has even attempted altogether. Wish I could locate that final post so to speak, but no idea how to find it. Its past 2am and I am tired, too tired to throw up some numbers that would pail in comparison to what that guy did.

And it turned out he was right, what took the longest for me to realize was the approach i was looking at. Meaning modifiers, i was all on the modifiers thing, and the more mod off you can have, the less elites you need. But its backwards thinking.You look at it from a defense point of view because def specs are lower than elites.

Meaning if you have a lopsided off spec/elite to def spec then you are using more peas per acre for one or the other.

Looking at it from an EXTREME example is full suicider, be it an Orc or undead or human, etc...imagine you have 18 elites and 2 def specs(no i am not saying you have to use a flat number of military like Persain does, in fact in my suggestion the military would actually be higher than his in a static comparison, because of the fort/TG benefit).

So you have 18 elites(peas) per acre and 2 def specs(peas) per acre. And you have 15% land for Forts/TGs. Putting that into forts would not help much at all, not because of the def increase is so small but because you only have 2 peasants in def, so you are saving 0.33peas per acre with forts(assume 20% effect for forts and 15% for TGs)

With TGs you are saving 2.35 peas an acre to get the SAME offense. The reason is because of the number of peas in elites is higher. Forget about what the elite value is, look at what you want as a def and off per acre without forts or TGs, assume all others being equal. then divide the number of peas for def by 1.2(for forts at 20%, or whatever number you are thinking about) and divide the number of elites by 1.15(for TGs, or whatever combo you are thinking)

The guy who did this actually had a chart(x,y)showing increasing number of elites( or specs, whatever you were using for off) and def specs(or elites) and he showed with each race at that time basically a curve that showed what ratio of forts to TGs to use.

Sure you have to take into count what are your OME and DME BEFORE to get the actual change that forts and TGs will give. He did all that too.

The easiest thing to see is if you have the exact same number of peas in off and def and the same OME and DME then Forts, just because they start at 2% vs 1.5% will get you the same opa/dpa with less peas per acre.

And unless you have a lot more OME vs DME before using forts/TGs( i never use honor OME as a factor simply because it can and usually is taken away fairly quickly) then basically you can look at how many peas are you using for each.

I am not gonna try and reproduce those charts he did. Don't have the time. But if you take some OPA and DPA numbers without FORTs/TGs factored in, divide the ultimate OME/DME gains from using them and your not a suicider, then forts usually work out best because most have the low value def spec as def. But it is based on the number peas you are using. And a def specs is 6 except for elfs and dwarfs.

As an Orc you start with an elite that has 12 and a def spec that has 6. I don't play as a suicider or a semisuicider, and neither do any attackers in my kd, except for the ones who want to be"that guy" who gets chained. They wear it like a badge of honor and good for them. This means by the time the enemy kd has chained them, we have got one or two full attackers who are now UB, simply because they lost more off than our attackers had as def, but anyway.

This is a horrible but quick comparison. 10 orc elites and 10 def specs, using Persain 20 thingy. So 120 raw off and 60 raw def. Now not taking Forts and TGs (and i never use honor) the OME and DME will be close to the same, leaning to more DME, faeries and avians will usually have an even higher DME because of GP. If you use Fanaticism their a little different, if your a warrior more different unless your an avian or faery, etc...etc...

So in the above you are using 10 each, and for poops and giggles, lets say the OME and DME are really close to each other, then FORTS SAVE MORE PEAS PER ACRE for the same retained opa/dpa.

If you are a Faery attacker and because of the low off spec you are running more peas per acre as off than as peas for elite def, then TGs will save you more per acre. Its all about the peas and what do forts/TGs reduce in the number of peas need to get the same opa/dpa.

All Persain cares about is offense, and i disagree on that, but it doesn't change the FORT/TG with relation to peasants and to which is better.

If your a hybrid attacker, running high def and low off, like a TM who only feeds on the defense destroyed provinces, then a kneejerk thinking is run TGs for higher off, but in fact it is Forts that will save you more peas and give you the same def while you can train more off or just have a better economy.

I had no intention of writing this much, it is now 3 am, and i got to get some sleep.

But if someone out there wants to reproduce those charts to see the proper ratio for your attacker, with your OME and DME then by all means go ahead. I just do it for my own province.

TTYL

[Verbal Abuse]

Yeah i am still awake. To answer your question more specifically about a Faery attacker non warrior since you were so nice, lol, here goes.

As a faery you have both MP and GP( i have heard they stack vs multiply, i don't know honestly) and Fanatacism, which is a last resort thing for me personally if i could use it. Other than that(remember i don't take honor into acct) your DME is 10 to 10.5% higher than your OME. Mil Sci affects both, wages affect both. So lets say since you are a sage you have 20% in sci and because of your elite costs only 5% from wages.

No GBP considered. Your OME is 1.2 x 1.05= 126% OME
Your DME is 126 x 1.1(stacked) =138.6% DME

Now YOU have to pick what your DPA and OPA you want to have. Your decision for def is very important because your off offers none. So lets say you want (hypothetically) 138.6 opa(only specs) and 112.6 DPA(only elites). Thats 11 off specs with horses(saying all mounted vs getting into mercs or prisoners) and 9 elites. Hey its 20 total again, lol.

Now you have spare land for forts and/or TGs that will give you with your assumed/calculated BE, 15% TG effect OR 20% Fort effect.

Take your 126% OME times 1.15=1.449 - 126 = TG benefit of 0.189 or 18.9% Divide 11(off specs) by 1.189(added one) = 9.25 eff specs will give the SAME opa with the TGs saving 1.75 peas an acre.

Now take 138.6 times 1.2(for forts)=1.6632 minus 138.6 = 0.2772 or 27.72% for forts. Divide 9(elites) by 1.2772 =7.05 elites will give the same dpa with Forts saving 1.95 peas per acre.

so the difference is 0.2 peas an acre saved with all forts vs all TG. In the charts he had, since each % of increase of TG/Fort is less it showed a combo was a better overall effect.

No i am not crunching number, but since they are close, 0.2 peas difference. More forts than TG is obvious, but how much exactly, i don't know. Maybe a 5/4 ratio or a 7/6 ratio.

As your OME and DME difference changes and your number of peas for off vs def changes, affects whether you lean forts or TGs.

Now with Persain and his strat, it is TGs. But that is him and not everyone. This age I am playing a hybrid so i am using only forts, because i only have 4 peas for off and almost 10 for def. Would a combo be better for me, i don't know or care because right now i am only allocating 5% of my land to forts right now. That might change.

Whatever you decide to run might not be a 50/50 split between the two, or it might require a 5/1 ratio. The only way to know is to take a little time playing with the numbers and periodically checking it again as your province sci, OME, DME changes, etc....

Hope this helps.

[MyNameIsMatija]

Verbal Abuse, think of a KD as a living breathing organism. Orc is not suited for a turtle/UB candidate role. You are trying to outrun someone running on your hands. No matter how good you get at running on your hands, all of the world records will still be held by people running with their legs. An Orc has a very low chance of becoming a true UB against anyone half decent if you factor in everything fore mentioned in this thread.

[Persain]

lets pull some out of what you say and see if u make mistakes

Faery attacker non warrior
No GBP considered. Your OME is 1.2 x 1.05= 126% OME
Your DME is 126 x 1.1(stacked) =138.6% DME

Now YOU have to pick what your DPA and OPA ... 138.6 opa(only specs) and 112.6 DPA(only elites). Thats 11 off specs with horses and 9 elites. ...20 total

....15% TG effect OR 20% Fort effect.

TG benefit ....18.9%.....saving 1.75 peas an acre.
...1.2(for forts)=1.6632 ..... 1.95 peas per acre.

so the difference is 0.2 peas an acre saved with all forts vs all TG.

first your OME and DME are somewhat off BASE rate they'll be the same and then get modded by mp/gp/fant
OME =1.076 wages *1.15 Science*1.05 fat=1.29927
DME= 1.076 wages *1.15 Science *1.05 GP *1.05 MP=1.3642335

close to what you posted though so whatever your "answer" is close enough to not drastically change.

Second. The thing is you're are trying to determine how much "pop space" is saved by running forts or tg that is simply the wrong approach. the right way to approach things is to look at how much military you can dedicate to off+def and then see whats better to run...i.e. you approach things one of two ways.

1. i want at least 138.6 opa and as much def as i can run
2. i want at least 112.6 dpa and as much offense as i can run

in both cases lets say 15% TOTAL land to either forts/tg or a hybrid and the same 85% BE you use. i'll also say its an all out 1 tap using 4 generals with the same base ome

This "approach" is slightly different than how i show orc...and thus i'll summarize in a picture below but



and in this case we see your right if your maximizing def you want 0 tg...if your maximizing offense with a given def the spread looks to be 50-50 tg/forts. ON your FEARY.

To save me time i'll just not remake all that for orc since its not widely different and address the biggest issue NO ORC should ever run that much def and so little offense. you even say why

by the time the enemy kd has chained them, we have got one or two full attackers who are now UB,

The job of an orc isnt to run 112 dpa. orcs have zero mods to tpa/wpa zero ways to defend themselfs easily, no ability to push econ and help a kd. The job of an orc is to attack and chain. to that end i point you to

So even if u went something backwards and went heavey dspec orc your looking at something like 11.5% TG and 3.5% forts....or say 16% TG and 8% forts......FAR away from the "run more forts than tg"

and all the reasons such as MS, NM, NS, chaining that basically means a orc sitting on <150 opa is going to be completely worthless to a kd..

[emerix]

Yeah i am still awake. To answer your question more specifically about a Faery attacker non warrior since you were so nice, lol, here goes.

Thank you for taking the time to type all that out. I really appreciate it. Basically your TLDR is that "since I need more ppa for defense than for offense, running forts over tgs will save me ppa. Yay!"

It's not a wrong way to play this game. It's just one of many ways.

The key to you and Persain's disagreement is the role of orc heavy attacker in war. You want to play more defensively and he wants to play more ballsy. Again, nothing wrong with either.

However, you could also pick Orc mystic and try to play that combo. You'd probably learn something new doing that.

I guess it comes down to whether you prioritise the kd goals or your own province goals. Playing more defensively (and with stacked WTs, RM on 24/7) would probably save your province from getting chained to dust. But then someone else gets chained and you don't establish the UB provs. You end up losing.

Is that worth it? To each his own. No judging here.

Thanks again.