Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 31Mar13 Military Unit Production Time Adjustments
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed31Mar13 Military Unit Production Time Adjustments

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 11>
Author
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 00:08
IMO, correcting the cavalry imbalance may decrease the ability for alliances like H? Or Vic to be able to defend hundreds of cities all over the map. And you know what? Good! It is extremely illogical for us (and was a huge imbalance) for us to do so in the first place. We'll actually have to use proper organization and diplomacy to protect our far flung assets (ie play the game properly) as opposed to having a "that's easy" button to defend sieges.

I welcome the changes (even though we are probably the alliance most affected by it).
Back to Top
opk View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 23 Mar 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 00:09
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

faster build times do not make spears stronger.  Nor does it allow a city to support a larger spear army.  It only allows replacement of losses quicker.  This is only important in sustained wars and offers the defender an opportunity to erode the attacker's cav armies over time through attrition.  Frankly, spears were pretty good at that already.  But cav will still dominate the battlefield in any single battle.

Actually, it's a question of recovering times, linked to production efforts. In a sustained war, that's all that counts: how many attack or def power can you produce over time. For cavalry prod for exemple, you cannot sustain a lot of sovs for unit production, since your weapons prod has to follow. For elven ranged and orcs spears, what was true before and even more true now that T1 is as/more beneficial than T2, is that due to cheaper weapon demands, you can afford more sovs for respectively your ranged/spears unit, and if you make some calculations (which i did some times ago) you can see that in terms of power/time, ranged/spears recovered faster than cavalry if the battle took place on a mountain/forest... and now this is more true than ever: you can put 180% sov bonus to your elven/orc T1 ranged/spear, and you dont have to put any sov for your weapon prod. If you ever lack of of spears/bows, you can buy them on the market they are cheap (it's less costy to have more taxe and buy those with your excedent gold, than having smaller taxes and put 90% sov for spears/bows and 90% for the units... which is still extremely interesting production time, and self sufficient method, though, compared to cavalry recovery). 

From what i calculated quickly, i would have an orc or an elf with 10 cities (7 food), i would produce 390k T1 orc spears a month or 200k T1 elven ranged a month, whitout much annoyment, while i would produce around 40k human T2 Cav a month, with a good deal of annoyment. 
If you compare these numbers in the case of systematic Cav attack on Mountains/forest against racial spears/ranged (which is often the case during a war), you would see that in terms of power/time on those terrains, racial Cav recovers more slowly than racial T1 spears/ranged. 
I didnt verify on Innoble's calculator, but as it was already the case before, now this observation is more stressed out due to diminishing of trainning times. 

Warmasters know that even if your starting unit pool size is very important, your recovering time is what makes the difference between 2 opposants of the initial same size. And it's very true in Illy, where wars last for months as we saw. 
Taking this in account and what i said above, i confirm that it's more prohibitive now to use Cav to break sieges. And then goes what we evoked about travel times, infantry, alliances territorilism, cavalry usefulness problematics.


Edited by opk - 01 Apr 2013 at 00:52
Old Penitent Knight
Back to Top
Epidemic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 00:37
The way I see it, the troops that can be produced the fastest will win in a long drawn out war by default.

The production times should be the same for all troop types, by group and race, just like it use to be. Bad update.
Back to Top
opk View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 23 Mar 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 00:41
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

IMO, correcting the cavalry imbalance may decrease the ability for alliances like H? Or Vic to be able to defend hundreds of cities all over the map. And you know what? Good! It is extremely illogical for us (and was a huge imbalance) for us to do so in the first place. We'll actually have to use proper organization and diplomacy to protect our far flung assets (ie play the game properly) as opposed to having a "that's easy" button to defend sieges.

I welcome the changes (even though we are probably the alliance most affected by it).

Indeed, to re-organisate a whole alliance, that's quite a story and a challenge. 
But when you will be a regional alliance (well H? is already half regional), you will see you will not know what to do with your cavalry, other than threatening inexistant sailly forths or suiciding them with bad killing ratios and recovery times on mountains/forests. Cavalry should get useful for something else.
Yes, that's my main point, sorry ^^'.

You may use infantry to break sieges, but with new times the problem is the same than for cavalry: due to weapon furnitures difficulties (2 swords + 1 chain while they are produced by the same building), you wont be able to put as many sov for racial Inf units than for racial spears/ranged units. So in terms of recovery, Inf is also disavantaged compared to spears/ranged on mountains/forests.
And as attack power means defense ability, and defense power means offense ability, offensive gameplay is favored further and it's hard to defend against a siege, even if you are a territorial alliance, and i can't imagine for a non-territorial alliance. 
Well i think i detailled the current problematics enough now. 
 






Edited by opk - 01 Apr 2013 at 00:48
Old Penitent Knight
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 01:08
It looks like the goal was to decrease the effectiveness of cav.   While I didn't expect them to do it in this manner I like the change even though it doesn't necessarily help my account out.  

Although i'm curious as to their reasoning, there were many other suggestions to decrease the effectiveness of cav.  Why did the devs decide this route not suggested anywhere as opposed to any of the other ones?
Back to Top
GM Luna View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar
Community Manager

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Location: Illyriad
Status: Offline
Points: 2042
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 01:21
Originally posted by DeathDealer89 DeathDealer89 wrote:

 Why did the devs decide this route not suggested anywhere as opposed to any of the other ones?

It's a bit hidden in the first post, but the dev blog about the update goes into a lot of detail behind the thought process of the change.


GM Luna
GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk

Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 01:24
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I guess if they can't manage to release any new content or even have a tournament in the past six months or so, we should be glad they took 20 minutes to tweak a couple of numbers in the production time data array so it gives us all something else to fight over and talk about.

The phrase "fiddling while Rome burns" comes to mind.
 LOLLOLLOL
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 01:28
Well, It will be fun and interesting to see how these changes impact our tactics and strategies.
Back to Top
Beecks View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 194
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 01:33
I'm happy about the changes. It certainly is making me rethink the way I have my cities setup and I'm glad this is coming as the current war is ending so that players have an opportunity to make changes during the upcoming 'rebuilding' period.

I don't suppose there's any chance for a race change option? Make it cost 200+ prestige maybe?
Back to Top
JimJams View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2013 at 01:44
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

faster build times do not make spears stronger.  Nor does it allow a city to support a larger spear army.  It only allows replacement of losses quicker.  This is only important in sustained wars and offers the defender an opportunity to erode the attacker's cav armies over time through attrition.  Frankly, spears were pretty good at that already.  But cav will still dominate the battlefield in any single battle.

Agree, but remember, cav is for defense, spears (and bows) are for offence. You use defensive units to siege and offensive to defend against siege. So this change in a way make long war like we just had, better for the offensive side of the game...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 11>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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