move to a new thread you two! This is an honest discussion, not a flame war!
Printable View
move to a new thread you two! This is an honest discussion, not a flame war!
Dragons Mate, this thread wants to talk about homes and if they can really be used. So what I'm going do to is make a thread showing people I use high home strategy. Who better to show how to use the strategy than the guy who made the strategy. I haven't done this in a while. I think it time that I do it again. And once again people will know why the Vines-strategy aka high-homes is the best way to play.
I wish we still had a separate server so people could challenge vines and make him eat his words...oh the good 'ol days =']
Vines is king of utopia. Show these noobs the way!
Vines you are a person with a big ego that hurts yourself. You should let go, why would you have the need to prove anything?
I myself try diffefrent strategies too. Ive found the use of homes as well, but thats just a little secret compared to other ones ive found, i also laugh at top kingdoms and play in a getto as a just elected monarch.
When we started the age, i told everyone how to do things properly and so on. but all they did was either ignore me or laugh.
There are persons who still believe that it takes WEEKS to have a super pimp province, my people you can achieve ubberness in no more than 7 days if you know what you are doing.
Now after a few weeks into the game when they see my results, i was elected monarch and got people thanking me for showing them how to play. And it is only the begining!
It is all about thinking out of the box isnt it? Most people wont dare to try anything new, because they find some sort of security in their old ways. And since it works so so, they just stick to it. I encourage everyone in my kingdom to try 100% homes, or 100% banks, or 50% libraries and 50% homes. Or whatever, GO EXTREME if you want to be any good, and dont let your kingdom mates make you mediocre.
This game has entirely changed since the code was re writen, when i left it was in the mehul times, now i read the formulas and other things and find that even though there are far better ways of playing a game, not even top players dare to try new things.
I laugh at the big kingdoms making utterly stupidly large "banks" . IF they only knew. But i am not one to tell, unlike Vines here.
Vines your superior intellect is nothing compared to what it could be if you drop down the ego and all those things.
I encourage you to stop thinking and giving up on your prejudices and all that blinds you, let go pride, will and everything else.Do not dwell in pleasure or superficial things like that.
And for the love of god , which you should also not believe in,a a matter of fact do not believe whatsoever AND PLEASE STOP FREAKING TELLING EVERYONE HOW TO PLAY!
Please delete your posts and let them dwell in ignorance.IT makes it easir for us who know the secrets of the game to help others think outside the normal standards.
Anyway if you want to make a new account and try new things,or show people how right you are, well you are more than welcome to join my guetto kd and feel at home to try what you wish, for this is my objective as monarch, to allow everyone try whatever they like and still destroy whoever dares hostile us .
i will send you an invite if you want, it would be very nice to play alongside a fellow free mind .Plus you will learn a thing or two .
Send me a message.
Best regards
ladies and gentleman, Vine's protege!
percent needed mainly depend on the race,personalities and draft rate
Here is why homes are good, regardless of science, which only strengthens it. I rambled a bit because this text box is constricting, so go to the end for a good summary.
Suppose you want to maintain 100% BE:
25% homes ---> 33*.25+25*.75 = 27 PPA
16.67 *0.75 = 12.5 Jobs per acre
Therefore, we get 14.5 Free citizens per acre and still have 100% BE. That is the equivalent of a 53.7% draft rate
Here are some generic builds
25% homes
10% farms
20% guilds + towers
10% stables + dungeons
35% free land
0% homes
10% farms
20% guilds + towers
10% stables + dungeons
60% free land
Here's the kicker:
27PPA * .54 = 14.58 other use people per acre
14.58 / 25 = 58.32% draft for 0% homes province
BE with 0% homes, 10.42 Peasants per acre
.5*(1+10.42/16.67) = 81.25 % BE
so, that 60% land @ 81.25% BE, is actually equal to 48.75 % at 100% BE
20% guilds and tower @ 100% = 24.6 % at 81.25% BE
10% farms @ 100% = 12.3% at 81.25 % BE, but there are 2PPA more so this is about the same result
Income for the 0% homes (81.25% BE province)
10.42*2.25 = 23.45 GC per Acre from peasants
Income for the 25% homes (100% BE province)
12.5 * 2.25 = 28.125
28.125 - 23.45 = 4.68 GC difference
This is equal to the raw gold output by 18.72% banks, but banks add income so let's get a better number
10% banks ~ 2.5GC extra + 7.38 % income at 81.25% BE
(2.5GC from Banks + 23.45 for peasants) *1.074 = 27.9 GC
So, the homes are better than 10% banks
60% free land @ 81.25% BE = 48.75% land @ 100% BE
48.75 - 10% for banks - 4.6% for guilds and towers = 34.15%
This is what the province with crappy BE is going to have, equivalently, with the province at 100% BE. The province with 25% homes and 100% BE has 35% land at 100% BE free.
Homes > no homes. Even a really large amount of homes. Note, that with science, ANY amount of science, homes become an even better option since Tools Science multiplies better with higher BE.
20% Tools
@ 81.25% BE ---> 16.9% gain, whereas with 100% BE, we have 20% gain, so 3.1% deficit with no homes. This doesn't even include the extra from housing science.
Homes win.
Ragnarok22788:
The problem with your calculations are:
1. They're unrealistic. Who actually runs 54% draft?
2. As we've already established, you can't do anything but to optimize a static province, and the problem with homes is that they suck as things change.
With homes you have no independent source of income, which means you're an obvious target for chastity, fireballs, storms, greed and riots. The moment you get fireballed, your caculations are no longer valid. The province running homes will soon have worse income than then prov not running them, and he will basically be sitting with 25% buildings that have almost no effect on the province. So basically you're trading 1% buildings and 0.2 gc per acre for bigger risks (at this stage, will differ a little more with sci as you said). Sometimes that's a fair trade, but often it won't be.
In short, you always have to consider what will happen when you're no longer in that static state that you calculated stuff for. In my experience, people running a large amount of homes are more vulnerable to the common tactics in this game, and so the small benefits of using them quickly disappear when you leave the static situation you optimized for. For t/m's running homes makes a lot of sense though.
Let's bump up the draft (I wish you had just calculated this because this will only make it clearer). Also, instead of just talking, run some calculations.
35% homes
10% farms
20% guilds + towers
10% stables + dungeons
25% land free
35% homes --> 27.8 PPA minimum
10.84 Jobs per acre
10.84/27.8 = 0.39 so, we are at 61% draft with 100% BE
non-peasants per acre: 16.96
For the 0% homes guy with 25 PPA, this is the same as running
16.96/25 = 67.84 so 67.8% draft
35% homes income:
10.84 * 2.25 =24.4
0% homes income
8.04 * 2.25 = 18.09
Difference 24.4-18.09 = 6.31 gold coins
BE for the 0% homes guy:
.5*(1+8.04/16.67) = 74.12
35% homes has 100% BE
moving on,
To make up the income difference, 0% homes guy needs to run some banks
6.31 ~ 15% banks at 74.12% BE
3.75 GC produced, with +9.53% income
(3.75GC * .7412 BE from banks +18.09 GC from pez) * 1.0953 = 22.86, we had 24.4 GC with 35% homes
So, homes are clearly better than 15% banks @ 74.12 BE. The difference will be ~ 18% banks
20% towers + guilds @ 100% BE =27% @ 74.12 BE
So, we have 60% free land with 0% homes and 74.12% BE, this is the same as 44.472 % land at 100% BE
44.472 - 7% from towers and guild difference - 18% banks = 19.472 % land at 100% BE
We have 25% land at 100% BE with 35% homes. We now have a 5.5% advantage in land, which is only widened with science.
Homes win again.
"As we've already established, you can't do anything but to optimize a static province, and the problem with homes is that they suck as things change."
Where are some numbers? I just proved that homes win in the worst case scenario, that is with no science--they do a lot better with science.
"With homes you have no independent source of income, which means you're an obvious target for chastity, fireballs, storms, greed and riots. The moment you get fireballed, your caculations are no longer valid."
Sure, assume we both get fireballed, who will bounce back faster?
The homes guy, who has +91.43% birthrate, let's prove this beyond any doubt however.
0% homes guy has 8.04 Peasants per acre versus 10.84 from 35% homes guy.
Peasants Hourly Change = Current Peasants * Birth Rate - Drafted Soldiers - Wizards Trained
I don't know what the implicit birth rate is from Utopia Wiki, but let's assume something reasonable. 5% growth per day.
Fireball works by killing 3% of population. We each receive 10 Fireballs
1.03^10 = 1.344
8.04 / 1.344 =5.98 peasants left for 0% homes guy
10.84 / 1.344 = 8.066
Let's find income differences and BE
87.2% BE for 35% homes
68% BE for 0% homes
Incomes:
8.066 * 2.25 = 18.135 for 35% homes
5.98 * 2.25 = 13.455
Difference = 18.135 - 13.455 = 4.68
Builds have not changed because we just got fireballed.
35% homes
20% guilds + towers
10% farms
10% stables + dungeons
25% other @ 87% BE
0% homes 27% guilds + towers
10% farms
10% stables dungeons
16% banks
37% other @ 68% BE
.37* .68 / .87 = 28.92% other land @ 87% BE
This means that the 0% homes other land is actually being more effective than 35% homes other land by about 4%. The issue with this is that we did not adjust the towers, guilds or banks to make up for the lower BE.
0% homes guy has income
(13.455 from peasants + 4*.68 BE from banks ) * 1.1152 from banks @ 68% BE = 18.04
We have 18.135 GC from peasants with 35% homes. Homes are still better income wise after a 34% population drop
Peasants Hourly Change = Current Peasants * Birth Rate - Drafted Soldiers - Wizards Trained
Assume a 20% birthrate, this helps 0% homes guy more than 35% homes guy. The actual BR is lower than this by quite a bit.
5.96*1.2 = 7.152 for 0% homes guy
8.06*1.795 BR (homes @ 87% BE) = 14.47, which is greater than we can have, so we go back to 10.84
so, we now have 100% BE with 35% homes again, while 0% homes guy is sitting with
.5*(1+7.152/16.67) = 71.45 BE
35% homes won when 0% homes had 74% BE, they will surely win against 71.45% BE.
Point is, homes are better than no homes, in every situation, because of the better economy that says, my smaller portion in land outperforms your inefficient higher % of land.
Let's assume a little science. 5% population and 10% tools
35% homes --->29.2 PPA
BE is at 110%
0% homes --> 26.25 PPA
Say we have 65% draft, to be realistic about this.
17.06 non peasant per acre, 9.2 peasant
BE = 85.4%
Guy with homes can actually get more military and still have 110% BE.
Not gonna quote your whole post.
You miss the point. Static optimizations are static. Homes strats are among the easiest builds to counter, because they build almost completely on large population, since it has to compensate for everything they can't have with all that space spent on homes.
10 fireballs? Really? Try calculations where you're down to 3-4 peasants per acre, and kept at that level by MS and Chastity. That's what real players will do to you without much effort. You'll be way worse off with a homes strat in such a situation, because you're maxing your max pop for nothing, and your BR bonus is void. Your only source of income are your few peasants, and riots and greed will force you to lower your wages. As you calculated, being peasant starved hurts your BE more than it does mine, so even the buildings advantage disappears.
The opposite strategy is to chain and overpopulate you instead, and that strategy is also more effective against your type of build. Your strength comes from having more peasants than your no-homes counterparts. Peasants are the first thing you want to get rid of when you get chained, because they force your army to leave. You have lots of them, meaning you'll be losing more army as a result. Note that this wouldn't happen if you used the homes strat to maximize your army instead of economy/BE. Of course if you go down that road instead, your province becomes less sustainable, because you need to train more troops instead.
In summary, your province is an air castle. You're too easy to stop. Your calculations will never tell you that, so as long as you rely on them, you'll have a hard time against players who don't. People who run homes-builds almost always end up being turtling solo players, because that's the only way their build works as it's supposed to.
You assume that I haven't done any calcs, which is completely wrong. I've used math optimization software to do what you seem to be doing manually. Homes ARE good for static optimization, but not when used to max BE and income, but to maximize the army. But mixing in what happens in war is extremely hard to model. You don't know if you'll end up with no peasants, or if you're left alone economy wise (in which situation you really should've spent the extra population on army instead of maxing BE and income). You need to start living in the real world and stop thinking static optimization can give you the perfect province. It's just not that easy a problem to model.
As I've said before, I'm not dissing homes-builds completely. It's completely viable to run some homes oow. But you should not be building homes during the actual war, because they're mostly useless there.
edit:
Just threw some numbers into my spreadsheet, comparing 30% homes vs 0% homes for the Orc Warrior I'm playing this age. The end result was that i could get around 3% more effects from hospitals, as well as 1 extra opa. Considering how fragile the homes-build is, the 0% homes build is an easy pick. The gains from using the homes build are nowhere large enough to justify the downside.
One thing I will say, however, is that if you use homes with the wrong draft percentage, you are worse off because you will have wasted peasants. Unemployed peasants are near useless.
I don't understand why you say homes are only good in a static situation. The birthrate is ridiculously high so I can't be fireballed down that heavily, period--unless chastity is on me literally every hour. I can recover all of my peasants in 1 hour from being down 40%-50%, I think that is the epitome of durability. I assumed 10 fireballs because I expected to get 10 fireballs, let's say, within an hour, and then get another 10 the next hour, and another and so on.
Here is what I'm having trouble understanding:
"The opposite strategy is to chain and overpopulate you instead, and that strategy is also more effective against your type of build. Your strength comes from having more peasants than your no-homes counterparts."
I was emphasizing the fact that using homes to maintain BE at 100% is better than letting BE go down and not using homes because the effective land use is better with homes than without. I was essentially saying: having 30% land at 100% BE is better than 40% at 70% BE. I don't see this as wrong in any way.
Now, I haven't played since age 34 or so, but back then I ran an Elf A/M using some homes and was exceptionally successful--if you look at my strats at utopia temple back then, many agreed that my homes were a good idea. My honor ranking as Marquis that age also said that homes were effective. I was simply very durable due to good economy, despite getting massive ops and spells on me. Homes now have a birthrate bonus but slightly less housing capacity, but I still think my numbers say something simple and true; maintain a good economy using homes so your land is used more effectively.
I don't think you understand how BR works... The amount of pezzies you get per tick depends on the amount of pezzies you have. In fact, I think the base BR is ~3% of your current pezzies. You would need a BR of +1666% to recover 50% of your pezzies back in an hour (I think I calced that right...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnarok22788
Not if you're facing an even relatively coordinated kd. Even 1 prov can get off more than 10 FBs on you, let alone 20+.Quote:
I assumed 10 fireballs because I expected to get 10 fireballs, let's say, within an hour, and then get another 10 the next hour, and another and so on.
Ok, I was a little confused about the equation on wiki because it seemed too good to be true.
Peasants Hourly Change = Current Peasants * Birth Rate - Drafted Soldiers - Wizards Trained
I guess I misinterpreted it to by
1 * (Homes bonus) * (normal which is 1.05)
versus
1 * homes bonus * 0.05
Is this correct?
As Palem said, you misunderstood the birthrates. Your second formula is the accurate one (although 5% isn't the base growth, it's more like 2-3%, I forget). A decent kd will keep chastity on you for maybe 75% of the time, meaning you have 6 hours of potential peasant growth every day (and if you have ms on you too, all those 6 hours will do is maybe compensate for the peasants you've already lost). It'd take days for you to get all your peasants back that way, and if at any time you got ms or fireballed again, you'd be set back a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnarok22788
You emphasize income and land utilization. Both of them depend on having peasants. As soon as someone uses a depopulation strat on you, all the advantages you had before they did it are gone. You no longer use your land more effectively, and your income is actually worse than it would've been if you'd used banks instead. Killing peasants in this game is too easy for a strat to be able to rely on them without being very risky.Quote:
Here is what I'm having trouble understanding:
"The opposite strategy is to chain and overpopulate you instead, and that strategy is also more effective against your type of build. Your strength comes from having more peasants than your no-homes counterparts."
I was emphasizing the fact that using homes to maintain BE at 100% is better than letting BE go down and not using homes because the effective land use is better with homes than without. I was essentially saying: having 30% land at 100% BE is better than 40% at 70% BE. I don't see this as wrong in any way.
Homes do not guarantee either good income or better land utilization, which is why I keep pointing out the flaw of only looking at static situations. Your strength quickly falls apart the moment someone actually does something to you, and it doesn't matter if it's a depopulation or overpopulation strat, because you're more vulnerable to both. You need to factor in the risks you're taking for your calculations to give you useful results, and that's very very hard to do.Quote:
Now, I haven't played since age 34 or so, but back then I ran an Elf A/M using some homes and was exceptionally successful--if you look at my strats at utopia temple back then, many agreed that my homes were a good idea. My honor ranking as Marquis that age also said that homes were effective. I was simply very durable due to good economy, despite getting massive ops and spells on me. Homes now have a birthrate bonus but slightly less housing capacity, but I still think my numbers say something simple and true; maintain a good economy using homes so your land is used more effectively.
To make it to Marquis today, you need to be an honor whore or solo player, and I'm less than interested in helping anyone do either :P
Without wading though massive math (I've done it via good sim, but it takes a long time to write up) - homes look very good if you forget about NW. If you set a dpnw instead of a DPA, homes lose to TG/Forts. Even after you account for DBE, and the BE bonus, and constant income... TGs just beat homes for increasing offense.
Homes do have advantages (BR, fast convert from pump into war, etc.) But when war is eminent, it is almost always better to build TGs instead of homes. (Or rax, etc.) They are better than a lot of buildings in war (schools in a war?), but calcing OPNW shows they aren't the best, and as such should be a special purpose building, not a attacker mainstay.
I just got out of a war where the majority of our guys have chastity on them 24/7. As soon as the spell would end, a new one would be cast.
If you are facing ghettos that aren't organized enough to keep your pezzies down, then yes, Homes are probably better.
BUT as soon as you start warring half-way decent kingdoms, you'll quickly realize that your pezzies aren't going to stick around because the enemy kingdom will target them! As soon as your pezzies are dead, you're dead. When warring any half-competent kingdom, Homes loose their most of their value. When warring a kingdom with gnomes, they are completely worthless because you won't have a BR, or pezzies!
you can MV chastity off you know.
Well there was two problems with that.
1. No runes.
2. 150k people dead via massacres.
And MV is significantly harder than Chastity to cast. Not to mention that you don't even get the right spells mv'ed most of the time. Chastity is too powerful compared to the cost and difficulty. The only reason I can see why anyone would keep it that way is because Gnomes are too crappy without it, and that's not a good reason at all imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
I wonder if there is some median value between 0% homes and optimal homes (with respect to 100% BE) that is better...
I see all of your arguments, and there is some truth to that. Maybe go into war with the optimal homes build and then use the incoming land to shift home percentages down since you can assume you will be losing peasants, but (hopefully) gaining land. This would give optimal stats at the start and then lead to a shift for war optimization.
Let's say we expect to have about 33% of our peasants during war vs normal. Use one-third the optimal number of homes
10% homes
10% farms
20% guilds + towers
10% stables + dungeons
10% banks
20% TG's
20% Forts
vs
0% homes
10% farms
20% guilds + towers
10% stables + dungeons
10% banks
25% TG's
25% Forts
Assume draft 65%
10% homes : 25.8 PPA, 16.77 Non-peasant, 9.03 peasant, 15.57 Jobs per acre, 79% BE
0% homes : 25 PPA, 16.25, 8.75 peasant, 16.67 jobs per acre, 76.3% BE
10% homes : 24.23 GCPA, 2 WPA + TPA, 14.77 MPA, +19.105 offense and defense
0% homes : 23.47 GCPA, 2 WPA + TPA, 14.25 MPA, +21.605 offense and defense
Assume we are Orc running 8 Dspec 2 Ospec and rest elites
0% homes has better defense with all military out @ 38.9 DPA
10% homes has 38.1 DPA
10% homes (2.77*5 Ospec +9*4 Elites+5.4 horses)*1.1905 = 65.78 OPA
0% homes (2.25*5 Ospec + 9*4 + 5.4)*1.21605 = 64.02 OPA
10% homes has 7.39 GC in maintenance
0% homes has 7.13 GC
10% homes NWPA: 55 building+9.03 peasant+6.75*4 EPA+8*4 Dspec+2.77*5*.8 OSpec + 8 WPA/TPA + 5.4*.6 horse = 146
0% homes NWPA: 143.65
10% homes: .4505 OPNW .261 DPNW
0% homes: .4457 OPNW .271 DPNW
Almost no difference. Maybe it's worth it for artisans, but I was mistaken about homes being clearly better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnarok22788
I'm not dissing your home's build, because I think 10% homes is a reasonable percent if you insist on running homes during War. Still not convinced though. I just want to point out that an orc running 65 OPA is worthless. They are supposed to be heavy hitter IMO, and therefore have an easy 90 OPA, I'd like to see them with over 100.
How does Artisan modify homes?
Don't see the point in running off specs with Orc. They fight with def spec strength in ambush, which means they're 4 instead of 2. It'll make almost no difference.
Artisan boosts the +population part of homes. You get 10 extra pop per home instead of 8.
This thread is super retarded.
http://forum.cheatengine.org/files/super-retard_190.jpg
Artisan gives you 11.2 more pop instead of 8 with homes.
Yea, 8 * 1.4 = 11.2
36.2 people per house is pretty sweet.
Oh right, artisan was "boosted" this age. Sorry.
I don't need to prove any thing. I'm just trying to show player the best way to play. Now people say high-home players are solo players. That's the thing I made this strategy with team work in mind. My strategy works best with a whole kingdom using it. However, the problem is that most people do not use it this forces the players using my strategy to go it alone.
vines your trolling lost credibility when you couldn't remain consistent in your punctuation and grammar, we know you aren't real. Whether it was from laziness, lack of focus, or simply handing the account off to a new troll, you are wasting your time.
homes are the only building that are going to allow you to explore faster if your exploring without aid. (increase total peasents) so umm thats a reason to run them
i dont mean to be rude, but what percent homes does an artisan have to run to pass a shepard running no homes? :P And there in lies the problem with artisan
24.56% assuming otherwise identical pop mods. Though their various immunities and other benefits make this a mostly meaningless number - how many homes better/worse is 50% mass/raze/tornado vs. plague immune?
BTW, assuming they chose to run the same % homes, it takes 85.94% homes for art to have better pop. Just for the sake of having an even stupider single number in the discussion.
Edit - bad math. (Multiple partially counterbalancing errors)
Those values are:
Shep 0% homes - 22.32143% or 25/112 or 7*((5/4)^2)
Shep same% homes - 104.16667% or 25/24
Please don't ask why those fractions are that way...
Yep... artisan is terrbile
Homes are not great in 90% of scenarios, when they are used generally you only need 10-15%
Keep tell yourself home are no good. I reather you not use them. However, if you want to have an edge use my strategy. As for the question about when does a Artisan have better population than a shepherd, the answers is a Artisan always has a better population per acre as long as the artisan uses 10% more homes. For example, say a shepherd province is 400 acres with 10k population and using 10% homes that spepherd gets an extra 420 population. Now say there is a Artisan province with the same land, same population, and 10% homes that Artisan gets an extra 448 population. I got this number by doing the fallowing: 40(ten% of 400) * 11.2(the # of people one home add for an Artisan) = 448 As you can see the artisan has the edge in population per acre.
This forum is the best place to get your info if you want to learn how to play the way the best play. You will come across a lot from people trying to disprove the Vines Strategy, however, these people are less player or they have no clue what the rules of the game are. If you want good advice, know that, my posts are the first place you should at after you have looked at the game guild.
Well there's yer problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by vines
vines i have run 80% houses myself or so. I have achieved ubber numbers of opa , dpa and tpa, i think i had a 60 dpa army out with 90 opa and 4 raw tpa or something, i cant really remember.I didnt even know that you existed when i did this so you dont go saying that i stole your strat. I just thought about it by doing calculations and came up that max draft and pop from homes would give the highest dpa opa and tpa ever possible , higher than with any other strat.
Once i had those numbers, i could not do a steady growth, it seems to me that it was a good static strat, like for a t/m , , but once one wants to grow, damn. Elites are really expensive , i did not even have farms or towers or banks, all my resrouces came from plundering as an avian warrior and high tpa i could steal most things yes, but plundering money after 100k networth is really hard to do. Most people dont have more than 400,000 gc anymore.
Now you are speaking with a person that has done over : So i mean business.
Total Attacks Made 267
Total Wins 254
And so one wastes all the stealth into scanning for plunder targets, there is not enough left for stealing.
I have scanned the world over 3 times this age already. kingdom by kingdom
I did not try using 70% homes and 30% armouries though, maybe that way.but my attack times would be reduced.
With 80% homes i could reach over 200 opa if all elites.
Anyway, right now im filling up my dungeons ive got 20% already, i need a higher tpa so that no one releases my prisioners, in my pipe dreams i wished to have a province of 50% dungeons 50% libraries, or 30% dungeons 30% libraries 30% homes and 10% guilds for a 95% draft or something.
I wonder if anyone has ever tried this things.
I can do this things because i like trying it all, even if it doesnt work it does not matter , i keep attacking the same in or out of war, i just dont want to play like everyone else , and it seems that there are more than 1 way of being succesful in this game.
The n00b is strong in this one.