Dwarf/Orc unit competition - Dwarves strike back

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   In what may be a historical first Halbardier costs have dropped under Kobold costs, becoming the cheapest spear unit. I have often heard Halbs referred to as the second best spears with good stats and the very cheap plate armour instead of leather. It may be a passing quirk, but at current market prices they could even be spoken of as a candidate for the best spear unit.
Price per upkeep:
Clan Guardsmen - 1075g
Kobolds - 750g
Halbardiers - 650g

Using a 50/30/20 weighting of cav, inf and bow defence Kobolds have 11.2 defence per upkeep while Halbs have 11.1. At 13% cheaper to train that upkeep bill never comes due unless you fight a more infantry heavy mix. Kobolds do have their 22% training rate advantage with the same weighting, based on the BazoonTown retraining ratios vs Knights, Stals and Sentinels.

Meanwhile the Halbs are a wicked 40% cheaper than Guardsmen, giving Dwarves a very cheap T2 spear unit that can make effective use of crafted gear. This is an interesting contrast with the classic Fang - Stalwart rivalry, with Fangs 25% cheaper but with an upkeep burn that brings a continuously trained army to even cost in less than three months, enabling long term Dwarven infantry to hold over a third more attack power.

Guardsmen do have a trick up their sleeve, with 8% better stats applied to an average affordable crafted weapon of 7500g making them effectively 600g more valuable. But you can follow that road down the infantry comparison as well. 

Only the near peer training rate of the Fang saves a toss-up at the moment. With this market, I'm calling it for Dwarves.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Smopecakes Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 14 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 335	Post Options Post Reply Quote Smopecakes Report Post Thanks(2) Quote Reply Topic: Dwarf/Orc unit competition - Dwarves strike back Posted: 04 Nov 2025 at 04:52
	In what may be a historical first Halbardier costs have dropped under Kobold costs, becoming the cheapest spear unit. I have often heard Halbs referred to as the second best spears with good stats and the very cheap plate armour instead of leather. It may be a passing quirk, but at current market prices they could even be spoken of as a candidate for the best spear unit. Price per upkeep: Clan Guardsmen - 1075g Kobolds - 750g Halbardiers - 650g Using a 50/30/20 weighting of cav, inf and bow defence Kobolds have 11.2 defence per upkeep while Halbs have 11.1. At 13% cheaper to train that upkeep bill never comes due unless you fight a more infantry heavy mix. Kobolds do have their 22% training rate advantage with the same weighting, based on the BazoonTown retraining ratios vs Knights, Stals and Sentinels. Meanwhile the Halbs are a wicked 40% cheaper than Guardsmen, giving Dwarves a very cheap T2 spear unit that can make effective use of crafted gear. This is an interesting contrast with the classic Fang - Stalwart rivalry, with Fangs 25% cheaper but with an upkeep burn that brings a continuously trained army to even cost in less than three months, enabling long term Dwarven infantry to hold over a third more attack power. Guardsmen do have a trick up their sleeve, with 8% better stats applied to an average affordable crafted weapon of 7500g making them effectively 600g more valuable. But you can follow that road down the infantry comparison as well. Only the near peer training rate of the Fang saves a toss-up at the moment. With this market, I'm calling it for Dwarves.

Smopecakes Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 14 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 335	Post Options Post Reply Quote Smopecakes Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 Nov 2025 at 04:55


OMarbleheart Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List New Poster Joined: 19 Jul 2025 Location: Far Far Away Status: Offline Points: 14	Post Options Post Reply Quote OMarbleheart Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 04 Nov 2025 at 23:13
	Very interesting to see Halbs getting value by the fact that the Market is cooked at moment. I always felt that Halbs were decent defensive units, it just takes a long time to build up a proper army with their base recruitment time. Using plate and not using beer is nice, it does help a ton.

Smopecakes Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 14 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 335	Post Options Post Reply Quote Smopecakes Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jan 2026 at 22:58
	With the Halbardier the undisputed spear challenger to Orc supremacy it adds fuel to the fire of the long festering question - does the Fang challenge the Dwarf infantry? First the non challengers. Fists train attack somewhat as fast but have both less attack and speed than Stalwarts. 6 speed is rough. Man-at-Arms now have credible speed, but less attack and slower training rate. They’re not quite conversation pieces. That leaves the Fang, often considered the most underrated troop. And a surprise challenger we’ll see at the end? For attacking forces it’s just not as close as you think. Fangs come close with about a 14% slower attack training rate than Stalwarts, and 12% faster than Axemen. But training rate seems to be considered the third place value behind speed and attack per upkeep - and certainly behind speed where they’re again 14% slower than Stalwarts. This leaves upfront cost as the saving grace of the Fang - except that it doesn’t. While it’s nominally cheaper, it is actually more expensive than a Stalwart per attack point due to its abysmal 36% lower attack per upkeep. And that means as soon as you build a Stalwart and the 2.04 Fangs needed to hit as hard you start paying that 36% upkeep cost. Does it matter? Lets use a fairly fast churn rate of 3 months, blowing out your armies every tournament. The Stalwart costs 2430g at current Centrum prices. The Fangs cost 2550g. With one infantry quarter the Stal costs 2.1g/hr and the Fangs 2.86g/hr. On average the troops will live 1.5 months so their costs are: Stalwart 4700g vs Fangs 5640g

Smopecakes Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 14 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 335	Post Options Post Reply Quote Smopecakes Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jan 2026 at 23:00
	This is our biggest difference so far with a 20% price premium on the Fang even with a pretty fast churn. It’s not that far off from the long term 36% cost difference as the upfront cost gets buried in the upkeep. If you are holding Stalwart attack forces as a Dwarf you are holding almost 40% more power than the nearest competitor. And are Axemen even better? For a standing army the training rate fades while the Axe holds 32% more attack power with a radical 70% speed advantage. They are all terrain heavy cavalry, the undisputed infantry kings of standing armies. You might be wondering why this is an actual debate at this point, but it is. Because Fangs train defence so fast they compete with the best defensive troops. Again, their defence per upkeep is rough, but defending a siege in a war is often more planned than attacking one, so the ability to train and retrain faster starts to matter more. Is the Fang’s upkeep really a problem if the churn rate blasts upwards during an active war, with the ability to use them up offensively and defensively? This is why the debate exists. But there is one more wrinkle. The glorious short sword. If producing a short sword displaces 4 regular ones and the fur is 3000g it costs 5200g. At 60% on regular units it’s immediately worth 1400g on a Stalwart. On the T1 Fang with 22 attack it’s worth less than half in upfront value and upkeep value. After 125 days the sword has come to neutral value on a Stalwart, if you’re a forest dwarf. It comes even in more like 300 days if you assume half value due to having on average two terrains in your alliance. This is a fairly long wait, but maybe not that long in Illyriad. After that you hold twice as much power.

Smopecakes Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 14 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 335	Post Options Post Reply Quote Smopecakes Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jan 2026 at 23:03


Smopecakes Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 14 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 335	Post Options Post Reply Quote Smopecakes Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 09 Jan 2026 at 20:56
	The challenger. Are Wardancers a thing now? Axemen have a spectacular advantage over Fangs. Due to the area effect of speed, "70% faster" is a huge understatement. In a given time Axes cover 3x more area than Fangs. What that means is up to 3x more Axemen can arrive at your town in time to attack the siege on your doorstep. If your alliance is unclustered and large this is basically a clean knockout. It also affects costs, because troops you buy that don't make it to the party have an infinite price to value ratio. This is where Wardancers come out of the woodwork. They don't have much less attack than Men-at-Arms and their training rate is only 10% less. They got a huge speed boost to 13, dethroning Axemen as the fastest infantry at 12. It looks like they are the dark horse to join the ranks of the top tier infantry, or at least hang on to their coattails. Cost wise they have the same 36% lower atk/upk vs Stals as Fangs do. At the every tourney churn rate comparison this puts them at almost 40% more expensive than Stals with a high upfront cost per attack on top. That's pretty rough, and with their low training rate they are clearly only really competing for standing army. They only have 8% slower training than Axemen and cover 17% more area per time. Axes still win for power on hand because the somewhat fewer Axes hit 32% harder for a moderate 13% advantage. This allows Wardancers to now join Fangs as the only infantry that aren't totally outclassed on two of three main attributes vs Dwarves. Without much dual purpose defensive flexibility, they are fully outclassed on cost. 1.14 Axemen costing 1995g hit as hard as a Wardancer costing 2500g. Let's give them a six month turnover since they are standing armies. The Wardancers cost 30% more than the Axes. Meanwhile the Axes produce inf defence 30% faster and have a 30% higher inf defence per upkeep. Fangs aren't the only dual use infantry. Maybe Wardancers can compete with Stals as standing armies, with at least plausible use of the short sword for a forest meta. And what about their racial sword having a forest bonus? Well, at 2500g per 6% sword, they are like a 25,000g short sword. So no. Can the Wardancer compete with the Stal for standing infantry armies for non-clustered alliances? They do come out to 2x more power on hand after taking the area effect and attack per upkeep together. There is a case. But do they beat cavalry? Knights have 48% more attack per upkeep. The net attack bonus for infantry on large forest is 45%. On a large mountain it's 45%. So there you have it. Wardancers are just slow cav and really nothing more. Cost doesn't save them. Including the average terrain bonus it takes close to two Wardancers to match a Knight, at a cost of 6000g - the Knight costs 3850g. It turns out that the final answer is that cavalry are the dark horse candidate for the best standing infantry army.