Warlords TBS Series
Spin-off Projects
Home Forum
Welcome,
Guest
|
TOPIC: Leadership, Fear and Combat
Re: Leadership, Fear and Combat 13 years ago #269
But NONE get L1 units that are stronger than the Axemen. If we're going to use statistics, we should look at all the facts and not isolate the special cases that prove our points. Seppuccu, I think you're falling behind. I'm pretty sure KGB and I are both already in agreement on the summary of the dwarf situation (L1 good, L3 poor, slow). The point I was debating there was the specific odds of combinations occurring (since KGB made some claims which I believed were mathematically incorrect, at least in games with a number of opponents). This, in turn, can be partially compensated for by producing L3 units from adjacent races (Dragons and Knights). That is a good point. It of course doesn't work in your capital (so you can't get any capital combat/HP/production bonuses), but if you don't need tons of L3 units, grabbing/upgrading a small number of dragon/knight cities could work. (Just hope that there are some to grab -- and then hold on to them or someone might raze/rebuild them and then you are a bit hosed. If you are up against a human instead of an AI, they might decide to hose you on purpose.) You want the highest power density with your Hero uber stack since there are only 8 slots. I guess. I think there are some prerequisites before uber stack really makes a lot of sense: 1) you need enough gold to afford such a stack, and 2) you need a hero (or heroes) that provide enough benefits to make the more expensive L2/L3 units worth while. (Though the 2nd requirement might be temporarily ignored while you use the uber stack to funnel XP into the hero. Then eventually the hero will meet the 2nd requirement.) You don't need to cram a lot of L3 units into your capital, at least not in SP. Yeah, in SP I defend the capital city pretty much the same as any other city unless something happens to make me do otherwise. I was talking about MP since in that case I hear that super stack attacks on the capital are common. No. It's very good for the game that it doesn't. Why? Like I said, it just feels like a rip-off. Game rips me off, that makes me think less of the game. The game could at least give you something in return. In Age of Wonders if you tell a city to not produce units, then it instead produces "merchandise" (which means it generates extra gold). Maybe if you are producing L1 units from your production -1 capital Warlords could give you some extra gold. Or maybe it's 3 Axemen instead of 4. But it should be something. The problem is that your spell list will be so long that it's difficult to actually get the spell you want. Instead you'll have to waste precious mana to regenerate the spell list. My philosophy: You must exercise patience. You get some nice common spells very quickly. Use them. Be happy. Don't waste mana regenerating the list right away. Just chip away at the size of the list by learning any spells that come up that you want, and if none come up that you want just pick one of spells that only take 2 or 3 turns to learn and the list will then "regenerate" for free (in 2 or 3 turns). Once that process is complete, if the spell you want still hasn't come up, then and only then spend some mana on regeneration. At that point it should hopefully not take too many attempts because there are a lot fewer spells left. I'm in the process of finding out how well my philosophy actually works. Which is why you want to take out that Warlord as soon as possible. I said the dispels were annoying. I didn't say they were any threat to me winning the map. Currently I'm gold limited, so I'm picking off all of his 42 gold cities. I may grab some others as well (depending on balance at that point). As soon as I have enough of his cities that it won't matter if the other two AIs grab the rest, then it will be safe to take his capital. But I suspect I will be trimming down one of the other AIs before that point. (The second strongest AI has some high gold cities that are in a nice out of the way location. The only reason I haven't taken those cities yet is because the second strongest AI is already a bit too weak -- I want to weaken the strongest AI first.) Don't you play the AIs one against the other? Both by keeping them in balance and by expanding your empire in such a way that keeps it out of the middle of their fighting? That makes them waste lots of units fighting each other, leaving you to mostly do whatever you want. I don't want the enemy I am currently taking cities from to collapse. I just want to weaken it to bring it back in line with the next strongest AI (and to increase my gold revenue at the same time). Growth, Turtle, Growth... But I have three L3 cities that I want to upgrade. They are all front-line cities (and one has already been attacked hard). I am producing heroes to replace non-front-line defensive troops and get my upkeep costs down, but these three cities can't make heroes as long as they are stuck at L3. I could try to boost hero production with Growth, but with only 3 mana coming in per turn I can only cast it about every 4.7 turns. With only 4 of my 8 cities making heroes (the other has +1 combat/+2 HP and is making swordsmen), that only gets me about 0.85 units of hero production per turn. However, using Bounty is (taking dispels into account) getting me maybe an average of 70 gold per turn which (in addition to normal income) will let me upgrade those three L3 cities -- and each time I upgrade a city it gets me 1 additional unit of hero production per turn. I can certainly see that on a large map with lots of cities, Growth will be a very strong spell. And even in my current situation, once I have the 3 city upgrades done, I can then supplement with Growth, which at that point will be affecting 7 hero producing cities instead of just 4, so back-to-back casting will then provide an average of 1.5 units of hero production per turn instead of just 0.85. |
|
|
Re: Leadership, Fear and Combat 13 years ago #270
I also didn't realize you were mostly playing medium sized maps. I tend to play Large/Huge. I mentioned in another thread that I had basically given up on this game years ago. (Mainly due to tedious movement and crashing.) All of my games up to that point had been large random maps. I only recently upgraded from 1.05a to 1.05b and was giving the game another chance. I didn't want to spend a lot of time on it so went with a medium map. The crashing went away. I suspect it wasn't the move from 1.05a to 1.05b but the change in map size that made the crashing stop, but I haven't tested this theory yet. I do prefer larger maps (at least that's how I always liked to play Warlords 3). That's why movement is more important. Because on those maps if you move slow you'll get to a lot less resources (cities, ruins). A number of my large map games were dwarves. The speed didn't bother me. But that was all on "Prince" and I'm trying harder settings now and maybe that will make a difference. Or maybe it won't if the AI is ineffective. So then if we agree that you only need L3 units for 1 super hero stack (and maybe your capitol) then how important can combat strength of L3 units be when picking a side? It depends on how important it is to you that your super hero stack be strong. The currently important use of L2/L3 units for me is to quickly recover from a battle. Heroes are slow to produce, so I tend to only use them (as fodder) for defense in cities that aren't being attacked. But when a front-line city is getting hit repeatedly, I keep using/replacing, as needed, the L2/L3 unit(s). I.e., if they are attacking with something strong (generally backed by more combat bonuses than I have) that is likely to take out tons of my L1s, I'm probably going to throw an L2 or L3 unit at them instead of just feeding them so many L1s (i.e., save the L1s for the weaker units in their stack). There is also multi-attack units where you basically have to throw the strongest thing you've got at them or they will wipe out all of your troops. There is also going up against heal (and I guess vampirism) where using weak units is a losing strategy. There is also archery. There are various reasons to use stronger units for defense. If my L3 units are a lot weaker than what is coming at me, then instead of just keeping 1 around I may need to keep multiple L3 units in the city (which then increases my upkeep and takes even longer to replace). So I guess strong L3 units, like defense in general, isn't important at all -- except when you need it. Then it's pretty important. I am surprised you aren't using a Nature Warlord. When I first got the game I tried knights (can't remember what warlord skills). I think gold was a big issue so I switched to rune/rune/dwarves. But in an attempt to improve combat ability I am currently playing with nature/summoning/knights (and hitting gold issues again). Because it's one step closer to winning the game as they are fewer opponents. That reminds me of a teacher that told her class that three legged stools were more stable than four legged ones because there are fewer directions in which you can fall. (By that logic two legged stools should be the most stable.) The ability of an opponent to attack you depends on their ability to produce units which in turn depends on the number of cities they hold. When there are still 2 or more opponents there is an element of risk involved (as to who they will direct those units at). Once it's down to 1 opponent it will definitely direct them at you. So for me the real issue isn't how many opponents there are -- 5 or 10 makes little difference. The real issue is how many cities are producing units that are then being used to attack me. I could care less if the other opponents end up with a majority of their cities. I'll easily get those from my raiding attacks. So basically you are saying that you don't care because your opponents are ineffective anyways? Mine tend not to. Players are out quickly. I've won many games down to just my well defended capitol and 1 super hero stack on the rampage picking off enemy capitols. So, you win by what is called (derogatorily) in other games "rushing". When games are susceptible to that, most gamers consider that a game defect needing correction. It sounds to me like there really needs to be an option (probably the default) where losing the capital does not lose you the game but just its benefits (unless/until you take it back). I didn't realize you were playing with such low level Warlords (L1). Been forever since I did that. As I said, virtually all my games are L25-40 range where there is a real difference in the Warlords and they are about equal in value (at L1 Combat Major is useless while spell casting isn't). So, are the warlords you use to play just created in an editor? Is that how players typically play? Are expected to play? |
|
|
Re: Leadership, Fear and Combat 13 years ago #275
Turtle wrote:
I didn't realize you were playing with such low level Warlords (L1). Been forever since I did that. As I said, virtually all my games are L25-40 range where there is a real difference in the Warlords and they are about equal in value (at L1 Combat Major is useless while spell casting isn't). So, are the warlords you use to play just created in an editor? Is that how players typically play? Are expected to play? That's how most multiplayers play. They decide on a level and build a warlord accordingly. They usually play without Retinue, or with strong restrictions on the Retinue, since there's (unfortunately) a best retinue combo and games with retinues would just become a "Battle of the Retinue Titans". I on the other hand, don't (being a strict singleplayer - so far). And that's because I take a lot of pleasure in buildning my Warlord and Retinue. I want the excitement of getting hero offers, searching ruins and doing quests and building the best possible retinue from what is offered, and at the same time leveling my Warlord in the best possible way, and observing how the game changes as he travels up the levels. So far I've leveled one to level 44, one to 40, two to 14, one to 11, and one to 6 - and then I have a couple of new ones who stand in line for trying out. It's taken me almost 4 years. Personally I think building a warlord with the editor is kind of cheating, but at the same time I can understand why experienced multiplayers do that. I've only used the editor a couple of times to try out a couple of hypotheses regarding the Retinue. Turtle wrote: No. It's very good for the game that it doesn't. Why? Like I said, it just feels like a rip-off. Game rips me off, that makes me think less of the game. Simply because there would be even less L2-L4 units in the game. Turtle wrote: The real issue is how many cities are producing units that are then being used to attack me. And if you take out the Capital all of that enemy's cities will stop producing units that attack you. Turtle wrote: So, you win by what is called (derogatorily) in other games "rushing". When games are susceptible to that, most gamers consider that a game defect needing correction. It's an option that might work, but it's not guaranteed to succeed. It's a calculated risk, like everything else in Warlords. I've been able to save a couple of games by doing that but I prefer avoiding it exactly because it's a risk. Turtle wrote: Seppuccu, I think you're falling behind. Whatever you say... |
|
"Negate does not negate Negate."
--- KGB "Moreover, I advise that Daemons and Dark Elves must switch places on the Race Wheel." --- Marcus Porcius Cato
Last Edit: 13 years ago by Seppuccu.
|
Re: Leadership, Fear and Combat 13 years ago #278
Turtle,
Turtle wrote: There is also multi-attack units where you basically have to throw the strongest thing you've got at them or they will wipe out all of your troops. There is also going up against heal (and I guess vampirism) where using weak units is a losing strategy. There is also archery. There are various reasons to use stronger units for defense. Yup, those are definitely all cases where you need better units for dealing with those skills. That's where I typically keep a few L2 units around. I don't waste my L3 units on defense. They are only for offense. Turtle wrote: When I first got the game I tried knights (can't remember what warlord skills). I think gold was a big issue so I switched to rune/rune/dwarves. But in an attempt to improve combat ability I am currently playing with nature/summoning/knights (and hitting gold issues again). Yeah the Rune warlord with his Merchant skill is really nice for being able to build huge masses of men, upgrade cities and get more item offers. He just suffers in combat because his primary skill (money) isn't useful for combat so you have to make sure you have a lot of cannon fodder. I think the Nature major Warlord is perfectly suited to your style of play. You'll just have to walk the fine line of income/upkeep. One thing I suggest you do is find/buy the Golden Chest item for your retinue. The +10 gold per city really adds up and its one of my favorite items when playing minor item only games. Turtle wrote: That reminds me of a teacher that told her class that three legged stools were more stable than four legged ones because there are fewer directions in which you can fall. (By that logic two legged stools should be the most stable.) 1 legged stools are definitely the most stable! You see examples of them all the time in bars or at counters in restaurant. The leg is just fatter than those on 3 and 4 legged stools. So nothing wrong with her logic Turtle wrote: The ability of an opponent to attack you depends on their ability to produce units which in turn depends on the number of cities they hold. When there are still 2 or more opponents there is an element of risk involved (as to who they will direct those units at). Once it's down to 1 opponent it will definitely direct them at you. So for me the real issue isn't how many opponents there are -- 5 or 10 makes little difference. The real issue is how many cities are producing units that are then being used to attack me. It matters more at higher Warlord levels. Often 1 warlord will have the counter skills to yours (dispels, Chaos etc). Killing that warlord makes FAR more difference that working both down equally regardless of what happens with the other one (ie the ability to use your Altar or +5 Morale thanks to no more Chaos). At low levels it matters hardly at all as you've noticed. As you level up your Warlord it will be something you'll notice more and more. Turtle wrote: So basically you are saying that you don't care because your opponents are ineffective anyways? No. Because many of them are human opponents so it's not just the AI. I just plan my game around the style I like best or what I think will work best for that particular Warlord+Race. I try not to let my opponents play influence my decisions too much because I want to put them off balance, not have them putting me off balance. Thus I tend to be a very aggressive player. Turtle wrote: So, you win by what is called (derogatorily) in other games "rushing". When games are susceptible to that, most gamers consider that a game defect needing correction. It sounds to me like there really needs to be an option (probably the default) where losing the capital does not lose you the game but just its benefits (unless/until you take it back). It's definitely not rushing. Unless you consider turn 25-30 to be rushing someone. L10 Retinue arrives on turn 10. To build 6 L3 units takes 12-18 turns (depending on whether those take 2 or 3 turns based on your Warlord/Race). So typically you fill out 1 super stack around turn 20ish. Figure another 5-10 turns to move to the front/break through/reach the capitol. Sometimes it's even later than that. What I meant is that many players tend to piecemeal their good heroes/units 1-2 per city or stack. So what happens is 1 super stack with Heal/Bless/Curse literally mows through an almost unlimited number of crappy units. So if you have extra move (which I prefer) once you appear in their sight and pass by their front lines they literally have 1 turn to stop the stack from heading past to the capitol. So unless they have their own super stack they are in deep trouble because they can't catch it and I don't stop to take cities on the way, I just make for the capitol. The AI option of 'Emperor with Uber Retinue' has the AI come with that kind of killer game ending retinue. Makes for great fun hunting it down and killing it (if you can, sometimes you can't). Turtle wrote: So, are the warlords you use to play just created in an editor? Is that how players typically play? Are expected to play? Multi-player games are definitely all editor created Warlords. Only way to be able to all have a Level 'X' Warlord with the right skills, retinue for the random Race you get assigned. For single player experience I definitely recommend you do what you are doing (and what Seppuccu does). Start at L1 and work your way up. I did it twice going through the campaign (you don't have to do the campaign, just makes a nice way to work your Warlord). I do recommend that you at least fool around with the editor and higher level Warlords. Mostly so that you can see where your Nature/Summoning Warlord will be at L20, L25 etc. Give you an idea of whether that's what you want when you get there and will help you select the right level up points so you don't take wasted things. Also gives a taste of what higher level games are like. KGB |
|
Last Edit: 13 years ago by KGB.
|
Time to create page: 1.17 seconds