how about dwarf merchant so you can tog
Printable View
how about dwarf merchant so you can tog
Were you the kingdom that started or the kingdom that received button?Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsquanch
Were both sides Cleric, or one side?
I honestly don't recall who pressed the button, but more than likely they did. We typically ask for war and let the other kd press the button. We don't run cleric and I don't recall them being exclusively cleric either.
Bit too weak on military, given Dwarf's traits... at least imo. It's hard to put up a military that competes with Orcs and Undeads, and Dwarf armies bleed pretty bad compared to everyone else, even with the bonus creds (hard to make use of them when a dwarf/merch core gets stomped pretty bad by most other attackers in war).Quote:
Originally Posted by tetley
well i think it would need proper prep time to function properly
I just like to point out the biggest KD right now is Dwarf based. The unspoken assumption about all this is that we're talking about strategies for the warring tier, not the land crown tier. In warring tier, it is much easier to dodge unfavorable wars like if the enemy KD is 20% bigger. In land tier, there is dodging too but there are also its fair share of one-sided fights between more prepped/big kd vs small KD (relatively speaking compared to warring).
i think noobium mostly thinks about ghetto warring cores. his dwarf analysis seems often to eschew the possibility of long pump periods and stock time with that BE bonus.
Also I think he just hates dwarves
for a whore kingdom that spends a lot of time pumping, why wouldn't you pick sage over merch?
if i wanted tog and could arrange the time and cfs to pump i'd probably just pick human. then again that is just me, i don't know whoring strategy, but Sage has been preferred by whoring kingdoms since they gained better sci effect, and usually the Sage kingdoms have beaten Merchant kingdoms (this based on my not-so-pro analysis of sticking my nose where i shouldn't).
for what it's worth i picked dwarf last age and would pick dwarf/cleric again if i were in the same ghetto and it were my call, unless i were interested in trying to war lots. it's just got some serious military shortfalls compared to other races, something i'm familiar with from multiple ages playing in mostly Dwarf or part-Dwarf kingdoms, and observing other Dwarf kingdoms.
but yeah, i'm mostly thinking about kingdoms that aren't going for land, the strategies that go into that are too complex and go beyond merely picking the right setup... but i would imagine dwarf/merch is favored more in the war tier than in growth kingdoms, just because growth kingdoms can really capitalize on being sage and don't have to worry about the shortcomings of sage as much.
Well, what you describe (attackers usually cannot target t/m late in war) is kind of why I say Cleric is overrated... at the point where Cleric's sustainability really starts to matter for an Orc, it is more difficult to engineer effective chains against a t/m, just because some attackers have likely dropped in that time if the other kingdom is dropping targets in a tactically sound manner. Even if the Clerics have sustained more offense, it's not as useful if that offense can't be used against a target you'd really want to drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsquanch
Something like Dwarf/Cleric works well because their zerks would defend on occasion, and dwarf freebuild does some useful things with Cleric. For an Orc, Cleric or not, your best defense in long wars is offense, stuff that works better with Orc's racial bonuses... if you can chain more efficiently and take down useful targets early, the implied benefits outweigh merely sustaining offense. Similarly, in hostile, whether you're hitting first or retal warring, every hit you make in hostile should be doing the most to help your kingdom in the long term, whether you're Cleric or not. Cleric doesn't help you make better hits, but it is some protection in situations where useful hits aren't as useful as they should be.
If I had a setup with, say, mostly Elf attackers, like CR used last age, then Orc/Cleric works a lot better, just because the Orcs are there to present a legitimate attacking threat. With a more offense-oriented setup, with a standard assortment of 16+ strong offense attackers, Cleric doesn't work as well, unless someone plays against their advantages and allows the Orc/Clerics to fight retalwar (something like what happened to me vs. stoners a couple ages ago, that i was unable to stop). Even then, Stoners' Cleric pick wasn't as important as our own race picks being misplayed, t/ms being way too soft on defense (which is part my bad), bad hostile tactics and bad planning to counteract what Stoners were doing with their provinces. I think at the time I was just not giving a poop.
So... if anything, I have a wealth of experience in losing, and can tell you how to lose, and what went wrong.
In my experience, in war, you find yourself in one of 3 situations.
1. You are the target of a chain. You get pounded under 300 acres and are relegated to hitting the result of chain targets in the other kd, as hitting bigger gets crappy gains.
2. You are the fb or ns target.
3. You are being left alone, and are getting fat.
I have to consider what would benefit me most in every situation. Between warrior, tact and cleric I see warrior providing the most benefit. The extra hit when you get chained makes a big difference, and you have a static +10% ME.
It's helpful to view your attackers as part of a unit, rather than focus on individual stats. How attackers work together (in any type of kingdom) makes a big difference.
That's why it's helpful to have all of your attackers pick the same race, or from a set of races that work well together, and generally have the same personality.
Warrior is and has been a pretty good personality for a while, and idk why someone would pick Cleric for offensive sustain when Warrior's bonus does something similar in long wars, and is better otherwise.
I'm not too fond of Human/Warrior though, even though their numbers are high on paper. Humans are really tricky to run as solo or minority provinces (cows excepted), and lots of Human/Warrior isn't as versatile as lots of Sages or lots of Tacticians.
Noobium - Why you so prickly? :D
Lestat, if you have to put up with the **** I get...
hehe
I rolled human/warrior because the paper benefits looked very nice. I looked past the leet cost because I figured, after a war win I'd be pumped with enough leets. A sunk cost is a sunk cost and I don't give a hoot what it was - everybody loses leets in war. I thought I'd take my orc mentality and playstyle into human and use ToG to essentially keep me afloat with a high draft rate... and at odd times I would have EOWCF to bank and maybe once this age the opponent would let me get pezzies in war.
Lost a war pretty bad, and I think we lacked offense on our humans just due to lack of proper pumping and income management. But the guys are complaining about their human provinces. I am optimistic about my orc-approach to human, but there's definitely something very un-orclike about this race. I can't put my finger on quite how to recommend we utilize our humans.
I randomed into a ghetto with maybe 2 other warriors, half dwarf and half human. Maybe half rogue, and sage/warrior to fill out.
This idea of the attacking unit... The sages are obvious, but are we just going to lose every war until our sage attackers are strong enough? I feel like it'll be hard to make this setup work out as envisioned. How do we utilize a half rogue attacking core?
Personally I'd never ever approve such a setup, so I'm finding myself soul searching a bit to try to help these guys avoid any more brutal war losses with these damn rogue attackers. xD