Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: Age 76 Power Rankings

  1. #1
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,524

    Age 76 Power Rankings

    Edit: note this first post is the prelim changes, final changes version further down. Er... also, a bunch of my o-spec races were at 6 nw instead of 4.8, so these prelim ones are rather wrong in some cases.

    Mostly this is to demonstrate that elite NW values are out of wack. Same assumptions as two ages ago, and isn't looking at things like gains or speed or turtle - just raw military on a 70/30 split. Notice how the "No Race" comes in at 92.5%, while Elf, Dwarf, and Human all are below 80%, and Halfer is fairly close to as bad (as an attacker). Yet if the dwarf ditches the elites, up by 15% we go, making a perfectly respectable attacker. I don't think most of the races playing without elites is the right direction to take the game, though I suppose it'd give my kingdom an advantage since no one else seems to get how to play spec races.


    Rankings_________OPA_____DPA___NW/A___MPNW_____%Max
    Elf_______________152.9____65.5___280.2____0.779____79.09%
    Dwarf____________137.9____59.1___252.5____0.78_____79.14%
    Human___________152.2____65.2___278.3____0.782____79.31%
    Halfling___________149.6____64.1___261.8____0.816____82.85%
    Bocan____________128.6____55.1___216______0.851____86.32%
    Elf no Elite________137.1____58.8___220.8____0.887____90.01%
    Halfling no Elite____142.6____61.1___226.3____0.9______91.35%
    Avian____________150.5____64.5___238.4____0.902____91.52%
    Human no Elite____137.7____59_____215.8____0.912____92.49%
    No Race_________122.4____52.5___191.9____0.912____92.50%
    Orc_____________154.6____66.3___241.8____0.914____92.72%
    Dwarf no Elite____125______53.6___192______0.93_____94.34%
    Faery___________149______63.8___226.6____0.939____95.30%
    Dark Elf__________163.2____69.9___248.2____0.939____95.32%
    Faery no Elite_____132.6____56.8___199______0.952____96.59%
    Dark Elf no Elite___146.7____62.9___213______0.984____99.82%
    Dryad___________166.5____71.3___241.3____0.985___100.00%
    Last edited by Ethan; 22-04-2018 at 02:11. Reason: QC fail! Oops
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    Although to add an alternative view, if one was to rank based on opa then the order is different. So there is a trade off between nw efficiency and power. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, although I am not saying that the nw values proposed are perfect (haven't looked at them in detail).

  3. #3
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,524
    While opa instead of opnw or mpnw is a relivant matter (hence it’s inclusion) - with gains going back to NW based, and wars mostng being picked on NW ranges, I continue to argue that OPA is mostly a distraction. High nw/a goes act like free GS though, which can be quite helpful - but most ages that isnt a huge impact.
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    OPA still reflects how much offence a given province can run because acres (or accurately, space) is still the hard cap. Nw isn't a cap on power, although you are right of course that nw efficiency will be more linked to gains next age. But that's why it is a trade off. Being nw efficient might help you get wars with people at a similar offence level, but if you end up in a war with someone at a similar acre level (rather than nw level), then you may have less offence than them even though you have better opnw. Your gains would be impacted but potentially you could make more attacks (lots of assumptions here including whether all generals are being utilized in each scenario).

    I'm not necessarily suggesting your chart should actually be based on OPA, but just pointing out that as things stand with the proposed changes there seems to be a trade off between power (opa) and nw efficiency/gains (opnw).

  5. #5
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,404
    is this power/nw
    and if so would it not be more relevant to calculate for defensive values if def points are higher than off points on a particulair elite.

    Still trying to figure out if bocan/war hero is doable, I think the nw value 9.5 makes it quite hard, would be cofortable with 8-8.5 since that still means I could have less nw than same size opponents so the weaker units would be less of a thing, that is just my gut feeling though I can't put it up like this.

  6. #6
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris121 View Post
    OPA still reflects how much offence a given province can run because acres (or accurately, space) is still the hard cap. Nw isn't a cap on power...
    That, at root, is a great short summary of the difference I have with many others on these boards. I am claiming that NW *is* the primary cap on power. I don't go looking for a 1000 acre province, I go looking for a 250k NW province. Similarly, I don't think of a kingdom as being a good war target because they are 20,000 acres, I see 5 mill NW and compare that to my kingdom. Honestly, if we are both 5 mill NW, but we're at 22k acres vs. their 18k... I probably advise running away. I'd certainly never think in that situation "man, we're 20% larger, we gotta win this one" - I'd think just the reverse. (Maybe this age I'd say they're full of bad elites, but in normal ages I wouldn't.)

    This is a contentious claim, and I'm in the minority on it. I also want to note that both sides *do* matter in the equation - while I argue strongly for NW as the primary measurement of "size" instead of land, the answer is definitely, and has always been, somewhere inbetween in any age with NW based gains. OPA is listed for precisely this reason, as well as because some people care much more about it. Given my stance though, I do "push" my position insomuch as I sort my list by MPNW (or M/NW), Military per NW.


    @Madchess - if it wasn't clear from the above, yes, the % column is purely power per unit of NW. Power also having all those caveats about "not econ, not speed, not gains, not durability etc.". The other power rankings were much better for being broad and covering lots of different aspects, but were a bit less detailed in measuring any given stat as a result. (And also still a lot more work to do I think.) Mine has always focused in on what I think a typical core attacker looks like, and only tried to measure the pure military side of that.
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

  7. #7
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,201
    @Ethan, even in mixed land based and nw based gains your right in thinking its military per nw. The only "difference' u have to factor into that is kd spread. If every t/m were say 1000 nw/acre while attackers were 100 nw/acre it wouldnt matter if everyone in my kd were 500k nw because it gives a huge advantage to the t/m's as long as you can still chain w/having to take land on the t/m's and "shell out" fast. i.e. the raw land does come into play when looking to chain or LL to survive and post chaining kd spreads.

    For just chaining/counter chaining a t/m look at

    Im an attacker at 1500 acres chaining a 1000 acre feary. I take 9% of his land for 90 acres, and thats countered by say (1500*0.005=7.5) 12 LL's.

    If alternatively im 1000 acres chaining a 1500 acre feary i likelly hit for more like 135 acres and its countered by (1000*.005=5) 27 LL's.
    Last edited by Persain; 20-04-2018 at 23:33. Reason: reworded

  8. #8
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,404
    I'm sure you can't counter attacks by LL as easy as that, the moment I hit a t/m in war and they answer back with LL they are not doing their main job and I've basically neutralized them.

    If I stay on the target t/m even if we go 1 vs 1 my offenses as a rule drop slower than his defenses, thus making it all the more likely that he goes down, even if he LL back his land at first.

  9. #9
    Forum Addict RattleHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,267
    Nice, wtg Ethan! I am feeling like I'll be too swamped to do my set up- but with the weekend being here we shall see...

  10. #10
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Madchess View Post
    I'm sure you can't counter attacks by LL as easy as that, the moment I hit a t/m in war and they answer back with LL they are not doing their main job and I've basically neutralized them.

    If I stay on the target t/m even if we go 1 vs 1 my offenses as a rule drop slower than his defenses, thus making it all the more likely that he goes down, even if he LL back his land at first.
    yes of course LL isn't a magic oh look hits dont hurt, but when u look at a kd setup if we both have 15 attackers and 10 t/ms in both kds which would u rather have? The one where your attackers have lower incoming land and a 1 off hit or late war conquest can be put into emergency dont drop mode...or one where your attackers have high incoming land and each hit put the enemy insanely close to overpop?

    My point is/was ethan is looking at power/nw which is the right metric, but you cant simply ignore the raw off per acre factor as it leads to situations that put you at a disadvantage.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan View Post
    I am claiming that NW *is* the primary cap on power.

    I don't go looking for a 1000 acre province, I go looking for a 250k NW province. Similarly, I don't think of a kingdom as being a good war target because they are 20,000 acres, I see 5 mill NW and compare that to my kingdom. Honestly, if we are both 5 mill NW, but we're at 22k acres vs. their 18k... I probably advise running away. I'd certainly never think in that situation "man, we're 20% larger, we gotta win this one" - I'd think just the reverse. (Maybe this age I'd say they're full of bad elites, but in normal ages I wouldn't.)
    I disagree with your first sentence but agree with the remainder of this quote I have posted. Putting it another way, I don't think the example you have given is really talking about a cap on power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethan View Post
    I am claiming that NW *is* the primary cap on power.

    Given my stance though, I do "push" my position insomuch as I sort my list by MPNW (or M/NW), Military per NW.
    I do want to reiterate again though that I am not questioning the way you do your list. I actually like it and with nw based gains, I would probably do a primary sort in this way too. The point of my original post here though was to challenge the premise that because the list doesn't really make sense this age (eg the "No Race" comes in at 92.5%, while Elf, Dwarf, and Human all are below 80%, and if the dwarf ditches the elites, it goes up by 15%), that means that elite nws are wrong. I don't think they necessarily are because they still provide additional power / strength and so there is a trade off between nw efficiency and power/strength.

  12. #12
    Postaholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    811
    NW values sure are a bit weird this age around...

    Anyways, had some spare time. Plotted a power chart based on variable DPA. I don't like taking troop allocation for granted. Also this pound-for-pound chart could be a good complement to Ethans nw based chart.

    Spells, honor bonus, pop bonus, BE bonus taken into account.

    Fixed: 10 forts, 10 tgs, 3 mtpa, 2 mtpa, viscount.

    NW graph is for 50 dpa. Kinda pointless as a picture, but fun when playing around in sheet.



    So, given the fixed variables, pound for pound Dryad seems to be by far the hardest hitter, up until about 90 DPA. DE is second, and remains so until 170 (where it meshes with most def elite races). Weakest pound-for-pound hitters seem to be Dwarf, Human, Bocan and Faery. While Elf and Halfer look very strong past a very sucicidy build, past +50 dpa or so they push out higher off than Orc.

    But granted, this is without an nw analysis. A 50 DPA Elf and Orc will basically have the same offence given equal mwpa and mtpa, but the Elf will have roughly 20% more nw. So in the war tier it'll likely war larger orcs on larger off.

    Edit :Oh, and disclaimer; I'm a bit drunk, so dun be mad if my numbers are off :p
    Last edited by Tadpole; 22-04-2018 at 00:42.
    RoughKnecS

    --> Want art? <--
    --> Or see Tadpole banners? <--

    The industrys greats

    ** Cerberus ** Killah ** Shadowheart **


  13. #13
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,404
    I think Bocan got saved with +1 def to elites, feels bad for Faery and Dark elf though their nw for elites are killing it. I'd say Avian and Orc looks to be most efficient and Dryad is good too although it feels a bit more frail. Not sure why so many is on Orc/Undead, I doubt 148 people will never be caugth army in or ambushed, that is the drawback on undead, with nw based gains sage feels like a trap unless they get very big.

  14. #14
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,524
    @Persain - I kinda covered that with the "High NW/A is like free GS" comment.
    I was on phone for that post, so it's a bit dense and brief - I'll also grant that it probably is more of a factor than I give it credit for. Also, your point about it working on LL too is intresting. And GS effects having an impact on chains is an important point, especially from a kingdom setup view. It has a few more mixed effects when looking at econ, stealing, and the like - but overall, if two races tied at 100% and one has higher NW/A than the other, that is a clear advantage to the higher NW/A (and thus higher OPA) one. (Of course all the other factors I don't model might outweigh that.)

    @Chris121 - I clearly jumped to some assumptions about your intent there. (I guess I get to swim back now.) A fair point about the elites not requiring getting above normal not always meaning the elite NW is a balance mistake. Faery is a great example (which I'm planning to play) - even here in the prelim before their elite NW dropped by .5 (and lost pop, so they fall a little overall) the "no elite" version is only ranking 1.29% higher. Totally worth getting those elites - but if I'm on a tight timeline to prep for a war or something, they are still probably the last priority since the def specs are also fine. Also, pure spec offense has a very real disadvantage in that is has static defense.


    I probably need to note here, part of the missing picture is one of the things I *am* modeling here. To the best of my knowledge all T and M defense effects run on a per acre basis. If a prov has much higher NW/A, not only does it have less NW wasted in land, it also has lower T and W NW and pop usage (per unit of NW "size"). Both of these are being captured by the way my forumlas work, which means that high NW/A is getting most of it's advantages other than the free GS effect picked up.

    Because of this, while Chris's point about trading NW efficient power for higher NW/A is true, I think it is much less important than it seems a first. I personally would ditch most of the elites out of any race with a more than 5% drop, and I think it is just plain bad to the point of maybe losing wars to run elites if they produce more than a 10% drop. Most of this is experience though, not deep analysis, so if someone puts some harder numbers on this point that'll be more reliable than my guesswork about it.


    @Tadpole - I've done graphs kinda like that before. I should spin out a public copy of my sheet actually if you want to make them (even had a macro back when it was in excel), because mine is compensating for NW and lets you specify a % defense instead of a dpa. It currently assumes 70:30 off:def - used to use 65:35, or just under 2xing youself army out, but I got talked into pushing it a bit higher. Specifying a dpnw would make sense but won't work in my sheet as written - my claim is that if you've got the stupid big offense, you better have above average defense as well. Set dpnw (or even dpa) matters for chain target management though. Once I share it you can try to recode that part to run on dpnw if you'd rather.

    A graph like yours is particularly relevant this age for anyone that thinks the meta is going to shift to much higher defense, liek the change comment thread had rumblings about. I don't pretend to understand that level of meta well enough to predict that in advance myself - all the numbers in the world aren't going to produce truly reliable insight into people's minds, which is a critical part of meta's like that.
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

  15. #15
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,524
    So - big miss on the first run of them, a lot of the o-spec somehow got set to 6 NW instead of 4.8. Also, T and W were still only 4 NW instead of 6 (now 5 though).
    Faery no elite fell just below faery elite, and was replaced with Avian no elite, which is surprisingly strong due to getting fanat and BL. (Elite Avian also strong.) Fixing the specs made a giant dog pile near the top with all the spec races, since nothing is really outperforming "no race" that much still.

    Age 76 final changes power rankings:
    Rankings_________OPA_____DPA___NW/A___MPNW_____%Max
    Human__________142.7____61.2___274.9____0.742____76.44%
    Elf______________152.9____65.5___283.5____0.77_____79.40%
    Dwarf___________137.9____59.1___250______0.788____81.20%
    Halfling__________149.6____64.1___244.7____0.873____90.00%
    Bocan___________133.7____57.3___214______0.893____91.00%
    No Race__________122.4____52.5___195.6____0.894____92.13%
    Orc______________154.6____66.3___245.9____0.899____92.61%
    Faery____________139.3____59.7___218.7____0.91_____93.80%
    Dwarf no Elite_____125______53.6___195.8____0.912____93.97%
    Avian____________156.1____66.9___241.4____0.924____95.20%
    Human no Elite____129.1____55.3___198.1____0.931____95.91%
    Dark Elf__________163.2____69.9___248.5____0.938____96.69%
    Elf no Elite________137.1____58.8___205.9____0.951____98.07%
    Avian no Elite_____131______56.1___196.1____0.954____98.34%
    Dark Elf no Elite___146.7____62.9___216.8____0.967____99.62%
    Halfling no Elite___142.6____61.1___210.3____0.969____99.88%
    Dryad___________166.5____71.3___245.1____0.97____100.00%


    And here is a ink to a publicly editable version of the sheet that made this. If you are modifying it significantly, please make a copy (although I've got my private copy anyway). If you catch me in further errors - point, laugh, and then maybe fix and post an update. (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!)

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •