Printable View
If you run 5/12, which is really 10/12, because the elites have a combined offense of 10, you have no actual offense, and are in the same boat as the gnome.
Those who can't attack safely won't be attacking much at all, except when pressured, and then they're going down.
That's mostly true. If you can remain unbreakable, except against provinces considerably larger than you, you can use the time to turtle and cast and to your opponent until you're able to break them safely. Do so similarly with gnome, which is slightly weaker on defense, so a little more easily breakable. This succeeds if opponent isn't also oping against you, otherwise it's a T/M contest; you should be running T or M with these two races, so if your opponent is running the other one, it's a battle between the ops. If your opponent is running the same one, then whoever's stronger in that particular field wins. This also assumes the entire kingdom is running the strategy. If not, the opposing kingdom can't break you, but will just break your allies and your strategy fails. So doesn't work in the general case.
I've heard plenty of people say that turtle/op doesn't work. Can you repeat the general argument?
This isn't something that veterans need to have explained to them, because the knowledge is innate.
You look at a any random gnome, you 'feel' that it has impractical offense and defense, and is just a fat blob.
All-elite dark elf? These make people tilt their head for largely the same reason.
The viewer may not necessarily know that the reason for this is the offensive power of 5, but he or she will feel that something's not right.
When you have 5 raw offense, and everyone's going to leave at least 6 raw defense at home, you have to send out two units to break them.
This leaves you with low defense at home, so they can break you easily.
Most can, and will, do heavy damage to your province.
6/6, with the 6 being practical in both fields, isn't 'the best,' but it's 'safe.' Even when all your practical offense is out, the gnomes still need to send two offensive units for each elite your dark elf has.
Think about this.
What hurts dark elf is the inability to turtle.
If you have a lot of elites, you'll be sending out your defense to hit, and this still won't be enough, because elites have strength 5. Not safe.
If you have a lot of offensive dudes, you'll be able to hit pretty much anyone, but you'll always be open to hits.
What hurts gnome is that it just sucks.
You can't hit, because then your defense drops to nothing, and you'll have a million units out, so your networth stays high even when people pick you apart, which lets you stay in range for longer during war.
You can't go all defensive, because you don't have dual bonuses to T and M, so you'll just be taking up space, and attacks are too valuable in war, plus, you'll be such a fat blob that most kingdoms would be able to squeeze in more firepower for your cost in networth, anyway.
This part I know already and I stated it. However, how does a kingdomwide turtle/op strategy not work, if the kingdom can manage to remain nearly unbreakable during the turtle period and by the end of the op period the opponent should be weakened more heavily than you are, so that by the end you CAN attack safely?
Turtling doesn't work in war, because if you're unable and unwilling to hit them, you're usually unable to op them - ergo, T/M war, which is always ended by that one team of orcs and elves, that conquest your fat gnomes to pieces in a matter of painful days.
A full on uber-1337 gnome, with a billion thieves, all the elites in the world, goes up against an elf.
The elf wins, hands down.
It has clearsight. It can conquest you when you leave your army at home, and won't suffer as much from this as you, and there's no way for you to gain back the land.
If you get pressured enough, you send out. Now the elf hits you with a normal attack, and you bleed more.
You can't op the elf, because it has resistances to your thievery. You can't cast spells on it, because it has better magic than you, and defensive magic.
You can't hit it, because then you get picked apart.
All this, because your offense is naturally weak and inefficient.
If you had a stronger offense, you'd be able to break the elf's standing defense with one unit, rather than two.
Silly. You're talking about straw men gnomes who don't even known the basics pitted against expert elves. Put players of equal capability on either side and it's a really tough fight. Gnomes make the best hybrids by far and very formidable attackers when managed by capable players.
So many of these debates are overgeneralizations. It all depends on what you bring to the game.
I'm talking about how gnomes need to send out two units to break my one.
T/M wars never happened when I last played before rejoining because of the war meter. I'm unfamiliar with this one.
If it's conquest and op defense, it seems to be size and race specific. Some people and not others can use this counterstrategy.
A 'T/M war' is when both sides have a bunch of fat, overdefended gnomes or dark elves, that whore honor. This happens on all levels outside the 'top.'
Eventually, the other side will figure out that watchtowers stop the ops cold, and that elf is a natural destroyer of T/M's.
Essentially, the gnomes all get conquested if they camp hard enough, or they send out and get stomped, then they ragequit.
Alright sure, it doesn't work against elves or anyone who can conquest you assuming you can't get the conquested land back.
So far, I've never seen 'turtling' work against anyone.
It's basic tactics.
By giving up the initiative, you let me dictate the flow of battle. You'll be reacting to me - not the other way around. The pressure's on you.
You camp behind your castled elites, and can do nothing but wait while I have my way with you.
Since you can't take my land, but I can take yours, the only thing you can do is attempt to endure.
How do gnomes need to send out 2 units to break 1 unit of an elf? Not only are gnome off equal to elf defense, but they have way more of them to send anyway, and it may be slightly more than 1 but it's way less than 2.
There is landlust though...it's doesn't make up for traditional marches, but it can make up for conquests.
5 beats 4, but gets stopped by 6.
There's no race that has a practical defense of 4 in the game, but everyone bar gnome and orc with stuff out has 6 'practical' defense.
To beat 6, you need to send 6. This is accomplished by sending two units, which combined form a value of 10.
Your units combine to form defense and offense. You've sent out two units on offense to beat my one on defense, and thus lowered your defense.
I can now have my way with you, using one of my units to beat each one of your units on defense, which aren't going to be that many.
"There is landlust though...it's doesn't make up for traditional marches, but it can make up for conquests." Landlust costs as many runes to cast as meteors, and is difficulty 190, compared to meteors 160.
You're not going to be able to landlust back the land of one conquest in the time it takes for your attacker to get his stuff back home, and conquest you again, unless there's a very fat orc or human around.
Except you will never get enough landlusts on an elf to cover for anything.
Elf is 5 practical defense. Even to beat 6 with, you need to send 1.2+ not necessarily 2.
Yes Asakura, I know I already stated you can't do it against elves. Let's talk the general case now.
"Landlust costs as many runes to cast as meteors, and is difficulty 190, compared to meteors 160."
The only one who would even consider this strategy is the DE, which doesn't need runes. Against anyone but elves, defending wpa shouldn't be high enough to stop the landlusts.
I'm not going to keep only my defensive dudes around with an elf.
Actually, I'm not going to do that with anything, bar orc.
Also, you can't send 1.2 elites. You send one elite, or you send two elites.
See the problem?
You said for every unit of defense, you have to send 2 units of offense. Assuming your province has more than 2 units, you can send a 1.2 ratio of your offense to his defense, eg 12,000 to 10,000, instead of 2 which is 20,000 to 10,000.
KD of 25 DE T/Ms against a KD of 25 whatever attackesr/hybrids.
If the T/Ms concentrate your LL on one target, the spells will get less effective as the target loses land.
If the T/Ms spreads out the LL, they will regain as much land as they lose at best, but will never do enough damage.
The attackers can just chain the T/Ms to hell one by one, because their defense while high, is static, and you are just bumping with conquests anyway.
And then you send an emerald dragon and it is all over. If you ran enough all leets for defense, you cannot touch the dragon. If you used specs in your def you will have less def than all leets. If you do not kill the dragon your ops fail. If you kill the dragon your def craps out. Have a nice day.
Conquest is limited to size, so you can't have everyone conquest a single player, so it's difficult to chain a player with conquests.
You have wizards and thieves. Wizards go MS blanket and the rest landlusts. Thieves NS. Opponent power should weaken faster than yours.
No. You conquest chain the target until he loses enough landed to be f*cked. Or you conquest chain him until he losses enough defense for a trad. That or just bounce wave until you can trad. I know conquest has size limits, but they are reasonably large in war. Plus if you do not lose all that much your NW rarely crashes through the range.
MS is hardly going to have any effect. The amount of damage is minimal and restricted to home troops, thus killing none of the attacker's offense. There is little concern over defense either as the T/Ms do not hit.
Thieves are useless since the attackers KNOW they are fighting all T/Ms and can easily throw up WTs.
Alrighty then, if you say so.
It is not just something that I say. It is a very simple concept. 25 T/Ms simply do not do the damage that is required to stop 25 attackers.
There's something.....100 opa......40 dpa.......TOG..gc's very important. *looks at avatar* ....omg. It's you!Quote:
MS is hardly going to have any effect.
:p
^ lmfao
I am more curious what would my avatar have anything to do with it. And who the heck you are pointing me to.
actually 25DE will gain more land/honor with max gain LL only vs 2 times bigger 25 orcs kd. As bigger enemy kd as better for LL.
25de t/ms vs 25 attackers for a win strat: fb peasants to 2k + MS on every province and wait till they will die due to army in/army out shedule :), regain land with LL or something during this period. (can do NM+NS+chain with lits too)
See Utopia Parody #6 silly :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Asakura
I did, DHaran, I just do not get the relation :/
They can honor whore, but they cannot win the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taisha
You need VERY heavy fireballing to keep even just a few prov at 2k pez, and any mana used is less LLs to recover land while you get chipped away. NS will hardly work as long as the attackers keep their WTs. MS, like I said, will not do enough damage as the attackers will keep their offense away. If you stayed in war long enough to try to take the attackers down, they would cut you down before that happens. The only real options for the T/Ms would be to whore all the honor they can by mintime and withdraw with it.
Another thing, in order to achieve the hostility you need to get into the war, at least one or two of the T/Ms must have attacked to start with. This already leaves at least 2 T/Ms chained and out of the game the moment the war starts.
lol....my best choice is not even listed here
PS: and for the popular choice..orc....we killed 8 of them in 3 days war last age...so yeah they had the most big impact cause they gave us the win:)
PPS: and was not vs a ghetto
and to those that think nightmares are useless....can you pretty please war us?:)
What the hell are you trying to say with the bold part? That attackers don't send out more than 50-80% of their elites (depending on race)? If they're not going to use them, why have them? They're less space efficient than a defspec would be for pure def.Quote:
Originally Posted by VT2
The reason an 'op and chain' strategy doesn't work is simple. You are dedicating a substantial portion of your land and military space to the 'op' side of things -- probably 4-5 more than the person you're opping. This gives them the raw numbers military advantage, combined with their superior units. Chances are, particularly with orcs, they can hit you all home. Even if you NS them down to 20 or 10 dpa -- you can only chain one target per wave [maybe two] (and with raze not destroying acres, good luck actually taking them out -- the ns would have rocked their nw and your nw inefficient units would prevent you from getting gains, and if hit more than 1-2x you're substantially exposed). While they can chain you all home, at the same or a faster rate; and they can chain even faster if you send out.
The first age of NWBG, age 27, Serenity was a human merchant kd with a few t/ms (fae -- 3 or 4 of them). We got declared ~24h out of two weeklong wars by Glitter. We had about 10% more land and 20% less NW than them; they were 10 hu rogues and 15 ud mystics with a aw/nm setup. They quickly discovered the flaw I'm pointing to here -- their hybrid setup meant that in spite of being substantially more pumped than us, we were able to DT their human rogues all home, while they could only DT us after they NM'd us. We could use our dedicated t/ms to keep any of their provs from running away, and quickly outchained them.
you are all noobs . all you do is to try and look smart with your useless and cheap thinking about strategy. best strat is not to be a noob and you're all same as I am cause you play a noob game that crush every 2 ticks cause it's under a noob company with noob programers like ***** and Slap team
Zauper, age 27 was also nearly 20 ages ago. 4 years ago the numbers looked quite different, and quite a few things in the game worked differently as well. Though to be fair, you could still pull the same thing off provided you knew what you were doing, and you had the activity for it.
Remind me, how long ago did they remove the war meter?
EDIT: coss, you are the biggest noob here for even bothering to flame :P
Not enough has changed. It's a valid example because it's still true today. Look at the top kingdoms -- how did Sonata's war against BeWare go? That's an example of an attacker setup against an a/t / a/m setup. The numbers were different, but not in the ways that matter -- you generally had more pop to work with, which means that the sacrifice of going a/t or a/m was more worthwhile than it would be today. (human with a moderate number of libs could have 32% pop sci relatively easily, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Asakura
Not positive on the war meter. It was around 30, though.Quote:
Remind me, how long ago did they remove the war meter?
EDIT: coss, you are the biggest noob here for even bothering to flame :P
A kd full of noobs playing combo vs a kd of skilled players playing undead shepherd.
The 20s was back when everyone went max gains, you had "super thieves" and "super mages", hybrids were mostly looked down upon as "weak", war terms such as: 48 hour wars, either 60-40 surrender or 55-45 surrender, else mutual peace, a lot of times no dragons. You declared hostility rather than war, and attacked to push the hostility meter up to war, and there was no unfriendly. If the opposing kingdom did not surrender when the war terms said they should, then you raze them. Elites cost on average $1200 and were significantly weaker than they are today, but they had personality bonuses for elites at home. Undeads had ToG and +10% gains in war, avians had 35 population homes, orcs had -50% magic and -50% thievery, halflings had 4/4 elites that cost $100.
So back before I quit, most people were either attacker, thief or mage, because the stats weren't strong enough for hybrids to be effective (and perhaps because people were more nubish), although there were some very effective hybrids who managed to pull it off. Conditions are now ideal for for 2 of 3 roles.
Conclusion: I think things have changed quite a bit, so what was good back then isn't necessarily good now.
Elite bonus was late 20s, if not 30s. Elite bonuses did not exist before that.
Buildings worked differently too, it was around then that the "percentage-based" crap was put in place. It was also around then that the races were reworked.
Damn, I miss the happiness bar.
1. most of WTs on NS target can be destroyed with tornadoes from 3 DEs or greater arson from 1-2 rogues (tpa can be destroyed for few hours with NM)Quote:
Originally Posted by Asakura
2. ms kills peasants, it prevents them from growth, MS+Storms to keep them at low number
3. attacks kill offence, if attackers will chain, so they probably will chain 5 tms but due to lack of economy, low BE, incoming ns/prop and their own attacks their offence will go down, 5 chained with 20 untouchebles is a good result, close to war win for tms :) conquest is a silliest option really..
4. without raze attack hard to chain anyone effectively
5. I don't know why is it hard to fb peasants :) you have all hostile time for it, it is an easy spell
you can wait for their armies to return, I suggest that kd with 25 tms will have a button :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Asakura
UD/Fae NM strats were introduced age 18. Pansies won the age as 25 fae a/t/m age 20. ZZ went 25 halfling rogue a/t age 21. Pansies won age 22 as 22 human/dwarf rogues with 3 elf mystic hitters. Playboys were 25 undead rogue. Age 23 continued the trend. Age 24 did as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenvector
And so forth. The hybrid strat was born in the 20s. War terms existed for ghettos then, they still do now.
and you could do that last age too -- the razing part.Quote:
You declared hostility rather than war, and attacked to push the hostility meter up to war, and there was no unfriendly. If the opposing kingdom did not surrender when the war terms said they should, then you raze them.
I agree. 7/6 dwarf elites are weak. So are 6/7 undead elites. That was age 23, FYI. Orc 8/1 or 8/2 was age 20. Fae elite was 4/6. Specs were only 4 value until age 22/23.Quote:
Elites cost on average $1200 and were significantly weaker than they are today,
Econ was also a lot higher -- base income per peas was 3 rather than 2.25.
Introduced age 24. Removed perhaps 2 ages later.Quote:
but they had personality bonuses for elites at home.
Actually, the reality is, in addition to the progression I mentioned above, the change to NS such that 'enhanced NS' became available to non-rogues was probably the biggest single factor in this shift. I believe that was age 26, but it may have been prior to that.Quote:
Undeads had ToG and +10% gains in war, avians had 35 population homes, orcs had -50% magic and -50% thievery, halflings had 4/4 elites that cost $100.
So back before I quit, most people were either attacker, thief or mage, because the stats weren't strong enough for hybrids to be effective (and perhaps because people were more nubish), although there were some very effective hybrids who managed to pull it off. Conditions are now ideal for for 2 of 3 roles.
Your conclusion is false. I notice that you ignore my example of Sonata.Quote:
Conclusion: I think things have changed quite a bit, so what was good back then isn't necessarily good now.
FYI -- Dynamic BE was put into place at the same time as NWBG -- age 27.
the hybrid method of playing has been pretty dead for at least 5 ages now. This is in part due to a new science system and also a vastly weakened population science, which doesnt allow you to allot enough space to fit the necessary ratios
Only ghettos still hold steadfast these ways because they wish to mimic top kd who used to run these strats. However, top kds have moved on, and the bottom has yet to adapt.