Top 5 Combos For Age 45

[Zauper]

From your statistics, I see that honor, size and war wins don't coincide at all and that my hypothesis of little warfare was pretty close to correct.

What counts as 'little wars'? 4-6 wars is not 'little' when you're warring kingdoms that aren't ghettos.

I'll take it from you that kingdoms are ranked by size. Most of the single wars per age you've described were to determine the biggest kingdom by oea.

When a kingdom tended to only have one war, that was often the case. When a kingdom had several wars, it wasn't. (for example, the age Desire won, they lost their war, but won the age -- the #2 kd, BoA, had several wars)

It then seems like growth is the priority with a war strat for backup in case you need to war. You spend the majority of the age not warring. Therefore, it just seems odd to me that these kingdoms spend so much time arguing over war strats and planning on war builds.

A poor war build means you lose the age.

VM is a tactical move to maintain #1 honor spot. #1 always shifts during the age.

The age we won #1 honor, we were #1 for every hourchange except 1 during the entire age. Including protection. The only hourchange we were #2 for was the hourchange before our pump ended.

Princes get razed for no reason other than they're princes. However good you are, if you're #1, there's a good chance too many people are going to try wack you out of #1 if you're not in war or vacation, even when honor was a little more stable at the time. Enough of that if it doesn't mean anything to you.

So, essentially what you're saying is:
"Going VM is valid, because otherwise we could have potentially lost the #1 since we couldn't protect ourselves."
Gotcha.

That's why going for honor was (and still is) considered ghetto.

So you rule out honor for honor whoring and war wins for ghetto bashing. Only thing left is size; only thing I don't understand about that is size doesn't mean best at warring either and is actually even less of an indicator of the ability to war than honor or war wins.

If you have a lot of land, and you can't protect it, the sharks at the top will take you down.

To be fair, Zauper, up there it is more like power politics than actual comparison of how builds work. Going to is war simply a bad idea for maintaining top-end size and NW. How useful builds are compared to each other is almost based specifically on how much land they can whore and how much land they can keep.

Sonata won last age in part on their strong performance in two wars. Sanctuary was only a threat to them due to their strong performace in one war. War plays a large role in all top competition.

As long as you do not go to war, hybrids are a horrible idea. You are wasting a lot of space and population for /M and /T which are impractical outside of hostile and war. As a result, we have actually just wasted time on an entirely pointless discussion.

Agreed, hybrids are inferior oow.

[Zauper]

Aww.. 4 Dwarf Mystics, 4 Elf Rogues and Human Rogues core (All Elite, 4TPA + Schools) tore through the "age of Orcs" like no other. People swallowed our hostile waves all age, begged for CFs in return for more hits. Perfect age played.

Shoutout to Sid and the Pansy crew. <3

Pretty sure dwarves were rogues -- the mystics were the elves. Ran the dwarves for people that weren't quite as active, because the dwarf elites were quite powerful.

[Spheric]

I'm afraid I don't agree that hybrids are inferior OOW, despite understanding very well the argument that they are. It depends on the goal.

[Zauper]

I'm afraid I don't agree that hybrids are inferior OOW, despite understanding very well the argument that they are. It depends on the goal.

Well... I'll grant you that a/m hybrids may well be superior oow, for dicing reasons -- but a/m isn't as effective in war as a/t, even. The discussion was more along the lines of a/t hybrids, though.

I don't think there's much of an argument for how a/t hybrids are more effective oow.

[Asakura]

Spheric, stealing gold does not count as a /T. As long as you do not go into hostile/war /Ms and /Ts do not count in on offensive capability. While you might have the same off/def numbers as a full attacker or T/M something has to give, like your BE and/or economy.

I do not think anyone is going to play hostilities with you just to exchange ops, so if you stay OOW /M and /Ts lose effectiveness compared to pure attackers. T/Ms suffer similarly, from having nothing to do OOW, but their economy will be stronger than hybrids.

Zauper I would refrain from dicing excessively OOW as an A/M, especially this age if you are not a DE. Dise takes a hell lot of runes and you have to keep a pile around in case you do go to war. Hybrids also need to stay pumped, so continual growth is a bad idea.

[Spheric]

There's only really one ideal A/T hybrid, and that necessitates hybrid play in-war and out.

I think the extent to which this is true changes slightly as you approach the t5, but for all other sizes, it's generally accurate.

A/M is probably more potent for hostile than war; the downside to a predominant A/M build is the long-term maintenance of wizards, which can't be acquired so easily when the situation warrants it.

In my opinion - and in general - hybrid play requires sacrificing growth/economy for a stronger ability to war on equal terms. From that, it's just the case that those with a more pure build will simply be able to improve their distribution and size over you; which can derive a greater benefit for warring or long-term growth.

[Spheric]

Spheric, stealing gold does not count as a /T. As long as you do not go into hostile/war /Ms and /Ts do not count in on offensive capability. While you might have the same off/def numbers as a full attacker or T/M something has to give, like your BE and/or economy.

In the example we're talking about, not only are thieves are essential for stealing, they contribute towards well over 80% of the 'economy'.

By 'not hybridising', your output is constrained, thus there is an obvious example of a hybrid that is mandatory OOW.

[Zauper]

In my opinion - and in general - hybrid play requires sacrificing growth/economy for a stronger ability to war on equal terms. From that, it's just the case that those with a more pure build will simply be able to improve their distribution and size over you; which can derive a greater benefit for warring or long-term growth.

Agreed in part, and disagreed in part. It's not just a question of warring folks who are now bigger than you, it's also those that are the same size and have made the same sacrifice for a stronger military (you drafted an extra 5% into thieves, I put it into elites and the same % you put into dens, I put into wts to war you), and folks that are smaller than you with equivalent military.

[Eigenvector]

Congratulations on maintaining #1 throughout the age, Zauper. I'll give it to you that to maintain #1 for an age is more credible than hitting #1 in the end and saving it.

I think last age, the top 5 tended to change quite frequently throughout the age.

So if it's just that I'm a noob with a lot of well targeted but incomplete mathy theories, partly because I did not have the same concept of top kingdom as everyone else, and partly because of less experience, I'd actually like to get out of my current ghetto and get a feel for what it's like to go for size some time.

Yet, it's not exactly size either, because parody's 2nd episode or so mentioned 2 ghetto kingdoms surpassing Absalom in size and how big ghettos are a problem. So is ghetto then defined entirely subjectively?



"As a result, we have actually just wasted time on an entirely pointless discussion. " Bulls eye!

[Spheric]

@Zauper

Yep, but then there are more factors that come into play under that scenario.

[VT2]

A ghetto is anything the top deems to be a ghetto.
To be top, you have to have the blessing of the actual top.

[Eigenvector]

A ghetto is anything the top deems to be a ghetto.
To be top, you have to have the blessing of the actual top.

As I last thought; it's subjective. In that case, "top" is an opinion.

[Zauper]

As I last thought; it's subjective. In that case, "top" is an opinion.

"top" has always been subjective. The folks at the top define it as being the very top. The folks in the middle define it to include more -- etc. Perspectives vary based on where you are. It's like looking at the difference between a "topkd" and a "skd". Different people have different interpretations.

The reality, though, is that a top nw/land kd can rock an honor or ww kd in war 99% of the time.

[Eigenvector]

"top" has always been subjective. The folks at the top define it as being the very top. The folks in the middle define it to include more -- etc. Perspectives vary based on where you are. It's like looking at the difference between a "topkd" and a "skd". Different people have different interpretations.

The reality, though, is that a top nw/land kd can rock an honor or ww kd in war 99% of the time.

Well that's good to know. I like things more objectively determined though. You're able to do so with most sports and video games. They had a tournament with randomly chosen kingdoms. If they have one with player chosen kingdoms, one can more objectively determine the best.

[Zauper]

Well that's good to know. I like things more objectively determined though. You're able to do so with most sports and video games. They had a tournament with randomly chosen kingdoms. If they have one with player chosen kingdoms, one can more objectively determine the best.

On any given Sunday....

I'll take the NFL on this one. Ghettos can upset SKs.