Ideal nuke

ALessonInPointWhoring

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
394
Frozen is quite right.

Religion matters. A lot.

Also 6k spear, 6k sword, and 1500 hc is takes wayyyy too long to build for its minimal improvement over sp/hc. Most nukes are lc heavy, making as many swords as spears and then making hc too (ie. swords) makes no sense at all.

Example:


Attacker Units: 0 0 6157 0 3375 0 213 0 0 0 0 855.195 564.810 1.132.630 20.722
Losses: 0 0 6157 0 3375 0 213 0 0 0 0 855.195 564.810 1.132.630 20.722
Defender Units: 9124 0 0 0 0 1933 0 0 0 0 0 842.800 563.670 1.251.040 20.722
Losses: 7350 0 0 0 0 1557 0 0 0 0 0 678.900 454.050 1.007.700 16.692
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 12

Defender loses 16,692 pop when defending with sp/hc.

With the D you kept showing it'd be:

Attacker Units: 0 0 6157 0 3375 0 213 0 0 0 0 855.195 564.810 1.132.630 20.722
Losses: 0 0 6157 0 3375 0 213 0 0 0 0 855.195 564.810 1.132.630 20.722
Defender Units: 5861 5861 0 0 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 768.880 576.660 1.368.880 20.722
Losses: 4312 4312 0 0 0 1104 0 0 0 0 0 565.760 424.320 1.007.360 15.248
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 13


Yes, your defense would lose 8.65% less troops than the sp/hc defense against my nuke, but that hardly makes up for it taking 531:04:07 to build when the sp/hc build takes 334:50:38. that's not a small difference. That's close to being an extra 200 hours, it's an increase of 58.6%.

Your suggested defense fares even worse vs. your own nuke due to you opting for even more lc than me:

Attacker Units: 0 0 5100 0 3700 0 220 0 0 0 0 834.500 567.000 1.173.000 21.000
Losses: 0 0 5100 0 3700 0 220 0 0 0 0 834.500 567.000 1.173.000 21.000
Defender Units: 9124 0 0 0 0 1933 0 0 0 0 0 842.800 563.670 1.251.040 20.722
Losses: 7298 0 0 0 0 1546 0 0 0 0 0 674.100 450.840 1.000.580 16.574
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 12


sp/hc suffers 16,574 losses

Your suggested D:

Units: 0 0 5100 0 3700 0 220 0 0 0 0 834.500 567.000 1.173.000 21.000
Losses: 0 0 5100 0 3700 0 220 0 0 0 0 834.500 567.000 1.173.000 21.000
Defender Units: 5861 5861 0 0 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 768.880 576.660 1.368.880 20.722
Losses: 4417 4417 0 0 0 1130 0 0 0 0 0 579.360 434.520 1.031.360 15.614
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 13


15,614

Before the difference was your D had 8.65% losses, now it suffers 5.795 less losses, while still taking 58.6% times as long to build.
 

arabela

Guest
The church lets troops belonging to villages within its radius of influence fight at full strength. If one of your villages isn't within the range of your churches, the troops there will fight with only 50% of their usual strength..

This is what church does.

The purpose of my sims wasn't to show how powerfull can be a specific nuke in a church area. And stop insisting with church area, cause you won't noble/hit all the time in your church area. From 5 villas, only 1 was in the curch area, anyway. The purpose of my sims was to show you that a nuke with more LCs can do much more damages against a standard D (that even if you like it or not, even it is slower to build is more efficient that a fast D sp/HC build ). If it is in a church area, ofc that will influence the result, but in same procentage....Also, Nauz, the D I "kept posting" is very close to the units ratio that exist right now in this world, not the fast D that some of us is building to get some speed goind on their side. Also, i tried to fit the standard D of 21k pop that setorines used for sims(with the fast D build number he posted ). I ran diffrent nukes (same population number nukes)on same D build.
 
Last edited:

dukeyp123

Guest
Uh ohh! Someone has opened a can of worms.

I personally aim for a nuke that can be completed in around 14.5days or 350 hours** (on a speed 1 server), with ~220 rams.

If I recall correctly 350 hours is pretty close the quickest you can build a full nuke. For me, one of the main benefits of playing an offensive strategy during mid game is that people usually make the mistake of using a defence stack that just takes too long to complete (Sometimes 20< days). Thus giving the offensive player an advantage.

** ~295 hours on W76
 
Last edited:

ALessonInPointWhoring

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
394
The purpose of my sims wasn't to show how powerfull can be a specific nuke in a church area.
The problem is religion has a massive effect on the overall outcome.

Attacker and defender being religious is not the same as neither being religious.

Example:

Units: 0 0 6157 0 3375 0 213 0 0 0 0 855.195 564.810 1.132.630 20.722
Losses: 0 0 6157 0 3375 0 213 0 0 0 0 855.195 564.810 1.132.630 20.722
Defender Units: 6000 6000 0 0 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 780.000 585.000 1.380.000 21.000
Losses: 3277 3277 0 0 0 819 0 0 0 0 0 425.960 319.470 753.560 11.468
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 17

Units: 0 0 5100 0 3700 0 220 0 0 0 0 834.500 567.000 1.173.000 21.000
Losses: 0 0 5100 0 3700 0 220 0 0 0 0 834.500 567.000 1.173.000 21.000
Defender Units: 6000 6000 0 0 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 780.000 585.000 1.380.000 21.000
Losses: 3355 3355 0 0 0 839 0 0 0 0 0 436.200 327.150 771.800 11.744
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 17


That's with no religion involved. The ratios do in fact change too. There your nuke kills 2.407% more troops than mine.

Now, with religion.

Units: 0 0 6157 0 3375 0 213 0 0 0 0 855.195 564.810 1.132.630 20.722
Losses: 0 0 6157 0 3375 0 213 0 0 0 0 855.195 564.810 1.132.630 20.722
Defender Units: 6000 6000 0 0 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 780.000 585.000 1.380.000 21.000
Losses: 4309 4309 0 0 0 1077 0 0 0 0 0 560.120 420.090 990.920 15.080
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 13

Units: 0 0 5100 0 3700 0 220 0 0 0 0 834.500 567.000 1.173.000 21.000
Losses: 0 0 5100 0 3700 0 220 0 0 0 0 834.500 567.000 1.173.000 21.000
Defender Units: 6000 6000 0 0 0 1500 0 0 0 0 0 780.000 585.000 1.380.000 21.000
Losses: 4411 4411 0 0 0 1103 0 0 0 0 0 573.480 430.110 1.014.680 15.440
Damage by rams: The wall has been damaged and downgraded from level 20 to level 13

The difference this time is 2.387%, not significantly smaller, but smaller nonetheless.


Arabela said:
(that even if you like it or not, even it is slower to build is more efficient that a fast D sp/HC build ). If it is in a church area, ofc that will influence the result, but in same procentage....
No, the ratio changes, read above.

Also, what the hell do you consider efficient to mean if you consider a nuke that doesn't farm as well, takes 158.6% as long to build, and only suffers 5%-9% less in losses to be more efficient?

Efficiency is not a synonym for strength. 1:1 sp:sw PLUS HC is not efficient, there is a word for what it is though, redundant.


Arabela said:
Also, Nauz, the D I "kept posting" is very close to the units ratio that exist right now in this world
No it isn't.

1.22 sp:sw on the world and 16:1 sp:hc on the world.

That equates to: 16 spears and 13 swords per hc on the world.

That'd result in a defense like: 9475 spears, 7696 swords, 592 hc.

That's much less redundant than what you suggested because it has fewer hc, and less swords than spears. It's just more painful to tolerate in regards of build speed, and the reason the ratio is that slanted is because hc aren't very cost-effective and are as such something that non-farmers cannot afford very easily. That and many small players lack the requirements to make them even.

An example from a more mature world would be if we looked at W75:

1.56:1 sp:sw
7:22 sp:hc

That's more like:

1161 hc, 5370 swords, 8386 spears

Far less redundant than 1:1 sp:sw + 1500 hc

Swords and hc together is fine, but not with 1:1 sp:sw, that's far too focused on defending against axes.
 
Last edited:

arabela

Guest
I didn't keep the exactly ration existing in this world, and it was far from my intentions to do. I took an example if slow D build. I mentioned that curently, in this world, D built is not a faster build. I never said my example of D used in those sims kept the ratio lol ... The D build is not even the subject here...we are talking about nuke sizes not the D size and/or if the village is or is not in a curch area, because ofc that influences the result.

Meh, i am losing my time...
 

Frozen Flaim

Guest
It's an interesting discussion. But the bottom line is, the optimal nuke on church worlds is pretty different to the optimal nuke on other worlds. So any simulations posted here that don't include religion can be considered pretty irrelevant and perhaps even misleading, which is the point i was trying to make initially.
 

DeletedUser115210

Guest
My personally favorite is 6200,3200,250 and then as the game goes later just slowly increase the number of axe :)

Works for me every time, people don't like it but its simple and easy :)
 

ALessonInPointWhoring

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
394
It's an interesting discussion. But the bottom line is, the optimal nuke on church worlds is pretty different to the optimal nuke on other worlds. So any simulations posted here that don't include religion can be considered pretty irrelevant and perhaps even misleading, which is the point i was trying to make initially.
You seem confused.

The optimal nuke is no different on church or non-church.

It might be if the default behavior on non-church worlds was that of unreligious troops, but it isn't, on worlds without churches all troops behave as if religious.
 

Duffbdat

Guest
I always build sp/hc defense. The sheer difference in build time alone more than makes up for the slight decrease in efficiency, as noted above. And with people building heavy lc nukes, all the better.
And the one thing that was not mentioned is sp/hc walk way faster without those bulky swordsmen slowing them down. And if you can't get your defense somewhere in time, who cares if it is super efficient?
You can stack sp/hc way faster, more than making up for the efficiency losses.

Also I see a lot of people bad-mouthing HC, read up on Thargoran for an example of how brutal HC can be... Yea they are expensive, but they are the most versatile unit... besides cats of course.
 

DeletedUser111495

Guest
1800 HC and the rest spears is a commen build I have found, I prefer a mix of spear sword and HC however more recently I have been using just spear and HC for defense.
 

DeletedUser93066

Guest
At a later stage I like to have 2 groups for my Defense build. But as always I hate not running my Stables and Barracks at all time and try and finish em simultaneously. I Make mostly the following build:

For Non Archer
7k Spears, 2k Swords , 500 Scouts, 1500 Heavy cavalry And few cats/rams.= Scout and Cat are for faking purpose

For Archer World

5500 Sp, 200 Sw, 2500 Arc, 500 Spy, 1800 Hc And some Cats/rams .. Swords are for an extra snipe or timing shot.

And for my slow build
3000 Sp, 7500 Sw , 3000 Spy, 500 HC and some Cats/rams.

The fast build almost finishes simultaneously , slow build not so much but I try to even it out with the Spy Which is a downfall of this build but I hate not seeing my stable running 24/7 without having to keep me dry in Iron.

Nevertheless I find Sword is the best defense It's just the build is slow and they walk slower :mad: However I find sword to be by far the most effective defense when you do a premeditated stack.
 

mattcurr

Guest
Also I see a lot of people bad-mouthing HC, read up on Thargoran for an example of how brutal HC can be... Yea they are expensive, but they are the most versatile unit... besides cats of course.
HC blow. No seriously they suck.
Thar doing well coming from a server that had played 2 years more than .net with coplayed accounts like jamm really you're going to pretend like him doing well in a sea of minnows when your packing people who understand co-playing and farming, the real stat you should show me is where that group did well past 1 village in the era where people knew how to farm. They often say that their best showing was UK3 which is ironic since they lost to us, and for the most part any of our group says that UK3 was the most disharmonious lack of leadership and motivated world we ever played.

That rant aside, HC blow swords and spears, past early game build time means nearly nothing for defense and if you dont know that I dont know what you're smoking. And if you're really desperate 9/10 worlds arent tech worlds anymore anyway so build hc when you need them. The decrease in power is anything but "slight" as you say. Especially when stacking. and if you want to stack quickly build an account properly.

Also there is no ideal nuke, it depends on what you're hitting, so a variety is best. Ive tried to explain this for 7 years at this point I give up..
 
Last edited:

Muldie325

Guest
Also there is no ideal nuke, it depends on what you're hitting, so a variety is best. Ive tried to explain this for 7 years at this point I give up..
Possibly on an archer world. Definitely on tw2 where you only have one building for troop production, not counting the hall of orders. MAAAYBE you could justify an axe heavy nuke against someone building very heavy spear D, but for the most part ratios of cav/infantry on non archer worlds have little relevance, so build time is most important. And the more you focus on build time the less the ratio you're attacking with actually effects the outcome of a battle anyways.

Mostly agreed with your other points.
 

DeletedUser99994

Guest
Does anyone build nukes with 8,ooo axe? I tend to find that players in this world have more spears than swords or HC....
 

Yahko

Guest
I played W17 for quite some time. At the beginning when you have 10-20 villages you tend to have a variety of nukes with alot of Axes and one with Alot of LC for different tasks. Later on when you have over 100 you simply pick your own ratio of Defense Villages to Attack village (I had my ratio about at 62-65% D's and Rest A's and maybe a scout village or two)

I agree with members who go for the quickest built - mine was about 348 hour or soemthing. I cant remember the numbers but it was about 6500 Axes, 2777 LC and 400 MA, 10 scouts, 270 Rams (always have about 10 for fakes) and maybe 10 Cats to downgrade the rally point or this or that.

It was an archer world, so regardless of what nuke you had it wont make much difference if you send 3500 LC and 5000 Axes the % in troops killed with the quickest nuke Vs the strongest nuke was very minimal in the range of 200-300 troops killed.

BUT - if my nuke was built in 15 days and the strong one was built in 19 day (I think that was the timing difference) I would be able to build an extra 25% of a new nuke (Multiply it by 200-300 villages) and send it much faster when we talk war that lasts 6 months to 18 months. Then its much of an advantage to build fastest nukes and just send two because you can afford to do so.

Again its not right or wrong answer but my reasoning was get in and out as quickly as possible. Nukes are not suppose to sit they suppose to attack.