Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Trueshot defense strategy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Trueshot defense strategy
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1212 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Trueshot defense strategy
    Posted: 26 Jan 2015 at 18:17
Originally posted by Nokigon Nokigon wrote:

The problem with the argument, as given in the OP, is that it instinctively assumes that the player in question is defending his/her city with only the troops that exist within the city. This is an argument that I have heard before, but in the long run a misguided answer.
just thought i'd underscore this for any newbs reading. if you're planning siege defence, you can pretty well count on any troops in the target city being cleared by the offensive party. your help must come from elsewhere (hence the value of fast cavalry, as i understand the really efficient sieges will raze a city in not much more than the time it takes to set up the camp). you can't build a single city secure enough to stand up to a concerted assault by an opposing alliance.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2015 at 17:43
Especially if the dwarves in question had jungle warfare colleges and jungle gear!  I would love to see what Dlords would do with a jungle cluster!  A lot of dwarven jungle cities in fairly close proximity would be hard to beat.

The main challenge is that many jungle squares are low on stone, which makes it hard to support infantry quarters.  You'd probably want to terraform them.
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2015 at 17:17
If a non-plains strategy were attempted, it would seem much more feasible with dwarves in jungle forests. Nothing defends in a forest better than infantry attacks it. There is still the issue of waiting for clearing, as infantry is half the speed of cavalry.
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kumomoto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2015 at 17:02
As many have posted, each tool has its purpose. In general, obviously cavalry, being the highest attack values, are the best for defense (hitting enemy siege encampments). Clearly being surrounded by mountains, then, make cavalry far weaker and it is therefore challenging to have them next to your city. But, if you do have a mountain next to your city, I highly suggest Trueshots to attack. They are particularly fearsome when attacking a large spear force on a mountain. And since orc spears have gained such popularity, this has become more common.

In general, however, for defensive purposes, folks are right in that TS aren't as efficient to build as sentinels.
Back to Top
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anjire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2015 at 08:03
The theory would work better when surrounded by Large Hills rather than large/small mountains since they give a much larger bonus to attacking with bows then defending with bows.  

Though even with the +5% sov bonus the defending bows would have a greater power.  

Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2015 at 01:21
The theory is also flawed because bow units generally defend better than they attack. Therefore, a bow city surrounded by large mountains would still always spend more units attacking than would be destroyed in the siege camp (per build time).
Back to Top
Nokigon View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Historian

Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nokigon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2015 at 00:34
The problem with the argument, as given in the OP, is that it instinctively assumes that the player in question is defending his/her city with only the troops that exist within the city. This is an argument that I have heard before, but in the long run a misguided answer.

A player can defend his cities with both the aid of his alliance members, and the aid of his other cities. Building a trueshot city on a mountain surrounded by plains, then, is still extremely tactically sound as it gives the actual city a major defensive bonus against attacks (115% wall defence+30% large mountain=major ouchies for attackers), and it allows any nearby cavalry to inflict several kinds of hurt on siegers.

There is a place for every single troop type in this game. You should not choose what troop to train based purely on the defensive potential of your location- otherwise nobody would ever train spearmen :P
Back to Top
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anjire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2015 at 00:00
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

The same thing happened to Axemen. If you have the extra time to build, Axemen are a superior choice to Stalwarts (although Stalwarts still dominate Attack/Hour).

Stalwarts had their recruitment time reduced as well such that a stalwart gives you the most attack power/time of any unit.  They will provide 25% more attack power/time over an axman.   

Usually the price of plate is significantly cheaper than chain so I've usually found that the actual adjusted cost of a Stalwart comes out to be cheaper than an equivalent number of axmen.    

Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2015 at 21:58
Is that really worth the -2 speed, lower defensive stats, and higher adjusted build cost?
Back to Top
Artefore View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar
Player Council - Biographer

Joined: 21 Feb 2014
Location: Earf
Status: Offline
Points: 325 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Artefore Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2015 at 21:40
Stalwarts actually have a slight edge in terms of attack per gold cost (13.5 attack/gold for axmen and 14 for stals).
"don't quote me on that" -Artefore
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.