MAJOR RELEASE 22APR12

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

Yep good analysis Salarius - it is nice to see someone else thinking in terms of 'unit upkeep' rather than raw 'unit numbers'... you analysis does fail to account for any kind of production time analysis though which is the key factor that really seriously hampers Orcs/Spear based armies.

The main point about considering production times is this - advanced resources can be stockpiled for times of war... production time cannot - so while other races can retrain and sustain large armies during times of war using supplies built up in times of peace... spear units and other T1/low-upkeep units cannot. Once an Orc spear army is destroyed it isn't gonna be reappearing for a LONG time in an equivalent upkeep-based strength capacity.

Also I think your references to the benefits of scrawny wolves are sheer folly.... even the most fastidious quester in the game would be utterly unable to amass a significant number of these units to make any kind of difference to the general status-quo for an Orc.

Edited by Createure - 24 May 2012 at 14:17

Author	Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Createure Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 07 Apr 2010 Location: uk Status: Offline Points: 1191	Posted: 24 May 2012 at 08:24
	Yep good analysis Salarius - it is nice to see someone else thinking in terms of 'unit upkeep' rather than raw 'unit numbers'... you analysis does fail to account for any kind of production time analysis though which is the key factor that really seriously hampers Orcs/Spear based armies. The main point about considering production times is this - advanced resources can be stockpiled for times of war... production time cannot - so while other races can retrain and sustain large armies during times of war using supplies built up in times of peace... spear units and other T1/low-upkeep units cannot. Once an Orc spear army is destroyed it isn't gonna be reappearing for a LONG time in an equivalent upkeep-based strength capacity. Also I think your references to the benefits of scrawny wolves are sheer folly.... even the most fastidious quester in the game would be utterly unable to amass a significant number of these units to make any kind of difference to the general status-quo for an Orc. Edited by Createure - 24 May 2012 at 14:17

Ander Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1269	Posted: 24 May 2012 at 05:19
	wow nice insight Salararius!

Salararius Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster Joined: 26 Sep 2011 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 519	Posted: 24 May 2012 at 02:04
	Yes, most definitely those numbers are accurate but let's look at them not point by point but in comparison. Orc T2 spear have a 10% defensive [vs cav] advantage over elven T2 spear and 14% defensive [vs cav] advantage over humans and dwarven T2 spear. For comparison, the human T2 cav enjoys a 10% attack advantage over elven and orc T2 cav; and a 14% attack advantage only over dwarven T2 cav. The attack advantage of having human T2 cav is slightly worse than the defense advantage of having Orc T2 spear. Tactically, you still have to decide how to use those advantages but numerically the Orc defensive advantage is greater than the human cav attack advantage when compared to other races. Another way to look at this is in relation to an attack force. A human T2 cav (the best cav) has an upkeep scaled attack value of 16.3 and Orc, T2 spear has an upkeep scaled def [vs cav] value of 16.5. That means gold piece for gold piece the orc army would beat the attacking human cav (the best T2 cav there is). Factor in city walls and/or some terrain benefits (spear enjoy a 5-55% advantage on any terrain but plains) and the Orc T2 spear will utterly cream the human T2 cav (again, upkeep gold piece for upkeep gold piece) basically anywhere but on plains. Lots of people are fielding giant T2 cav armies... On plains the humans would have a significant advantage, but only because of the +45% terrain bonus when attacking spear on plains. Simply put, the orcs are the hands down defacto best defenders vs. cav and would seriously blunt any attack vs non-plain targets and when behind city walls would do well defending even plains based targets. If you play defensively and fear short notice attacks from T2 cav then the orc is your choice. Slower attacks allow more time for reinforcements and are not as great a threat if your cities (or allies cities) properly support one another. If slower (non-cav) attacks are your concern (ie. sword attacks) that's a different discussion and other races/terrains will be best. In the tournament when rushing (if you aren't hurrying, there are much better defenders) to a square to defend it vs. attack then the scrawny wolf would have been the best defender against any attack. Rather than examine all attacks let's just look at cav attacks. The scrawny wolf would fall at a 1.9:1 ratio and any other cav would fall at a 2.4:1 ratio (to human T2 cav, better ratios against other races cav). Again, I did this on armies with equal gold upkeep values, not unit numbers. Still crappy odds, but better than any other fast choice to get there and defend. It's a strategic choice but if you are looking for fast response units to defend a space the scrawny wolf has a whopping 28% defensive [vs cav] advantage over any other races fast cav units. You would have to choose to use them this way and the strategic advantage is very debatable but if you choose this strategy then scrawny wolf's do it best. Just my opinion...

dspn23 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 02 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 213	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 22:47
	the reason i didn't mentioned that as a advantage was because i think it's not very relevant... this is comparing with other races: ORCS 33 HUMANS 29 ELFS 30 DWARVES 29 at maximum is a difrence of 2def vs cav p/h which i don't think it's a significant advantage... as for scrawny wolfs... well what can i say... i have 7 city's and in total i have 4 of them. i can't even think in making a army of those... they where quite helpfull untill the update in wich casualities are no longer rounded down. for now on they are just to rare for they're power... not to mention 0 carring capacity

Salararius Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster Joined: 26 Sep 2011 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 519	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 22:16
	On a gold upkeep cost per defense point basis the Orc Clan Guardsman has the best defense (vs. Cavalry) of any unit in the game. Divide the defense value (vs. cav in this case) of the Clan Guardsman by the gold upkeep and that number (16.5) is higher than the number for anyone (even the vaunted elven archer which is 12 vs. bows and spears and bows and spears are not likely attack units). Orcs are by far the best at blunting the attack advantage of T2 cav. The scrawny wolf has the best defense vs. Cav of any cav unit. Thus, if you are rushing to a distant square (tournament square) to defend against cav attacks the scrawny wolf is your best unit (of any races cav units). I'm not saying orcs are better than anyone, but they do have advantages in certain situations.

dspn23 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 02 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 213	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 21:53
	i shall start by mentioning i am a orc. at first mounths was fine and i had no problems but when i started to pompare... i imedietly got a alt.... if i where to mention advantages/disadvantages i would pick: ORCS: -> saboteurs -> thiefs capacity -> spear units (wich are very good if you want to have cheap units (around 200Gold each) -< in general week units -< in general slow units -< THERE IS A BIG DISCRIMINATION. i think the discrimination to the orcs might not be noticiable some times but it is quite bad... (i am not talking about players discrimination despite some times it exists) the reason i mention this is more due to factions. if you look at factions they usualy discriminate orcs wich for now is not big problem but will certainly be very bad in future -< no big advantage over other races -< no preferable terrain to setle ELVES: -> the fastest military unit -> the fastest thiefs -> having the best bow units (which are very versatile and can be used both attack and defence) -> 5% bonus in magic (right now it's not a big andicap but i'm quite shure in future will be...) -> T1 bow units have a very good relation attack/cost and deefnce/cost -> in general fast units -> a elf city settled in a mountain is a very well defended city... -< they do have some disadvantages... however i can't remember of any, will edit this post later on HUMANS: - i don't think i should be talking about them as i don't have a human account. however i can apoint as advantage they have the strongest unit (T2 cavalary with 66 attack if not mistaken wich makes a very good comander). however they also have the most expensive T2 cavalary DWARVES: - same as humans. however i find more advantages for them: i belive the best troops in game regardless of races are bows and infantary so would be expected me to talk very good about they're military power. they have good infantary, they have the best unit/gold to protect themselfs from thiefs. and they have some advantage in siege engines. i can't expecify much more as i don't know them very well... hora i truely like you're idea :D i belive that orcs humans and dwarves need a buff. i was more thinking in other ways. however the reduce of time to make them is surely a awesome and related idea :D much better than things like more vans capacity or units general capacity. as for dwarves i think devs don't want to change they're wall status but i also think it is a good idea :D not shure if very usefull... but is certainly related. maybe faster ships would later on be a god add for them... still don't know... as for humans i don't thik everyone agree with me... i belive most people think they are already very powerfull... so i don't know about they getting a buff would be a good idea... Edited by dspn23 - 23 May 2012 at 22:04

Hora Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 19:52
	And as I'm sure the GMs are reading this thread, too.... Are there any advantages for orcs except those given in the post above, that we miss to list? As I'm sure there has been many thoughts on balancing the races, isn't there some sort of ultimate concept list of advantages/disadvantages of the races? That could make all our arguments null and void ... thus checking back if we miss some important points would give us firmer ground here

Hora Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 19:41
	I'm not too unhappy with playing dwarf, but that's only because I'm not playing too ambiciously in having the strongest army. The siege engines really are fine, but don't get used very often, and I like my infantry, but there definitally is an advantage for humans when it comes to attack. Dwarfen thiefs are great, too, but (despite of Rills experiances) they only seem to get used by smaller players offensivelly, later on they are just for defending against those weak attempts. In war they didn't have much impact - hopefully this is changing with the new diplo rules (not the diplo contingent, but the diplo vs. diplo rules) I don't know any details for orc players, but there really seems to be a reason for their small numbers. Only things I hear are their strong spear units, but I also hear many quotes, that those aren't so much better than the rest, and definitally don't give any bonus for a warmongering style of play... Sabs don't have any big use at the moment, so perhaps using those against sieges really would give some militarilly advantage to the orcs (as stated some posts above) ..So, to my understanding of all those mechanics (and that obviously isn't too great, with many numbers unknown...), I think giving orcs some (BIG) rounding down to unit production times (both diplo and military), and dwarfes some (small) bonus in city walls would do some balancing without doing too much damage/altering to the rest of all those complex mechanisms behind this game. And the race descriptions then would fit again, too (and yes, the "big" bonus for elfes in magic range is somewhat irrelevant in everyday playing, too. But as some changes in magic seem to be about to come soon(TM), changing this wouldn't be top priority)

Createure Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 07 Apr 2010 Location: uk Status: Offline Points: 1191	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 19:04
	Indeed... the only difference between elf magics and everyone else is a 5% bonus to max spell range. Regardless of anyone's viewpoint of the in-game balance between races... I think nobody will deny that the descriptions are all utterly misleading to any new player looking to pick a race.

Ander Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1269	Posted: 23 May 2012 at 18:40
	I find humans and orcs playable. Dwarves has some serious disadvantages when pinned against elves. Even for breaking camps set in buildings or forests, cavalry does better than stalwarts if the camp is comprised of archers. (archers have 33 defense against infantry while only 20 defense against cavalry - that is a 65% difference). And if the camp is comprised of pikemen, trueshots will still be a lot more effective than stalwarts. For instance T1 pikemen has a defense of 4 against archers and 11 against infantry - they are 2.75 times stronger against infantry than against archers. The dwarven pony is the weakest as well as the slowest cavalry in the game, so they are anyways better off making stalwarts.