I was wondering if everyone had just decided to ignore him lol.
I think a lot of people do overcomplicate it. Bishops right, Whats the point in optimizing your tg's stables ratio if every other part of your military is f'ed up.
Printable View
I was wondering if everyone had just decided to ignore him lol.
I think a lot of people do overcomplicate it. Bishops right, Whats the point in optimizing your tg's stables ratio if every other part of your military is f'ed up.
Over-exaggeration to make a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
My point was Race and Personality are must knows, and BE and draft are nice to have (but not necessary as you can sub in a fairly standard level for both which I typed in that post, but for some reason decided to erase...)
You make great sense. Except for one small point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordray
Draft is fairly standard, but deff/off unit allocation can vary significantly for different roles. From previous posts saying these are just trifles, one might get the wrong impression that the efficiency of Stables vs TGs is not strongly influenced by the number of off troops you have.
*lowers shoulders disappointed* I've broken my vow of silence... and the OP is still nowhere to be found.
Actually it does matter. For example, an Elf/Sage (1k acres) with 1% stables (600 raw offense points) the varying number of elites makes the stables more effective at lower numbers than higher numbers:
Elites - Net Raw Offense - % increase due to stables
7000 - 49600 - 1.22%
8000 - 56600 - 1.07%
9000 - 63600 - 0.95%
10000 - 70600 - 0.86%
11000 - 77600 - 0.78%
Bump the Stables up to 5%:
7000 - 52000 - 6.12%
8000 - 59000 - 5.36%
9000 - 66000 - 4.76%
10000 - 73000 - 4.29%
11000 - 80000 - 3.90%
So when you think about how much to designate for TGs and Stables, then you need to think about is the next 1% of TGs going to offer me a better bonus than 1% more stables. The more offensive units that you already have, the less of a boost you get proportionate to your overall offense.
Those are great numbers, i wonder if anyone has the perfect formula of everything yet? after 10 years playing the game, im sure that many players in top kds have super math programs that know exactly which ammount of what gives the most of everything.
They already know exactly how many troops, how many TG, stables, etc etc, for the max economy while at the same time pumpim science and on and on .
It would be nice if someone posted at the start of the age, for every race and personality, whats the perfect build every time for an attacker that will hit twice a day in war, for a AT that will hit twice in war, for an AM that will hit twice a day in war and for a TM.
This would save a lot of people a lot of time , if you already gave out the perfect builds, i know you will go and say theres no perfect build, and that it depends on what and where and which and whom, but really , if i get away kicking ass with 60% homes, which by the way are great , im sure the " pefect " build suggestion would do quite well as well.
If anyone out there is not interested in doing tons of calculations and just having fun and been able to kick butt, i remind you that you dont have to play like everyone else , do not suffer and struggle knowing that you wont ever have enough time to do all this tweaking and adding up numbers in your calculator . If you want an easy life that gives result, do as my signature says.
BTW im really a hater about the A-hole answer " why dont you give us your build instead first ".
If someone asks for a build for an orc warrior, why not just give the damn perfect build instead of wanting that person to suffer and struggle years and years learning the game until they hit the proper build ?
Im all against suffering and struggling.
I flat out don't have time to work out a build for every race/personality, role, playing style, kingdom play style, etc. Even if I did, then they'd be far from perfect (though I'd like to think that they'd be at least halfway decent)[There is no perfect build btw because there is a counter for everything.] If someone wants to tweak a build and such then there are some sims out there. I make one, but I haven't had time to work on it in a while on the online direct use host (editable online version) because it didn't port right in the latest version... Also put in a basic attack calc into the latest version (Microsoft Excel 2010/2007 version and 97-2003 versions both) which is linked to in this thread: http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...l-Utopia-Links
Also older version is in there too (it's online editable). Not that great of one I know, but it's out there.
@ gojete: Where are you from? Are you aware of smthg called Christian Orthodox religion? I'm only asking because I detect a strong influence of Orthodox philosophy in your posts.
And to contribute smthg to the discussion. If you're not going to ask for details, then the first reply to this thread is sufficient. TGs become better as you have more offensive troops, more offensive points and more BE. Stables are usually less efficient than TGs for a heavy attacker with a 65% draft and a 2:1 off to def.
"I got 250 opa when i tested 100% homes in an avian cleric"
Fing brilliant. I hadn't thought of 100% homes! perhaps I should change my strats around.
well i've done a lot of calculating with the TG vs stables and can share my finds as it works out on paper. as a human running only 2 rtpa atm, i have found that if i use a 1:1 ratio of elites/dspec or 2:1 elite/dspec that at a 55% draft rate that 10% TG and 10% stables is "optimal", but only by 1.5-2.5 opa more over running just 20% TG. at higher draft rate of 65% it is more optimal to use 15% TG and 5% stables, again only around 2.5-3 opa more. the only thing i haven't really calculated yet is what would be better for war. if you get chained hard in war with stable you lose a lot and have to make sure your horses are never home for a tick. but, if you use all TG, when you get land in all of a sudden your 20% TG(if you run 20% TG) is only 15-16%, effectively reducing OME by 4-5%.
EDIT: all calculations were done with an 83% BE
Its hard to give a simple answer Bishop because its bloody complicated! One of the beautiful things about this damn game.
As said above, the more offence you have the more important TG should be. The higher your BE the more you should favour TG (Dwarves for example).
One thing also worth keeping in mind is that stables can give more resiliance in war. If you are chained (say to 400 acres, with 200 coming in) or are not being hit (10% acre gain) then stables lose less potency (assuming offense is sent same tick as it arrives in the former case + that you are building off specs in the latter case). Of course, you should be building TGs not stables IN war - a further advantage of stables over TGs is that each new % point of TGs you build will have more effect on your offence (adding 1% to 5% TGs will have more effect than adding 1% to 15% TGs).
On the other hand in a max gains, acre exchange war, Stables will lose potency quicker than TGs (when horse loses in combat > percenatage loss of TG muliplier)
Before one can calculate the correct stables %, one needs to know the TG/Forts optimization. (What good is finding 15% TG 5% Stables is better than 20% TG... if 13% TG 7% Forts is better than both?)
To do this in the theoretical case is difficult, and I believe results in a irreducible quintic. I believe I've found said quintic, and testing seems to indicate it is at least close, if not perfectly correct. However, I warn that the calculation is quite complex, and I know my first attempts had an error. (Yet still passed the sanity check at the end!? So even if it works, it may still be wrong - odd, to borrow a phrase.) There is therefore no great reason to believe this version is correct either, at least not until someone else independently verifies it.
Also, note, since this produced a quintic, the full TG/Forts/Stables optimization is probably impossible to solve in the general case. Unlike a quadratic, cubic, or even a quartic, which can be solved algebraically, it is a proven result that there is no algebraic solution to the general quintic. Thus, unless there is a missing "trick" I haven't seen, we can't solve the full question without resorting to approximation.
So, without further adieu:
dfixed := total DME from sources outside factors. TW and land def not as a simplifying assumption.
ostr := Strength of the offensive unit. Use pro rata for mixed armies.
mpa := Military Per Acre, excludes thieves so lower than DR.
horses := Horses
fixed := All "fixed" NW from sources other than military units. Includes science, buildings, land, WPA/TPA, PPA, *and horses*.
onw := The NW of the offensive unit. Use pro rata for mixed armies.
TMS% := Total land available to split between TGs and Forts. Named for "Total Minus Stables", since stables were the next step.
Forts% := The % Forts. This is the "x" variable of the equation that needs to be solved for.
BE := BE
dpnw := Target dpnw of the province. Is more correct than holding DPA constant, serves the same purpose.
dstr := Strength of the defensive unit.
dnw := The NW of the defensive unit.
0 = dfixed*(ostr*mpa + horses) / (fixed + onw*mpa)*( - 1 + 2*TMS% - 2*Forts%)*(1/BE + 3*Forts% - 3*Forts%^2 + 2.25*BE*Forts%^2 - 4.5*BE*Forts%^3 + 2.25*BE*Forts%^4) + (dpnw/dstr)*( - ostr*mpa*dnw - ostr*fixed + horses*onw - horses*dnw)/(fixed + onw*mpa)*(1-TMS%)*( - 2/BE - 1.5*TMS% + 3*TMS%*Forts% - 3*Forts%^2)