DeletedUser106856
Guest
I was just wondering on your opinions, does TribalWars favor Defense or Offense ?
Please give an example to your statement
Please give an example to your statement
blablablablablabla
Guest
By Tribal Wars, do you mean the players or the mechanics? My answer is defense for both.
Takes more than 1 full nuke to go through 1 full D village with lvl 20 wall. Takes waaay more than 2 full nukes to get through 2 D's stacked in one village. But then again, nukes are rebuilt quicker at full strength than D's or fight less effective when using a lot of HC. (Doesn't take away I just love HC mid/lategame <3)
And as a player I just build more D than O, because I tend to get myself in a lot of trouble in every world I play. (Out of 6 worlds I played seriously, only 1 I left because of boredom, in the others I got gangbanged.) You never know what might happen, so I'd like to be prepared by having a lot of defense and as I play without co-players and don't care much about my rank, it's the best option for me!
Takes more than 1 full nuke to go through 1 full D village with lvl 20 wall. Takes waaay more than 2 full nukes to get through 2 D's stacked in one village. But then again, nukes are rebuilt quicker at full strength than D's or fight less effective when using a lot of HC. (Doesn't take away I just love HC mid/lategame <3)
And as a player I just build more D than O, because I tend to get myself in a lot of trouble in every world I play. (Out of 6 worlds I played seriously, only 1 I left because of boredom, in the others I got gangbanged.) You never know what might happen, so I'd like to be prepared by having a lot of defense and as I play without co-players and don't care much about my rank, it's the best option for me!
TG Smurf
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 1,244
It favors D
You can stack a village with as many DV's as you want, but each attack may only have 1 nuke at a time
So a stack would save losses for having more troops but also spread the losses between the supporting villages, so it actually becomes faster to rebuild then the nuke
You can stack a village with as many DV's as you want, but each attack may only have 1 nuke at a time
So a stack would save losses for having more troops but also spread the losses between the supporting villages, so it actually becomes faster to rebuild then the nuke
DeletedUser
Guest
More on Off
More benefits, and faster growth. Used for clearing villages to make as farm. Imo
More benefits, and faster growth. Used for clearing villages to make as farm. Imo
DeletedUser
Guest
The mechanics favor D overall in terms that have already been explained. Whilst on the hand (once again it's been said before), training times favor O thanks to the shortened recruiting times for Axes and LC (MA for Archer Worlds). So it sort of evens out in the end, it just depends on what you choose to be for late game, be a supporter or be a nuker. If you're passive, D is for you. If you're aggressive, O is for you 
shagohad
Guest
a good number of players tend to go with a 2:1 or 3:1 ration Def:Off This means you can self support and are less dependant on other players.
Ivee seen it work tho with some players. They go primarily offensive and work a lot with sniping for defense and allied support. It can work but only if your good with sniping, active pretty much constantly, and have good allies
So to answer your question.. id say people play a lil more defnsive than offensive usually
Ivee seen it work tho with some players. They go primarily offensive and work a lot with sniping for defense and allied support. It can work but only if your good with sniping, active pretty much constantly, and have good allies
So to answer your question.. id say people play a lil more defnsive than offensive usually
ALessonInPointWhoring
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 408
The game favors defense.
Anyone that argues otherwise has a weak grasp of the game's mechanics.
Not only does 1 D village kill 1 O village, D villages can support each other to be combined and further reduce losses. D can also be used to split trains to kill nobles when killing the entire offense sent is not an option. Defense can also be layered to spread the rebuild-time among multiple villages to greatly reduce the time needed to rebuild the troops that were lost in a battle.
Then there is morale which also massively helps the defender.
On archer worlds the defender then has an even greater advantage due to the damn near uselessness of mounted archers and amazing troop that is archers.
Additionally there's then paladins which can let defense move at lc speed when sent as support. Then there's the paladin weapons, which stack, you can only ever attack with 1 weapon, yet I can be supported in such a manner that my defending village has the sword, spear, archer, hc, and cat weapon active. Not to mention that most of the paladin weapons add 30% to offensive strength and 40% to defensive strength, and that's not even mentioning the ridiculously overkill bonfire that makes them 10x as strong as without the weapon.
Then there's the relatively new militia which is another bonus for the defender.
Let's dispel another myth while we're at it too.
O builds faster:
No it doesn't. Not in terms of strength anyway when paired with a 20 wall (and it takes very little time to get wall to 20, roughly 40 hours to go from level 0 to 20)
Here's what a D village can make in 100 hours:
3408 spears
721 hc
126 cats (at level 2 workshop) OR 150 cats (level 5 workshop)
(19 wall)
O village:
2633 axes
1443 lc
189 rams (at level 2 workshop) OR 225 rams (level 5 workshop)
Even using the 5 workshop numbers (which hugely favor the attacker due to having over 213 rams which is essential):
Attacker Units: 0 0 2633 0 1443 0 225 0 0 0 0 405.855 268.290 511.070 9.530
Losses: 0 0 2633 0 1443 0 225 0 0 0 0 405.855 268.290 511.070 9.530
Defender Units: 3408 0 0 0 0 721 0 150 0 0 0 362.600 270.390 481.680 8.934
Losses: 3129 0 0 0 0 662 0 138 0 0 0 333.010 248.370 442.290 8.205
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 11
Anyone that argues otherwise has a weak grasp of the game's mechanics.
Not only does 1 D village kill 1 O village, D villages can support each other to be combined and further reduce losses. D can also be used to split trains to kill nobles when killing the entire offense sent is not an option. Defense can also be layered to spread the rebuild-time among multiple villages to greatly reduce the time needed to rebuild the troops that were lost in a battle.
Then there is morale which also massively helps the defender.
On archer worlds the defender then has an even greater advantage due to the damn near uselessness of mounted archers and amazing troop that is archers.
Additionally there's then paladins which can let defense move at lc speed when sent as support. Then there's the paladin weapons, which stack, you can only ever attack with 1 weapon, yet I can be supported in such a manner that my defending village has the sword, spear, archer, hc, and cat weapon active. Not to mention that most of the paladin weapons add 30% to offensive strength and 40% to defensive strength, and that's not even mentioning the ridiculously overkill bonfire that makes them 10x as strong as without the weapon.
Then there's the relatively new militia which is another bonus for the defender.
Let's dispel another myth while we're at it too.
O builds faster:
No it doesn't. Not in terms of strength anyway when paired with a 20 wall (and it takes very little time to get wall to 20, roughly 40 hours to go from level 0 to 20)
Here's what a D village can make in 100 hours:
3408 spears
721 hc
126 cats (at level 2 workshop) OR 150 cats (level 5 workshop)
(19 wall)
O village:
2633 axes
1443 lc
189 rams (at level 2 workshop) OR 225 rams (level 5 workshop)
Even using the 5 workshop numbers (which hugely favor the attacker due to having over 213 rams which is essential):
Attacker Units: 0 0 2633 0 1443 0 225 0 0 0 0 405.855 268.290 511.070 9.530
Losses: 0 0 2633 0 1443 0 225 0 0 0 0 405.855 268.290 511.070 9.530
Defender Units: 3408 0 0 0 0 721 0 150 0 0 0 362.600 270.390 481.680 8.934
Losses: 3129 0 0 0 0 662 0 138 0 0 0 333.010 248.370 442.290 8.205
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 11
Last edited:
DeletedUser93450
Guest
But the useless troop that is mounted archers kills the amazing troop that is archers?
DeletedUser
Guest
I agree with what you're saying except this one little thing. It's only good if you remain at 1 village for the entire World being a massive tribal basher and thus getting your support from your tribe members and thus being able to be a complete offensive player. Thus if your tribe will allow it, your sole village can decimate an entire tribes worth of Offensive players and still come out on top with just a few minor nicks and scrapes from the tribes entire defensive capabilities.
Only fall back to this method, your tribe...
DeletedUser106856
Guest
Why is everyone calculating on full village build/troops.
I mean i attacked a player with 2k/2k and Wall level 8 and got my troops back in the Que with the Haul i got off him.
I mean i attacked a player with 2k/2k and Wall level 8 and got my troops back in the Que with the Haul i got off him.
ALessonInPointWhoring
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 408
It's 1 village or 2 actually, though yes, it only applies at startup, I agree.
Archers make a balanced defense stronger when added to it. Mounted archers do not. The ideal amount of mounted archers to add to most offenses, even when attacking defenses that contain archers is 0. Sure, MA would be great if attacking someone who made a pure archer defense, but that isn't something I was ever suggesting. I was suggesting incorporating archers into your defensive builds in order to strengthen them, not to defend with nothing but archers.TW Rosa Luxemburg said:
| Growth Rank | Points Rank | Name | Tribe | Points | Villages | Growth per day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | vr.money | NEW! | 56,999 | 10 | 3,786 |
| 2 | 9 | ALessonInPointWhoring | BamBam | 37,452 | 8 | 3,559 |
| 3 | 8 | stoic rudeness | Scary | 40,255 | 9 | 3,494 |
| 4 | 10 | Without Regrets | FRIDAY | 36,648 | 8 | 3,428 |
| 5 | 1 | Easy.Farm | DX | 58,736 | 11 | 3,287 |
PS: That's for anyone that thinks you need to be O heavy to grow quick as well.
I'm not sure about the other fast growers, but only 3 of my 8 villages are offense, I haven't had anyone morale bash for me, and I haven't been gifted any villages yet I'm able to grow faster than anyone on the world other than vr.money who has had looter of the day 6 times, whereas I barely ever come within 50% of the person with looter due to only farming with FA 'C' because it's time-efficient.
blablablablablabla
Guest
Lvl 8 wall, says enough.
ALessonInPointWhoring
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 408
3408 spears and 721 hc builds faster than 2k/2k, you're aware of that, right?
I simmed with less than half a D village, and with something that builds faster than your example. It's not as cheap, but due to utilizing barracks and stable instead of just barracks it builds faster. Any good player will utilize both, as such comparing your lc/axe offense against a potential barracks defense (ie. no stable in the defense, but it is in the offense) is not a fair comparison of O vs. D at all, it's moreso a comparison of competent attackers vs. incompetent defenders.
DeletedUser106856
Guest
2k/2k as in Swords/Spears, sorry should have been more specific.
However your last sentence i agree with
However your last sentence i agree with
ALessonInPointWhoring
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 408
Huh?
I knew what you meant by 2k/2k.
I was saying 2,000 swords and 2,000 spears takes longer to build than 3,408 spears and 721 hc, and 150 cats.
I was also saying that assuming a pure barracks defense in opposition to an offense that is made in more than just the barracks isn't an equivalent comparison.
DeletedUser64969
Guest
In multiple villages EG 1000s i find the player with the most offense wins, near enough every time, but early game i would say D wins over O, but it essentially comes down to how you use it.
ALessonInPointWhoring
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 408
I certainly wouldn't.
Time and time again I've seen high ranked players at late-game that are almost all offense skate by without being attacked, only to eventually get opped hard and collapse incredibly quickly.
DeletedUser96310
Guest
This, ^^^ happens entirely too often.
Balance is key to mid game and beyond... you have to have the defense to hold new gains. If you rely solely on tribe support to keep the villages gained then expect to lose a vast majority to sniping from the enemy.
Personally, I prefer to keep offense on the war front and defense behind.. so, new gains are almost always offense and I convert half of the lost offensive villages to defense while waring. This ensures me the ability to self stack.
Others argue that eventually your offense isn't enough to properly war but they forget that their is usually EOO (eat our own) and when an enemy is demoralized the sniping and stacking becomes less and less. Therefore not as much offense is lost and one is able to remain relatively balanced.
In late game there are always ODA whores and Defense Turtles... both are highly needed and both willingly share.
Balance is key to mid game and beyond... you have to have the defense to hold new gains. If you rely solely on tribe support to keep the villages gained then expect to lose a vast majority to sniping from the enemy.
Personally, I prefer to keep offense on the war front and defense behind.. so, new gains are almost always offense and I convert half of the lost offensive villages to defense while waring. This ensures me the ability to self stack.
Others argue that eventually your offense isn't enough to properly war but they forget that their is usually EOO (eat our own) and when an enemy is demoralized the sniping and stacking becomes less and less. Therefore not as much offense is lost and one is able to remain relatively balanced.
In late game there are always ODA whores and Defense Turtles... both are highly needed and both willingly share.
DeletedUser64969
Guest
as i said it comes down to how you use it, i saw players on .de with 100% off, get opped and be fine, and proper ops not crappy .net ops , they just split/recapped everything, but i agree its easier too have defense, i personally play with high D, but with higher gameplay like on .de the standard is alot better than .net, more activity 100k fakes aday that sort of stuff :|, makes gameplay alot different lol.
but my personal opinion is that the best strat is 60/40 D/O, as long as your D is layered into different build groups of stacking D and fast D to move around and support then remove, then your O is put in certain places to retake or attack back, its all about your village positioning and how clustered you are, it helps alot anyway, if you have a proper op put on you and your spread its difficult to say the least, if its not difficult the people attacking you are crap.
But i have once played 80% off in .de 15 and played with high cats, and had 100k incomings a day for a month and still made like 1mil ODD and only lost afew villages from 2000, so its all how you use it, but obviously i will admit as soon as the odds are against you like 5 v 1 size wise its very difficult with off, if your playing 1v1 off is alot better if your attacking first you cant lose, but if your been gangbanged just play with 90% D you cannot lose if the account is constantly active with good players, But it depends how long you can keep playing under pressure and how much time you have, theres no point saying O is better than D, depends on the situation to say which is better for the time.
Last edited:
ALessonInPointWhoring
Contributing Poster
- Reaction score
- 408
I've never played .de on a late-world. But at least at startup the standard is definitely not better. Every time I have played there it was with friends from .net and we'd be iall grab the top ranks on the server.
Also seen that whenever their supposed top players come here to "school" us they typically get stomped on.
