Oh clampy, u made my day here.
yes we know about that overpoped factor, but home built lands that are losses leads to a faster overpop than non-homes land.
Oh clampy, u made my day here.
yes we know about that overpoped factor, but home built lands that are losses leads to a faster overpop than non-homes land.
Lordwarallied you haven't gave any proof just common belief. And 8wpa is not ~27%. It can be but it depends on the province. One plalying high homes need high raw tpa and wpa. It's a different type of strategy so it is played differently. As I said before believe what you want. One day you maybe find yourself second guessing yourself.
And Vines, you haven't grasped the English language enough to not sound like an ignoramus.
Please explain why someone with high homes needs a high raw TPA/WPA, because I'm running a decent percentage of homes and I have maybe 2 TPA/WPA and no one has really hurt me in war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Originally Posted by VT2
<Bishop> I don't dislike Ezzerland
<Bishop> We are just incompatible
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<~Palem> I read that as "snuffleupegas gropes Palem" twice lol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
flutterby he obviously meant, can afford higher wpa/tpa.. or? not that obvious maybe :p
Micke-
Yes, he meant it, and as much as i think his strategies is flawed on all sides, he isnt stupid to think that homes somehow gives all build benefits even tho the way he thinks about homes makes it look so. if not so.
if u have only homes, what is going to boost ur tpa and wpa versus a person that doesnt use homes and has modifiers? versatility and timing has always been the key in this game. i dont see how dependance, being dynamic and have a high level of a flat rate builds can out do that and why someone would try to do that...at least that way. so he has to havbe 8tpa - 8wpa to be any good which is madness.
but until i see ur strat being used by a kd to the level and the ranking of rage, then there is nothing else to say than good luck to you.
p.s: my 27.5% is based on a non gnome user. for a gnome it will be different. still very high considering all ur builds are in homes and that gnome player wont be able to use modifier build, with no hosps and enough troops to match the other guy's super elite strenght and superior low losses and economy.
A while back, I'd go for a higher percentage of homes (around 30% or so).
This is because each home increases per-acre population by 32%, and the added growth factor allows faster recovery from fireballs.
Plus, I ran 71% draft rate, so at 75% building efficiency, homes seemed like the most feasible choice.
However, now I run 16% guard stations. All wars lasting more than 2 days inevitably results in me getting razed down to minuscule proportions.
(Perks of being in a semi-active kingdom).
Anyway, my point being, while homes may seem the most decent and numerically pleasing option in terms of OPA/DPA/WPA/TPA, it does not provide substantial sustainability under duress.
Ever since Utopia had the idea of diminishing, a more 'rainbowy' building strat may be better.
mistake one: you had 30% homes and if you had 75% BE that tells me whether u were running a UD, or had no sci whatsoever.
mistake two: you had 70% draft rate and that doesnt include WPA. no wonders.
but what is al lthat opa,dpa,wpa,tpa if its all going to get beaten by a much more static, economicly stronger, better wpa-tpa modifiers ?
homes are artificially giving you those numbers which, you could just go straight for the bushes or the root of the problem, if i know ur running homes, everyone knows exactly what to do!
God that English hurts my brain.
Vines, I'd like to talk to you on a messaging program since I'm not a forum user, personally. Could you please message me. If not, no biggie.
email: Flicksand at yahoo.com
msn:Flicksand at yahoo.com
yahoo: Flicksand at yahoo.com
aim: Flicksand
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)