Just curious what does mean "Max noble distance = 100"?

[DeletedUser]

Unreal amount of defending units? I suppose only 20k archers is a little too low.

We should try something more along the lines of 30k swords, 30k spears and 30k archers as a more accutate prediction of what you encounter later on. Of course, to allow this kind of stacking players would have to construct clusters of villages to enable a small number of churches to cover their holdings. If a player spreads out too much they will need more churches to cover their villages and will have less troops as a result.

For arguments sake lets discuss a cluster of 10 villages. If they are very close together a single lvl 1 or 2 church could cover them but it would probably be necessary to use a lvl 3 church. Unfortunately, having one church would make the church village a major focus for the enemy. Lose it and your entire cluster will be taken with ease.

Alternatively a player could use 3 lvl 1 churches to cover the cluster. However, this tactic would reduce the number of villages that a player could build a usable nuke in from 9 to 7 (15,000 population across 3 villages instead of 12013 from one).

Here's an interesting point for you all to think about:

What is weaker -> 5 villages not in church cover, all with full defensive troops (choose you favourite village build and defence build) OR 5 villages, each with a lvl 1 church (-5000 pop) and the same village and defence build (obviously missing 5000 pop worth of troops).

Is the loss of 25,000 pop worth of troops worse than the penalty for not having a church?

[EDIT] ramz fan, every little helps and if I can squeze another 200 or 300 troops out of 30 villages thats another 6000 - 9000 defensive troops empire wide. Not a huge amount but it helps when your opponents are point whoring and have 117 less pop in every village because they like a lvl 25 Village HQ.

 

[ramz fan]

Are you going to have those 5 villages close together or far apart?

 

[DeletedUser]

That's a seperate issue for this question, though obviously we'd prefer close together so you can cover it with 1 church.

For this theoretical question none of the villages can cover each other. We can always work out the other sitations:

4 lvl 1 churches
3 lvl 1 churchers
etc.
3 lvl 2 churchers or whatever you want.

At what point does spending 5000 pop, 7750 pop or 12013 pop pay back intself in having troops operating at their best?

[EDIT] Just to clarify what I'm getting at: If I spend 5000 pop on a lvl 1 church it has to provide an equivalent power increase of 5000 pop to my armies. How many troops have to be under the church umbrella to get an equivalent 5k pop increase.

 

[spleen mage]

That was adressed not only to you.

But, you used my name, therefore it was directed at me.

You are boring with rally simulation 20 000 archers in defence. I have seen it many times before, It is ridicuouls try to simulate unreal amount of units in defended village

........Again, it was an example to prove that Archers stats were better (as some people were trying to say they were worse). I never said you should build 20k of Archers, rather keep your troops mixed. I'v said this in practically every post, but you keep ignoring it.

Saying Archers are useless, like you did, is simply showing your ignorance (yet, you had the nerve to say I knew nothing about the battle system - so much for keeping it friendly, eh?). Especially in the context we were talking about (without mounted Archers) you still have not proved that Archers are not worth building.

 

[DeletedUser]

Saying Archers are useless, like you did, is simply showing your ignorance (yet, you had the nerve to say I knew nothing about the battle system - so much for keeping it friendly, eh?). Especially in the context we were talking about (without mounted Archers) you still have not proved that Archers are not worth building.

I bother more what the "Fake limit 1% of villages points" means than about archers. Archers are in the Past for me. I know all about archers and I said it 2 or 3 pages ago.

 

[DeletedUser]

I bother more what the "Fake limit 1% of villages points" means than about archers. Archers are in the Past for me. I know all about archers and I said it 2 or 3 pages ago.

Possibly number of attacks from a single village equal to 1% of that villages points possibly?

That will effect the sending of fakes but not too badly, 90ish fakes from a single village still allows for some decent faking.

 

[DeletedUser]

I guess this is 1% of total farm space that you can send as fakes. Fake is a single unit so if you would send 2 catapults to hit a rally point so I dunno whether it would be considered as "fake". I think this rule has been added because of script users who had sent hundreds of fakes by one mouse click.

 

[Tarion]

1% as fake limit is not new. It's very, very old. W5 had it, IIRC.

What it means, if it's what I'm thinking of is that you have to send *at least* 1% of your total points in farm space per attack (Total points in village)

So, 9000 points = 90 farm units. Meaning, you can't just send 1 ram (5 farm pop), but have to commit a significant force to the attack. It limits the amount of fakes you can realistically send.

Whether or not it is a responce to people using illegal scripts (Sending all those fakes with one click would be illegal. It would require clicks = number of fakes) is interesting when you look at the addition of rule15.

 

[DeletedUser]

1% as fake limit is not new. It's very, very old. W5 had it, IIRC.

What it means, if it's what I'm thinking of is that you have to send *at least* 1% of your total points in farm space per attack (Total points in village)

So, 9000 points = 90 farm units. Meaning, you can't just send 1 ram (5 farm pop), but have to commit a significant force to the attack. It limits the amount of fakes you can realistically send.

Whether or not it is a responce to people using illegal scripts (Sending all those fakes with one click would be illegal. It would require clicks = number of fakes) is interesting when you look at the addition of rule15.

It's a rule that has been around for some time now. They use it on some worlds, and on some worlds they don't use it. Much like any of the other game settings.

 

[Ripfin]

Exactly! My post may not have been clear, but I wasn't trying to advocate simply building 20k of archers; rather, keeping an "all rounder" kind of defense. I was just trying to prove Archers do not have worthless stats, and if people (like Ripfin) refuse to use MA, then they are undoubtably worth including in your army.

you miss the point Archers are the only unit that can be destroyed bya much lesser force

do it 3K MA against 20K archers behind a lvl 20 wall, the archers are obliterated and very few MA are even killed, its a wholesale slaughter and here you say archers are the best or even a good unit? sorry but when a unit can be wiped out like that by only a few horsies, thats not a good unit.

and thats the only unit that has such a weakness.

 

[DeletedUser]

95 farm space fo 9500 village is okay. You can use catapults or cheap spears as fakes

 

[DeletedUser]

It does reduce the number of villages you can launch fakes from though. You can no longer build a nuke with an extra 10 or 20 rams and launch the nuke at one target and the rams individually at other targets to hide where the real nuke is going.

Also you can't build small squads of rams (10 - 20) in ALL villages for a full scale fake launch (from every village you own) to a significant number of targets (10+).

This actually makes the whole argument of not point whoring really significant. If you can shave 500 points of a village that is 5 less pop you have to send out with a fake AND you have 100+ extra pop to play with. If someone maxes their villages they have to sent 120pop fakes.