Nukes

Atomic Cloud

Guest
Yeah, because sending all your defenses to tribemates during a war is very sound strategy. :icon_rolleyes:
How is it not? If you're not under threat of being attacked, you should be doing that.

I send what I can, but I'm not going to leave myself completely open. That would be stupid. As I said, if I need to build more defense because I am losing a lot of defense, then I would switch builds. If I'm not, then I'm going to build the more effective defense since it will be more, oh, whats the word? Oh, yeah, effective.
By the time your support gets to players under attack, you'll be defending 0 walls. That's not more effective.

With the weaker defense, it's good that he can send it to you three times a month as he will need to to help you out. When you have nothing, it is better than nothing, agreed. That still doesn't make it better all the time.
Okay, now you're just pretending that the build is a piece of trash that does nothing. It's 75-80% the strength of your own build; and being able to send it three times.. well that kills, how much offence.. over twice the amount yours could?
 

servy

Guest
I generally went the route of having skilled friends/tribemates who weren't constantly in desperate need of assistance...but that's just me.
 

Atomic Cloud

Guest
I generally went the route of having skilled friends/tribemates who weren't constantly in desperate need of assistance...but that's just me.
In an ideal world :icon_wink: the vast majority of tribes however aren't filled with the cream of the crop and there's going to be a lot of people who will need support. Especially later game when a lot of the best have quit through boredom.
 

qwe4rty

Guest
I'd also say that's more at the start of a world where there's a limit to how much people can really send at you, either due to lack of troops or proximity. The longer a world goes on, the more dense borders get, and the less time I want to spend sniping nobles if I can help it. The more I can stack, less of my time is consumed, and the less burned out I get.

That being said, the D I use on archer worlds is 6k spear, 2k archers, 2k HC. It's still quite fast (iirc, the HC is what takes the longest to build, so adding the archers evens out the barracks/stable time), and it's a bit stronger then the 8k spear, 2k HC without losing any of the movement speed. To me, the movement speed is one of the most important factors of a defense. Considering how many nukes are axe heavy, it's nice having your "anti-axe" be your fastest moving support unit rather then your slowest. I'll have d sitting around my villages for awhile if nothing is going on, but I have no qualms at all in sending out nearly 100% of my support when people call for it.
 

mattcurr

Guest
pyker42; said:
Maybe because you make statements but don't back them up. I have no problem with you correcting me. How about you actually correct me, though, instead of just bitching about me "arguing with" you? I realize that I don't have the game experience, nor the respect that you do, but that doesn't mean you still shouldn't at least defend you own statement with some actual proof or facts, now does it?
Clearly what I was saying was that every defense has a weakness, I posted the numbers for the defense you used and where its weakness was, I am not handing everything to everyone on a golden platter, if you cannot figure out what units to use to utilize the weakness that is not my problem.

I double checked and you were right. My numbers were wrong. (I have since corrected them.:icon_wink:)
Yes.... And let me clear something up for you, simple logic here, when you attack with less rams, the larger gap between the defense and offense exasperates the loss in pop room when switching the ram numbers around.

I will go show you in plain English by breaking down a simulator what I am talking about and why you are wrong. Since apparently we cannot think on our own and need to be handed things on a nice little platter.

Edit:
Okay at this point I am near a guide, I will have a full proper response tomorrow. Depends on when I get out of work
 
Last edited:

pyker42

Guest
How is it not? If you're not under threat of being attacked, you should be doing that.
If you tribe is at war, then by the very definition of that you are under the threat of attack, are you not? :icon_idea:

By the time your support gets to players under attack, you'll be defending 0 walls. That's not more effective.
If the player you are sending support to is at least half-way decent, then you will have knowledge of when the first attack lands, will you not? Therefore you know when you need to get support in by to have them fighting behind a full wall. Further, if the attack was a suprise and the player wasn't on and he calls for support because he has been mostly cleared, then how are your HC/Spears going to be fighting behind full walls? Think a little about real situations of when a player calls for support. Most tribes I have been in, when planning a war, will coordinate defense well in advance of the start of hostilities, thus negating the speed, but benefitting the stronger defensive makeup. I have never played in a tribe where they all cry on the forums at the first sign of an incoming. I bet that gets pretty damn annoying.



Okay, now you're just pretending that the build is a piece of trash that does nothing. It's 75-80% the strength of your own build; and being able to send it three times.. well that kills, how much offence.. over twice the amount yours could?
How does have 50% faster build and 75% strength = 100% more kills? :icon_confused:

If you tribe is that bad that they need all your defense as soon as you build it, well, congrats, you should've tried to get in a better tribe. Realistically, you will not need to constantly build defense and send it out all the time, therefore building strictly sp/HC on an archer world fails. If you are that anal about the speed of the defense, then don't build swords, build HC. But don't not build archers. Thats is just idiotic unless you are pressed for the time, which means you are in a desparate situation, and therefore need to use desparate measures.
 

pyker42

Guest
Clearly what I was saying was that every defense has a weakness, I posted the numbers for the defense you used and where its weakness was, I am not handing everything to everyone on a golden platter, if you cannot figure out what units to use to utilize the weakness that is not my problem.
Yes, it is lopsided. Yes, I know what it is weak against. It is weak against a unit that not many people use too much. Mounted archers. (As evidenced by the supreme Nauz whose nukes would splatter against my walls quite nicely, since he doesn't use MA.) That is why my defense is set up the way it is. It is based off what I have encountered on three separate archer worlds (of the four worlds that I have really played.) and it works well for me.


Yes.... And let me clear something up for you, simple logic here, when you attack with less rams, the larger gap between the defense and offense exasperates the loss in pop room when switching the ram numbers around.
Yeah, because a 30 population difference can totally make a difference. :icon_rolleyes:

If you actually looked at my numbers before and after, there isn't much of a difference. The same amount of LC and MA were lost, 3 more rams were lost, and I think 6-7 less axes were lost.

I will go show you in plain English by breaking down a simulator what I am talking about and why you are wrong. Since apparently we cannot think on our own and need to be handed things on a nice little platter.
Oh, I can think quite nicely on my own, but that still doesn't mean you shouldn't expect to have to back up your own statements. I would have figured that someone like you would know all about providing evidence to back yourself up. But, I guess that is too much to ask from someone who can think so well on their own that everyone else is just expected to take your word as law and not question it. :icon_rolleyes:

Edit:
Okay at this point I am near a guide, I will have a full proper response tomorrow. Depends on when I get out of work[/QUOTE]

Wow, some guide. I can't wait for the sequal.
 

capibarbaroja

Guest
You use a pure LC nuke against a defense that is weakest against cavalry, therefore skewing the results. If you used pure LC and 300 rams or however many you want to compare it with against the same defense then that's slightly different but in general building so many LC and no axes is not practical and thus greatly reduces your arguments validity further.
watch it, servy, they were MA:icon_rolleyes:
 

capibarbaroja

Guest
Ok, as i have the simulator on my excel, I am now using VBA to run it thorugh many simulations, to check which attack is best and so on.

Will bring you some numbers soon ^^
 

servy

Guest
Yes, but the whole point is they were arguing over how many rams should be sent and they weren't consistently using the same nuke builds. What the different builds are isn't particularly relevant.

Not though that the D build they were attacking is weakest against cav., closely followed by arch., with inf. way up there. Converting all of the axes into either MA or LC noticeably increases the effectiveness of the nuke against that particular build.
 

kingjohan

Guest
Dear god. That is garbage. Also your descriptions are garbage.

First off, any more than 300 MA is retarded. Any more than 219 rams in your typical (ie. not specific nukes intended to bust walls) is also retarded (unless the idea is that some are used for faking).

As for the descriptions comment:

spears defend magnificently against cavalry, they're weak against infantry. LC are good for attacking swords.....axes are good for attacking spears....


In other words: Your nuke fails and your descriptions show that you're too stupid to realize it.

Stick with something more like this:

213 rams
3250 lc
6637 axes

Or, for villages with noble trains:

213 rams
3150 lc
258 swords (send 86 with each noble, stops overnobling)
6379 axes
4 nobles
Yoiu´re calling me retarded? i´m not the one that uses simple/pathetic insults in a attempt to raise my confidence.

I always mix swords and spears up.

and, that nuke have worked for me. and good.
 

gothicmarty

Guest
Dear me. Here is a proposal.

can we all agree to use like 10k spears and 10k swords as a basic defense then rate your nukes accordingly... if you need to impose the new worlds the agree on 6.3k 6.3k 6.3k then rate your nukes.
Just dont grade how your nuke compared to one build then state that it does better against another build. set a baseline... Different nukes against the same Defensive build.


you just need a basis
 

Sight

Guest
Dear me. Here is a proposal.

can we all agree to use like 10k spears and 10k swords as a basic defense then rate your nukes accordingly... if you need to impose the new worlds the agree on 6.3k 6.3k 6.3k then rate your nukes.
Just dont grade how your nuke compared to one build then state that it does better against another build. set a baseline... Different nukes against the same Defensive build.


you just need a basis
Different people use different types of defense so no person can claim that a certain style of defense or offense (nuke) is the best as EVERYTHING depends from situation to situation.
 

capibarbaroja

Guest
Different people use different types of defense so no person can claim that a certain style of defense or offense (nuke) is the best as EVERYTHING depends from situation to situation.
There is a BEST nuke and Deffense, at least in archer worlds!

How to find them out?

For each deffense you have, there is a best attack as you might now. Let's call this combination the weakness of the defender. Set farm population as 20000 for example.

Defender uses: 20000 spears and wall 20

(Let's say attacker only want to negate the wall bonus as much as he can-213 rams needed)
The attacker uses the best combination of unit aginst spears -axes-, the defender's weakness, so the best attack in this situation would be;

Attacker: 18935 axes, 213 rams

Simulator:

Units: 0 0 18935 0 0 0 0 0 213 0 0 0
Losses: 0 0 8148 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0
Units: 20000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Losses: 20000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percentage of losses for attacker: 43,04 %
Any other attack, say for example 2000 lightcav, 11935 axes and 213 rams will generate a higher loss percentage, in this case 75,86%.

Now the defender, as logical, want the attacker loss percentage to be the highest possible, and as logical the attacker wants the loss percentage to be the lowest possible, and find the defender's weakness.

So defender will try to find a deffense combination(THE ULTIMATE DEFFENSE) which it's weakness will generate the highest percentage of losses for the attacker.

As example, lets say the weakness of a deffence will generate 45% losses for the attacker.
Therefore, this deffence is better than the one showed in the example above, since there doesn't exist a nuke that can produce less than 45% losses for this deffence combination.

The same goes for THE ULTIMATE NUKE, you just turn the thing around.

But, since simulator is made in a way it would take centuries to find this, I am using a simulator in excel, and using VBA to do this for me ^^

[spoil]Would love seing servy saying I'm wrong xD[/spoil]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

qwe4rty

Guest
There is a BEST nuke and Deffense, at least in archer worlds!

Would love seing servy saying I'm wrong xD
Well, I'm no servy, but I'll still say you're wrong :icon_wink:

Your technique only looks at pure strength in numbers of the units. It does nothing to look at the movement speed, which means that given a certain time until an attack lands, you have X minutes to stack the village. The faster your troops move, the more support you can have, and thus decrease your losses.

In essense, there are many outside circumstances that you don't account for, which can have a dramatic effect. Making the claim that build XYZ is the best when you are only looking at 1 farms worth of that build in a single village is useless, because face it, who decides to defend everything with a single village worth of defense?
 

servy

Guest
There is a BEST nuke and Deffense, at least in archer worlds!
There is a best defense against one particular, set in stone nuke, and there is a best nuke against one particular set in stone defense. There is not, however, a best nuke against an unknown defense and likewise there is not a best defense against an unknown nuke.

There are choices that are better than others, in which you have a build that is as effective as possible against the most common builds it is likely to face, and in some cases if in a long term fight with one or more opponents who consistently use one or a small number of specific builds you can sometimes adapt your builds accordingly, but in the vast majority of cases you don't know what specific builds you're going to be facing while building your troops and as such you cannot determine a BEST build for either offense or defense. Different builds will have different advantages and disadvantages and it's up to you to find the one(s) that match your playing style best.
 

capibarbaroja

Guest
Well, I'm no servy, but I'll still say you're wrong :icon_wink:

Your technique only looks at pure strength in numbers of the units. It does nothing to look at the movement speed, which means that given a certain time until an attack lands, you have X minutes to stack the village. The faster your troops move, the more support you can have, and thus decrease your losses.

In essense, there are many outside circumstances that you don't account for, which can have a dramatic effect. Making the claim that build XYZ is the best when you are only looking at 1 farms worth of that build in a single village is useless, because face it, who decides to defend everything with a single village worth of defense?
I know I haven't taken resources, time it takes to produce, and speed into the equation, and I don't think I will neither, I am just stating that if you had all the time in the world, and you had a very tight cluster, and all resources you would need, it is actually possible to make this.
 

servy

Guest
I know I haven't taken resources, time it takes to produce, and speed into the equation, and I don't think I will neither, I am just stating that if you had all the time in the world, and you had a very tight cluster, and all resources you would need, it is actually possible to make this.
Not only is that an impractical assumption to make, but it's still wrong despite those assumptions.