Which dragon and why?

[waheed]

@TheRock:

the first dragon usually dies within minutes or a few hours of it being sent, so it really doesnt matter which one it is. ruby is an excellent choice if u can get the 2nd dragon out quickly after the 1st is dead

and i also disagree with ur definition on sapphire dragon. if ur enemy dont slay it then u cant really send the 2nd dragon out. and if u r gonna send ur 2nd dragon on top of the first, then it will cost ur enemy a lot more economically to actually slay one than to keep a sapphire on for half a day

[TheRock]

waheed -

It absolutely matters. Sending a Gold lowers their rax, hosps, TGs, Forts and GS for the opening waves, hurts their econ and drops their ability to recover and get ready for the next wave. Ruby's effect on the first wave is minimal unless it opens up larger provs for a many of your kingdoms.

Like you said, that first dragon is killed quickly. If you send a Ruby, you send out less, they send out more, but if you aren't getting to hit bigger provs, you don't really gain anything - they just send more and you send less. If it's dead before the second wave, you don't get to hit anything more or better. In other words, that Ruby doesn't really keep you safe or get you more acres.

With Emerald, you cut their gains by 10% and they lose more troops. This increases your gains significantly over them and hurts their ability to attack for the second wave. A Gold slows them down significantly - cutting 20% BE hurts TGs and Forts, which is similar to a Ruby's effect (much smaller, but it does something), in addition to hurting them for another wave.

Unless a Ruby gives you the opportunity to take significantly more acres (10%), Emerald is much better for your first wave. If the dragon is killed instantly, it doesn't matter which kind it is, but if it's there for even a few hours, a Gold can be devastating and an Emerald can give you a significant advantage.

Using a Sapphire is tricky, but if done right it's a great move. When facing an opponent with a bank, any dragon you'll send will probably be killed quickly. This makes your dragon pretty much useless - it's going to get killed for nothing. A Gold, Emerald or Ruby is just bait to get smacked. A Sapphire, on the other hand, is a tricky story. Will their bank waste specs to kill it? If he does, you don't lose anything more than if you'd sent another type. If he doesn't, you'll cut their incomes and draft significantly over the course of the war.

The only time this is useful is if you're facing a prov you can't possibly break and want to get a dragon up. Facing a Human bank with a ton of d-specs isn't really something you can deal with, but putting a Sapphire up gives him a tough choice - kill it to help his kd or leave it and hurt everyone's econs and draft? Tough call.

As for a second dragon, if you're facing a kd with a bank and can get a second dragon up in 12 hours, don't send a Sapphire, send something they have to slay :P

[waheed]

u have good points on gold dragon damaging economy and lowering the effect of rax/GS/WT. but personally from previous experiences, a lot of first dragons are killed in the first hour (some cases within minutes), so i dont think it will make a big difference regardless of dragon type for the first one

imo the real benefit of keeping a ruby dragon on ur opponent is that u put more threat on their unbreakables, and also make it more difficult to create new unbreakables.

anyway u have some good points and u r probably right, but imo it will make a little difference in the outcome of war whether if it was a ruby or emerald that ur enemy kept for the first 3~4 hours before slaying. early war dragons are pretty much to burn enemy's troops anyway, and u wont really get to feel their effect until later in war

as for fighting enemies with banks, GREAT care is needed! for example if my kd's max offense is 100k, i will rather keep my money and fight my enemy with a 600k defense bank and 80k peasants, rather than one with 300k defense and 130k peasants (i pulled those ## out of my ass but u guys get the point :p)

[TheRock]

It makes a very big difference ;)

I know a lot of dragons are killed very early, so it's important to maximize your benefit while you can. If you're sure it's going to be killed fast, Emerald is the way to go - Ruby won't really give you much opening wave beyond a couple of bigger hits, while Emerald cuts their gains by 10%. If you can get them to keep that for their first wave, that dragon just bought you 10% more acres than them, all else being equal.

Gold is great if they're going to struggle to slay. It's a very difficult decision - you'll never be able to train troops and keep up with your opponents with it there, but you'll fall behind badly if you keep it. If I got a Ruby and sent a Gold, I'd be very confident that I was in better position than my opponent if we both kept it.

For banks, if they can slay and stay UB, sending a dragon to be killed is a waste. Ruby, Emerald and Gold will get taken out instantly, so why bother? Sapphire really makes it a tough choice - either slay and waste troops on a crappy dragon and risk receiving another one, or keep it and lose troops and income. It's a really nasty move ;)

[Lestat]

In our war just finished their King demanded dragons. Some nOOb in our KD sent our ruby dragon (which I feel is the best) before the war started. Then I told their King how nOOb I was sending it early 5 minutes later he sends his ruby then 2 hours later declared war. They had big guys so killed our half strengther quickly as we did theirs. By that point we had crushed their economy so could send another. One day later we sent a gold dragon.

It seems that that combination (ruby then gold) seemed to work quite well.

[Catwalk]

Sapphire only has one real use - to make sure they don't kill your dragon

I've heard this argument before, and I find it completely illogical. It only makes sense if you assume that the enemy has a harder time making the best decision on whether or not to slay the dragon if you send a Sapphire. Which may of course be the case, but it's risky to rely on the enemy's stupidity in your planning.

As for Gold vs Ruby, let's ignore all economy buildings for sake of argument and only consider forts, TG, barracks, hospitals, GS, WT and TD. It's easier to compare the effects on these buildings with a ruby, so leaving the others out for now. Writing the effects of a gold dragon, assuming 100% BE and the noted building amounts:
10% forts - 1.8% defense drop
20% TG - 3.6% offense drop
10% barracks - 1.8% drop in attack time reduction
10% hospitals - 3.6% drop in reduction of casualties
15% GS - 2.7% drop in loss reduction
etc

If we ignore economy buildings, there is no difference in short and long term usefulness between the two dragons. Another factor is how many buildings unaffected by BE the target runs. If he's high on homes, stables and libraries then you get less for your gold dragon.

[TheRock]

I've heard this argument before, and I find it completely illogical. It only makes sense if you assume that the enemy has a harder time making the best decision on whether or not to slay the dragon if you send a Sapphire. Which may of course be the case, but it's risky to rely on the enemy's stupidity in your planning.

I find your counter-argument completely stupid.

We'll agree that all dead dragons provide the same benefit - dead troops used to kill it. Ruby, Gold and Emerald all give very strong incentives to slay them, while Sapphire does not. Sapphire requires your opponent to make a difficult decision: either they weaken their big province to kill a dragon or they leave it.

As you've clearly missed, slaying a dragon is a cost vs benefit analysis. Since cost is always fixed, which is to say that the price of slaying the dragon is constant, decreasing benefit actually works in your favor here. By decreasing benefit, you actually provide a disincentive to slay it, as they receive less benefit from the dragon being dead for the same cost. That's not relying on stupidity, that's relying on forcing your opponent to make a very difficult decision. They can slay the dragon and open themselves up, risking not being able to slay future dragons, or they can keep it and take the draft and income penalties.

There's no relying on stupidity there - that's relying on your opponent being smart enough to recognize that slaying a Sapphire may not be in their best interests by providing less incentive to slay.

[waheed]

actually Catwalk's argument is not stupid. altho personally i wouldnt try to actually calculate #s. to me, it goes something like this:

ruby = threaten unbreakables, make it harder to pump more unbreakables, possibly more double taps. make it easier to pump our own unbreakables and protect our unbreakables better

sapphire: shut down heavy thief ops like NS or prop (due to fail rate + thief loss. however it will not shut down light thief ops like robbing)

gold: damages economy severely (the difference between ruby and gold is that gold will wear out all 25 provs slowly, whereas ruby pose immediate threat on big provs or those close to double tap range, but for mid-range provs it has very small effect)

emerald: make enemy's chaining less painful, and make them loose troop faster

then from there i compare with situation and decide which one is most appropriet.



TheRock you are assuming that it is easy to send dragons. in most cases its not. dragons cost approximately as much to fund as to slay (i didnt calculate the exact difference and i dont want to. the main point is it cost A LOT to fund and A LOT to slay). i usually go by the definition of 1 dragon = 2 unbreakable, as in i can either send 1 dragon or pump 2 provs to unbreakable.

so in ur case, if the kingdom slay the sapphire, they dont get a "free" ruby dragon on them, they will get a ruby dragon at the cost of millions of gc of the other kingdom, and sometimes its a bad decision to send a dragon if the economy cannot hold, or some unbreakable provs will help them more

also, cost is not always fixed. its fixed in a sense that it will "cost the same amount of gc", but the effect is not always the same. for example if kingdom A is overdrafted and runs no banks, and kingdom B is merchant + 15% bank + 9 ppa, a dragon might be 10mil gc for both kingdoms, but the actual cost for the two kingdoms are very different. similar argument can be made for slaying

the exception is if u send a sapphire PLUS have enough reserve cash to fund a 2nd dragon to 1gc, in which case ur enemy should CONSIDER whether they should keep or slay the dragon regardless of type

[Lead Pipe]

Long term effects rely on the enemy allowing dragons to live, so IMO short term effects are much more important.

Send a gold, their def. drops 1.8%, you hit, they kill dragon, they hit & op
Send a emerald, their def. is unchanged, you hit, they kill dragon, they hit & op
Send a saphire, their def. is unchanged, you hit, they kill dragon, they hit & op
Send a ruby, their def. drops 8%, you hit, they kill dragon, they hit & op

Ruby is the best :)

[Ishandra]

There's no relying on stupidity there - that's relying on your opponent being smart enough to recognize that slaying a Sapphire may not be in their best interests by providing less incentive to slay.

If its not in their best interests to slay it, then it wasn't in your best interests to fund it.

The cost to fund and kill a dragon are about equal in most cases.

[TheRock]

waheed -

In most cases, you'd be correct. That's why in most cases, Sapphire is useless :P You aren't sending a Sapphire unless you have a very specific need.

The only time to send a Sapphire is when your opponent can easily slay it but you can't slay one they send - they have a bank, you don't. If this is the case, any dragon you send can be killed by your opponent safely by their bank province. You've now got a tough decision. You can see if you can get a second dragon up, which will be hard because their bank will safely pay for theirs but your guys will have a hard time doing so while training and building, or you can let them send dragons while you slay and open your provinces up or keep the dragon and let them have the advantage.

This is the only time I'd send a Sapphire. A Ruby, Gold or Emerald will get instantly killed by the opponent's bank, but a Sapphire will probably not. For them, it's the best dragon to have and they know you won't be sending a second on top of the first, so it's a very tough decision whether or not to slay.

Yes, in almost any other case, Ruby, Gold or Emerald is better. Thank you. Clearly we're talking about a special case where your opponent can safely kill any dragon sent by you but you can't do that in return.

"the exception is if u send a sapphire PLUS have enough reserve cash to fund a 2nd dragon to 1gc, in which case ur enemy should CONSIDER whether they should keep or slay the dragon regardless of type"

Your opponent never knows how much you've spent on a dragon :P

Ishandra -

Most cases are not all. If a bank province can slay it safely and you can't, the cost to send is much greater than the cost to slay, relative to the kingdom's military strength.

[Ishandra]

If they arent using that GC to slay dragons, they are using it to pump their attackers to unbreakable, or to help chained provs explore, etc etc.

The GC has to go somewhere. A bank can only slay so many dragons before your top range can break it, unless its starting around 5 times the NW of every other province.

[waheed]

if u r warring a good opponent, they will know whether or not you have funded the 2nd dragon to 1gc, and they will know how fast ur 2nd dragon will come, through proper intels and observation of buildings/drafts/reserve cash

on the other hand if ur opponent is not capable of doing that then u probably dont need to worry that much

[Catwalk]

If its not in their best interests to slay it, then it wasn't in your best interests to fund it.

I can't put it better myself.

[waheed]

lol the best dragon is when u send it, ur enemy tries to slay it and fails