I am more curious what would my avatar have anything to do with it. And who the heck you are pointing me to.
Printable View
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.