Guard Stations

[Gallowmere]

It's not about being 'saved'. We've established that already.

As for your earlier question...having even 500 extra defense can slow a chain if it's the difference between a successful DT (or TT or QT) and one of them not being able to break.

[The Imp]

It's about recovery and offence.

500, 1000, 2000 extra defence is irrelevent. If a KD wants to chain you they will, if they can't DT you they will use spare offence on the second or third chain target so at the end of the day your still getting chained.

My no hospitals only applies to undead by the way...

[Gallowmere]

And that is a big reason they make the most delicious targets to chain first.

So yes...I do hope that no Undead except for the ones in my KD run Hospitals. Makes my life much easier in the long run. ;)

[DDodge]

It's not about being 'saved'. We've established that already.

As for your earlier question...having even 500 extra defense can slow a chain if it's the difference between a successful DT (or TT or QT) and one of them not being able to break.

If you are getting chained and its THAT close to them tapping u again, all they have to do is wait for the tick for your def to drop :)

[Ordray]

Which delays their armies by another tick whereas the lack of hospitals doesn't even have that advantage since they can do it all in the same tick.

[The Imp]

Ok hospitals have little benefits that you keep mentioning... but look at the oppurtunity cost. Your putting 15% of a building in thats only doing half a job (protecting defence), instead you could be running GS, TG, Rax or WT.
Do any of you guys actually play undead?

[Ordray]

I play Orc/Cleric actually :P

[The Imp]

As do I.... and the only attacker that gets anywhere near the power of orc cleric is undead tactition....

which shouldn't run hospitals :P!!!!

[Ordray]

I dunno, Orc/Warrior is pretty strong in war too. Either Orc will have better survivability than the UD w/o hospitals because they have potentially better offense and lower defensive losses.

[Gallowmere]

Yes, I did actually play an Undead at the start of this age. Left the ghetto I was in to form my own ghetto and we needed a decent thief so I rerolled.

As for UD personality choice, I have my own little thoughts in this, because there is one personality in particular that plays to EVERY UD strength, but I'll leave that for another time. ;)

[The Imp]

undead mystic/tactition are the only way you can play undead without nerfing yourself.

Orc/warrior is weak compared to cleric

[Ordray]

True, but I still think it to be stronger than UD/Tact.

[RomPat]

All attackers should run GS. Forts can be useful but are not always necessary. I would argue that GS are always necessary. War Wins is about acres gained and lost. If you take and keep more land then the enemy then you will win the war.

[Sadliar]

All attackers should run GS.

Halfling nonclerics shouldn't run GS, their troop losses outpace land losses.

Yeah, I rolled a halfrogue A/T a week ago after being on an 8 year break from utopia, and regretted not getting cleric the next day...

Or did you mean heavy attackers only?

[Gallowmere]

Imo, the only people who should ever run forts are T/Ms and Halflings, due to the latter's 100% elite armies. My reasoning for the Halflings is the same as what Ethan's theory is on increasing offense by reducing troops needed. However, with Halflings it's much more obvious, because you can send more troops while maintaining the same defense, without having to modify you troop training regimen at all. You get better results from the DBE numbers that way, blah blah, etc.

As for GS, yeah, pretty much all attackers should run them. Higher %s if it's part of a KD wide strat, as I mentioned earlier.