raid vs attack, when to use
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: Strategies, Tips & Tricks
Forum Description: Player created guides and advice.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=4439
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 12:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: raid vs attack, when to use
Posted By: twilights
Subject: raid vs attack, when to use
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 14:48
| like to start a discussion on when to use raid and when to use attack, my thought is that raid should be used by smaller accounts to maintain troops within the attacking castle, troop production is usually slower due to barracks size and less developed sov areas....lets give ideas and advice so they smaller player can take part in this awesome wars going on! |
Replies:
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 17:11
| People can go on about raids until the sun comes down, but the fact remains that a raid can never defeat an enemy. A raid is basically an attack with half the forces. If you want to attack with half your forces, why not send half your forces in an attack? That's doubly good because that way, you have left troops in reserve to defend yourself. Raids are, IMO, pointless, small account or not. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 17:45
| any idea how the defending commander is effected in raid compared to attack?, if commander is high in hero does he take more damage over several confrontations? |
Posted By: Loud Whispers
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 18:06
Except where you want to keep troops/commanders alive. For example tourney squares and NPC legions.
|
Nokigon wrote:Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 19:41
|
Raids could be used when you don't have enough armies to defeat reinforcing armies in a city but wish to deplete their resources anyway. (For example, in combination with blockades, blights, unwelcome Gift of Earth, etc., in order to encourage city de-leveling during siege.) You will lose commander(s) and a bunch of troops, but if you have say 10k cav and they have 40k defenders with a level 20 wall, you could still clean out a small city of basic resources even though you could not win the battle. (Or imagine a larger city in a scenario in which you have 100k cav and they have 400k defenders.) If one raid wouldn't do it, raids could be repeated, or raids could come in from multiple small players. (If a training alliance wants to experiment with this tactic, I volunteer one of Ryelle's cities.) Still having an army left and yet having deprived the other side of resources may have tactical benefits in some situations. Whether doing this is advisable or harebrained, I leave to people who are actually fighting a war. |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 20:48
|
Raid is 1/3 of attacking forces vs. 1/3 of defending forces. The primary purpose of the Raid is to steal resources from a city but it will also kill gathers under the defeated defending armies. Cmdrs take full damage even tho only 1/3 of forces engage in combat. If a Raid is successful, it means that the Defender will likely lose most/all Cmdrs - leaving armies at 2/3 original strength but without Cmdrs to buff them. A Cdmr in charge of a Raid should have Max Defy Death, Vitality, and Accelerated Healing to improve chances of surviving the mission and returning on a follow-up Raid mission quickly. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 22:41
| so it sounds like this is a way to kill a weaken commander of a large force, a way to kill a commander that has come back from winning an attack on allies or someone else..might be a way a newer play can help in war, have several stack up and kill a high level commander.....and still have troops left to defend themselves...also a way to ruin siege castles armies so they not able to attack blockade armies....or am i being completely blond? |