| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Wuzzel 
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 605
|
 Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 15:33 |
|
You have to mention it was a small camp HM.
|
|
|
 |
MrPhobos
New Poster
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 11
|
Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 15:53 |
|
46 commanders mean nothing if you sent 3 commanders with 50 troops ^^
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 20:40 |
Wuzzel, the amount of power (meaning army strength, not siege weapons) we destroyed at MalMal's siege is about the same as the amount remaining at Diablito's siege, which is currently the strongest it has ever been. I haven't crunched the numbers, but the amount of our power you destroyed at our siege is somewhere around half to two-thirds that, and our losses were all inflicted while we were around three quarters our current strength. We (I) also spent over a quarter of that amount clearing the city prior to our siege. I could point out some of the mistakes White made, but I'm rather hoping White makes them again. 
|
|
Wuzzel
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 605
|
Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 01:01 |
|
We used your tool to calculate the numbers.
Our strenght was way below yours.
Everybody makes mistakes.
Its human.
|
|
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 02:56 |
|
Your siege started at about 200k points (according to our earliest scout report) and received another 250k points over
the course of its execution (somewhere around 50k of which arrived before our first counterattack), but never reached more than about 250k at
any one time. Nevertheless the total commitment was 450k.
Our siege started at around 350k points (I think that's where we were before the first counterattack) and fluctuated between 300 and 450,
where it sits now. I don't have the most careful accounting of our losses, but I would estimate them around 150k, putting our total commitment at 600k.
I wouldn't consider this a huge difference considering we both had more firepower to spend on the first siege.
Edited by HonoredMule - 02 Jun 2010 at 03:00
|
|
Wuzzel
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 605
|
Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 03:13 |
|
As you said, we had around 250k points at a square at a time but no more 250k.
You had 350k and it went to 450k at a time on a square.
I am talking about strenght at a time, not the commitment.
For example i could have 1000k points as commitments, but it doesnt help if its only 1 point at a time (1000 armies of 1 point).
It will get defeated everytime by someone way smaller.
Do you get my point?
And are those points attack or defense points again?
I guess defense, just want to be sure.
You also forget the commanders levels you were gaining rapidly.
And you had way better commanders in the sieging army at all times.
Also the square you were on gave better defense bonusses more then the
one we were on.
Just saying.
You won, and we lost this battle thats the truth.
|
|
|
|
Larry
Wordsmith
Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 12:50 |
|
And more to the point: The reason we didn't have as significant force to defend the siege on malmal was because we had been smashing all our troops on Diablito's siege for a bit which, because of the bonuses of massive stacks vs armies gave a definite loss ratio to us.
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 16:41 |
|
I do get your point, Wuzzel. My point was that the difference was greater in execution (focused use of power, choice of region and tile type) than total power available to deliver.
The "single number score" I use most is the overall score, which is total attack plus total (per-unit-type average) defense plus total upkeep.
I'm sure we both gained a lot of commander experience in the sieges, but I don't think it was a major factor. We gained experience first in defense, but then most of it stayed tied in our defense while we sent (mostly) less leveled commanders against your defense.
Of course being victorious wasn't about us being perfect either. Harmless leadership had the benefit of past experience with a web-based strategy game--Eve for the most part doesn't really count, as it doesn't rely on the same kind of coordination. Yet we learned a few things in this encounter as well.
Edited by HonoredMule - 02 Jun 2010 at 16:42
|
|
CranK
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Location: Holland
Status: Offline
Points: 286
|
Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 16:49 |
 HonoredMule wrote:
Yet we learned a few things in this encounter as well.
|
On both sides
|
|
Wuzzel
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 605
|
Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 17:06 |
|
This is my first web based strategy game that i tried.
Never played IK / Travian / Evony etc.
As you know i am an EvE player too, and you are right about the coordination part.
And this game got my attention through EvE contacts.
|
|
|
|
Tweet
Update 29 MAY