Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - MAJOR RELEASE 22APR12
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMAJOR RELEASE 22APR12

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 31>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Sloter View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2012 at 11:27
i cant belive i made post that long....if i saw something like that i would not bother reading it :)
Back to Top
Sloter View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2012 at 11:25
Salararius i like the way you think and over time as you grow and gain more exp in the game you will be great player.I understand you just want to know more about the game and undertsand how things work and what is optimal way of doing things.

-when you calculate gold from taxes that can be used for troops have in mind that 7 food plain city can have 3 military upkeep buildings.Something that mountain city on 5 food can not suport in terms of food, if it can it can be done with lower taxes which means less gold.So for every 3 gold i earn in 7 food plain city i can have 2 units (even slightly more) if i had 5 food city on mountain i could not do that.

-another advantage is again 7 food, i dont use spell to boost food production but instead to boost basic res production on basic res i am short, in my case wood.That alows construction of even more t2 buildings

-taxes can go up to 60% since there are periods of month when there is research bonus i can go negativ in research for half month with same taxes and cover that in other half of the month.Even if not for that i can chose to go negativ in research since research points can be acumulated in by low taxes in times when troops are lost, so it is posible to go up to 70% taxes if needed for periods of time.Ofcourse all that with chancery built and statues mystery solved

-since 7 food city can easily suport more t2 buildings, among others 3 military upkeep buildings that means that player can go negativ with gold income also and cover that by trades.When your unit costs 1,5 gold per hr trading in average 200-300k gold per city per day alows army to grow far beyond 30k (i just have not gone that far since i always lose them on tourneys) You dont even have to trade advance material, selling basic res will get you at least 200k gold per city per day

-as for defending with 40 comms you dont need 2400 you need only 610 or 620 (61-62 per city), you only need 61-62 in each army in which all 4 comms can be (even 5 if needed).Elf player can stand to lose 62 t2 archer units per city but can attacking human stand to lose some 1000 t2 cavalry  every two days when comms are resurected and for how long.Elf player would lose 62 units per day and each day he can train 144 without sovs, if human player loses 1000 t2 cavalry every two days he will cover that with large dificulties and over time elf defending its city will acumulate more troops then human can acumulate cavalry (in imagined duel 1 on 1 betveen elf and human without usage of sieges)


-most important of all is players behavior which can never be calculated if elf and human are to fight on plains it is obvious that human would have advantage when attacking and only way to negate that advantage is for elf not to defend on plains, that shifts battle in diferent directions and puts pressure on human player to defend.I know cavalry has advantage on plains and behind maxed walls but they have low def against archers and trueshots with comm that gives 15% bonus to attack can do nice damage to defending cavalry, especialy considering time it takes to train t2 cav and t2 archers and material costs.I would gladly lose 4 trueshots to kill 3 t2 cav on plains behind walls , i could easily cover my losses faster and cheaper then defending human with cavalry.So again in this imagined duel there might be situation when elf defends with only 620 troops and in proces kills 1000 t2 cavalry, and he can also do the attacking and take basic res from human player, maybe even killing some troops if human choses to defend (we presume that elf has only t2 archers and human t2 cavalry? that is some 4:3 ratio 4 dead trueshots for 3 dead t2 cavalry defending on plains behind walls) so that battle of taking each others basic res and killing few troops from time to time can go for years with no clear advantage to eighter side.



Human vs Elf on plains would eventualy depend on skill of both players but it should not be presumed that one side has clear advantage over other.There are too many things that can not be predicted.But my opinion is that 7 food city on plains gives more advantages then disadvantages.I often see players who try to settle their cities on location that will help them defend more easily which is wrong direction of thinking.It is best to settle on location where you can make strongest army and most productiv city, defending a city does not start under your city walls, it starts with siege under other guys city walls and best way to do that is to have large army and be able to produce troops and materials fast, and not to be stuck up on some mountain or some island or forest (unless it is 7 food forest :)
Back to Top
Captain Ganoes Paran View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 158
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2012 at 09:29
if you add units and food sov its going to be difficult to have so high tax , your resarch points will go
negative 
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2012 at 05:25
50% tax would be good for a 5 food city, but cities with 7 food tiles have good incentive to take the taxes to 70-80%. 


Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6817
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2012 at 05:21
/me makes a note to avoid making Anjire mad.
Back to Top
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 686
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2012 at 04:33
Originally posted by Salararius Salararius wrote:

Originally posted by Sloter Sloter wrote:

i have cities on plains and in economical sense if i see human player attacking i would deffend with 40 high lvl trushots comms folowed by 610 t2 archers behind high walls.Economy of that (strictly in gold/res value) is against attacking player army.Aside from that i dont think human will ever catch any elf defending on plains except in extreme situations like tourneys or defending siege camp.I would rather have 30k trueshots in 7 food city on plains that can dodge any cavalry attack directed at city then having 15k trueshots in 5 food mountain city.Now that i said that it seems that mountain city is less likely to defend with 15 t2 archers against human cavalry attack then city on plains with 30k t2 archers given situation in which human player would attack mountain or plain city with same army size.Anyway advantage is always on side of defender since he can stack all comms on one place and attacker can just use 5 at the time.

OK, I looked at the economics of defending an elf plain's city vs. an elf mountain city because a couple people mentioned the economic benefits.  Here's how it looks:

Elf plains city:
food:  7 square
tax: 50%
pop:  ~25,800
gold:  ~51,600
Trueshots:  ~17,200
terrain adj. def value vs. cav w/ lvl 20 walls:  ~924,500
terrain adj. attack value of 36,800 gold worth of human cav:  ~777,400
terrain adj. attack value of 36,800 gold worth of human infantry:  ~429,333
Elf Trueshots remaining after 1 cav attack:  ~2,624

Elf large mountain city;
food: 5 square
tax: 50%
pop:  ~18,400
gold:  ~36,800
Trushots:  ~12,267
terrain adj def value vs. cav w/lvl 20 walls:  ~857,133
terrain adj. attack value of 36,800 gold worth of human cav:  ~418,600
terrain adj. attack value of 36,800 gold worth of human infantry:  ~343,367
Elf Trueshots remaining after 1 cav attack:  ~6,076

40 commanders are the equivalent to about 2,400 troops.  Because there are more troops in the plains city, those commanders add up to a 14% bonus.  A mountain city has less troops so those commanders are worth about 20% bonus.  An elf that puts his city in the mountains sees a proportionally greater benefit from stacking his commanders.

Defender stacking:  The attacker can send multiple waves of attackers so the ratio of attackers to defenders is the same.  I think this tactic favors the attacker.  From my understanding of the combat model, armies that win with too many excess combat points take proportionally greater damage but it's not a significant percentage.

You can dodge the attacker.  That will preserve the elf army, but will not help defend the city or eliminate the attacking army.

I'm not saying or trying to imply that putting an elf city in plains means the player doesn't understand the game.  I think it's obvious the game is complex and there are a lot of angles to look at things from.  It's clear there are advantages to plains cities, I think you can see that from the numbers above.  I see those advantages running counter to some of an elf's racial strengths (I don't claim to know everything about elves) and I do not see that they apply to city defense.  What else might I be missing here?



I will only say that I am easily supporting 30K crossbows in one of my 7 food plain cities so you should probably revisit your math and the value of the troop upkeep reduction buildings. 

Back to Top
Salararius View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 May 2012 at 03:28
Originally posted by Sloter Sloter wrote:

i have cities on plains and in economical sense if i see human player attacking i would deffend with 40 high lvl trushots comms folowed by 610 t2 archers behind high walls.Economy of that (strictly in gold/res value) is against attacking player army.Aside from that i dont think human will ever catch any elf defending on plains except in extreme situations like tourneys or defending siege camp.I would rather have 30k trueshots in 7 food city on plains that can dodge any cavalry attack directed at city then having 15k trueshots in 5 food mountain city.Now that i said that it seems that mountain city is less likely to defend with 15 t2 archers against human cavalry attack then city on plains with 30k t2 archers given situation in which human player would attack mountain or plain city with same army size.Anyway advantage is always on side of defender since he can stack all comms on one place and attacker can just use 5 at the time.

OK, I looked at the economics of defending an elf plain's city vs. an elf mountain city because a couple people mentioned the economic benefits.  Here's how it looks:

Elf plains city:
food:  7 square
tax: 50%
pop:  ~25,800
gold:  ~51,600
Trueshots:  ~17,200
terrain adj. def value vs. cav w/ lvl 20 walls:  ~924,500
terrain adj. attack value of 36,800 gold worth of human cav:  ~777,400
terrain adj. attack value of 36,800 gold worth of human infantry:  ~429,333
Elf Trueshots remaining after 1 cav attack:  ~2,624

Elf large mountain city;
food: 5 square
tax: 50%
pop:  ~18,400
gold:  ~36,800
Trushots:  ~12,267
terrain adj def value vs. cav w/lvl 20 walls:  ~857,133
terrain adj. attack value of 36,800 gold worth of human cav:  ~418,600
terrain adj. attack value of 36,800 gold worth of human infantry:  ~343,367
Elf Trueshots remaining after 1 cav attack:  ~6,076

40 commanders are the equivalent to about 2,400 troops.  Because there are more troops in the plains city, those commanders add up to a 14% bonus.  A mountain city has less troops so those commanders are worth about 20% bonus.  An elf that puts his city in the mountains sees a proportionally greater benefit from stacking his commanders.

Defender stacking:  The attacker can send multiple waves of attackers so the ratio of attackers to defenders is the same.  I think this tactic favors the attacker.  From my understanding of the combat model, armies that win with too many excess combat points take proportionally greater damage but it's not a significant percentage.

You can dodge the attacker.  That will preserve the elf army, but will not help defend the city or eliminate the attacking army.

I'm not saying or trying to imply that putting an elf city in plains means the player doesn't understand the game.  I think it's obvious the game is complex and there are a lot of angles to look at things from.  It's clear there are advantages to plains cities, I think you can see that from the numbers above.  I see those advantages running counter to some of an elf's racial strengths (I don't claim to know everything about elves) and I do not see that they apply to city defense.  What else might I be missing here?

Back to Top
Sloter View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2012 at 16:42
i have cities on plains and in economical sense if i see human player attacking i would deffend with 40 high lvl trushots comms folowed by 610 t2 archers behind high walls.Economy of that (strictly in gold/res value) is against attacking player army.Aside from that i dont think human will ever catch any elf defending on plains except in extreme situations like tourneys or defending siege camp.I would rather have 30k trueshots in 7 food city on plains that can dodge any cavalry attack directed at city then having 15k trueshots in 5 food mountain city.Now that i said that it seems that mountain city is less likely to defend with 15 t2 archers against human cavalry attack then city on plains with 30k t2 archers given situation in which human player would attack mountain or plain city with same army size.Anyway advantage is always on side of defender since he can stack all comms on one place and attacker can just use 5 at the time.
Back to Top
Salararius View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2012 at 15:52
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

The player setting up the siege chooses the terrain from which to siege, although of course the player being sieged had choices initially about where to put the city.  Thus the large number of cities with plains on all 8 surrounding squares.  However, given a choice of squares, usually a sieging player would set up in the most favorable terrain  (elves likely on mountains, orcs in forests).  A player with such squares on the edges of his/her town would probably build defensive (offensive) infantry armies to have the greatest advantage against that threat.

In my admittedly extremely limited experience breaking sieges, sally forth is a last resort; in general most people try to break sieges directly through raiding or attacking the siege camp; only if there were a large number of much smaller players would sally forth be a rational choice, and even then the armies would be very vulnerable to being wiped.

It seems like most of Salarius' analyses are based on single player vs. another single player or single city vs. another single city.  I have a hard time applying them to warfare as it exists in Illy.

But maybe it's because I tend to be a big picture kind of person.

As I see warfare in Illy, it's a political and economic process.  I'm discussing it purely from the perspective of equal economies and thus equal military potential except for racial differences (that's where this started).  I don't think "real warfare" ever devolves to the point of equal economies.  I think it's still important to understand the basics underlying "real warfare" though.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  That's really what I'm hoping will happen.  If you correct me and it doesn't make sense, I'll ask questions.  Doesn't mean your wrong, just that I don't understand.

Yep, the sally forth comment was wrong.  You would just perform a normal attack.
Back to Top
Salararius View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 May 2012 at 15:43
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Perhaps most people aren't quite as nuanced as you, Salarius, and might interpret yours and others usage of the terms "offensive" and "defensive" as actually meaning offensive and defensive?

Point taken.  Should I have not tried to explain what I was saying or was there a better way to say it?

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 31>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.