Already a member?
Sign in
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 15 2007, 8:51 PM EST (current) | meviin | 946 words added, 1 photo added |
| Dec 15 2007, 8:50 PM EST | meviin |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
guide by Big Al from Oz at http://warbookforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=438.0
I write a lot of essays, and one nice thing about essays is,
I know when I've finished. I've made my point.
But when is enough, when it comes to defense in WarBook?
Let me tell you a secret.
Everyone has a defense score, lets call it D.
And we all have an acreage, lets call it A.
Our Defense Per Acre (DPA) is D divided by A.
Imagine splitting your troops evenly over each acre.
Now here's the secret.
What Attack Per Acre (APA) is needed to defeat a mediocre DPA of say 60?
Well, you'd be quite right if you said 61.
There are random and hidden factors in the game, but you're close enough.
So, what's the secret?
Well, 61 would be needed, if players could only attack other players their own size.
However, what happens if the defender has D defense and A acres,
and the attacker has twice as many acres (2A)?
Now the attacker only needs army score S+1 at 2A acres to defeat S at A acres.
Without being picky about details, an APA half the DPA of the smaller kingdom, can win.
Using the DPA 60 example, kingdoms with APA 30 at double the size can win,
kingdoms with APA 20 at triple the size can win (all classes can easily get APA 20).
An extreme, but real life, example is my own Visionary,
whose regular diet is Turtle Moguls with DPAs of 100+.
They always, it seems, have full Forts and are chock full of elites.
I have very weak elites in attack, they only give an APA of about 25,
I need to buy in mercenaries to reach the 33% needed to eat the Moguls.
I have to save up some money to do it.
But other classes can easily hit DPAs over 100, with troops in reserve,
and at smaller ranges than the 3 to 1 acreage advantage Visionaries need.
The game is nicely designed so that no one is totally safe
(even the Automator class are vulnerable to other Automaters).
So, how much is enough when it comes to DPA?
The answer is, even putting all you've got into defense
will still never be enough to stop you getting hit.
The aim is not locking out hits, but minimizing them.
On the other hand, how much APA do you need? Surprizingly little.
An APA of 25 can defeat DPAs of 75 among kingdoms three times smaller.
But here's the trick, acreage gains are lower,
the bigger the difference between kingdom sizes.
The larger the kindoms you conquer, the more land you will gain.
Unless you are a Visionary forced to do it, you don't actually want to "bottom feed".
You will grow faster (with fewer hits and hence fewer casualties) attacking larger kingdoms.
A larger DPA will reduce your losses by meaning the kingdoms that attack you are larger,
hence take smaller amounts off you. However, a larger APA will mean you attack larger kingdoms,
and get greater returns for it.
That's the "swings and roundabouts" of WarBook.
In some ways, it doesn't really matter whether you have high APA and low DPA,
just so long as you attack large enough kingdoms with your high APA,
to make up for your lower DPA.
It is efficiency, not DPA or APA, that is the key.
For example, if you occupy land with less than a full army,
you are reducing both your APA and DPA.
A strong army at 50k acres, that wins 10k acres, but only replaces losses,
is now roughly 20% weaker, in both attack and defense.
You will not perform as efficiently and will lose ground,
maybe falling back close to 50k.
Other examples of efficiency come from use of buildings.
A Mogul using full Amplifiers will not operate as well as one who doesn't.
He needs to think how much money and land he's getting from the Amplifiers,
and how much money he's losing from them. (Answer zero gain - big loss.)
This probably explains why I don't capture Amplifiers when eating Moguls.
What is more controversial is the place of Forts and Training Grounds.
Effectively, what these buildings allow you to do is give up income
to beef up either defense or attack.
Buying Training Grounds is great for gaining income by hitting higher sized kingdoms,
Forts are great for increasing the size of your attackers, hence reducing losses.
However, income is more flexible than both.
It is more efficient to work with the strengths and weaknesses of your class,
rather than to pay to compensate for them with buildings.
If you want a different ratio of attack to defense,
you should probably try playing a different hero class,
not change your mind by using the combat mod buildings.
Well, that's it, that's the secret. DPA only minimizes losses, it doesn't stop them.
Also, there's a trade-off, so that your reduced attack power will mean slower growth.
I understand the defense heavy option, I'm a Visionary,
I'd love to have more attack options.
But even with Forts you'll not outdo our defense,
why surrender that income when you can be using it to grow more quickly.
Players lose far more land from not attacking, from attacking lower acreages than they need to,
and from multiply attacking targets when resources are low than they do from enemies!
It's just we never see the land that we otherwise could have had,
so we get angry with those who attack us and retaliate against them,
rather than make maximum, efficient progress, ultimately leaving others far behind.
That's the best retaliation, out growing our opponents.
I write a lot of essays, and one nice thing about essays is,
I know when I've finished. I've made my point.
But when is enough, when it comes to defense in WarBook?
Let me tell you a secret.
Everyone has a defense score, lets call it D.
And we all have an acreage, lets call it A.
Our Defense Per Acre (DPA) is D divided by A.
Imagine splitting your troops evenly over each acre.
Now here's the secret.
What Attack Per Acre (APA) is needed to defeat a mediocre DPA of say 60?
Well, you'd be quite right if you said 61.
There are random and hidden factors in the game, but you're close enough.
So, what's the secret?
Well, 61 would be needed, if players could only attack other players their own size.
However, what happens if the defender has D defense and A acres,
and the attacker has twice as many acres (2A)?
Now the attacker only needs army score S+1 at 2A acres to defeat S at A acres.
Without being picky about details, an APA half the DPA of the smaller kingdom, can win.
Using the DPA 60 example, kingdoms with APA 30 at double the size can win,
kingdoms with APA 20 at triple the size can win (all classes can easily get APA 20).
An extreme, but real life, example is my own Visionary,
whose regular diet is Turtle Moguls with DPAs of 100+.
They always, it seems, have full Forts and are chock full of elites.
I have very weak elites in attack, they only give an APA of about 25,
I need to buy in mercenaries to reach the 33% needed to eat the Moguls.
I have to save up some money to do it.
But other classes can easily hit DPAs over 100, with troops in reserve,
and at smaller ranges than the 3 to 1 acreage advantage Visionaries need.
The game is nicely designed so that no one is totally safe
(even the Automator class are vulnerable to other Automaters).
So, how much is enough when it comes to DPA?
The answer is, even putting all you've got into defense
will still never be enough to stop you getting hit.
The aim is not locking out hits, but minimizing them.
On the other hand, how much APA do you need? Surprizingly little.
An APA of 25 can defeat DPAs of 75 among kingdoms three times smaller.
But here's the trick, acreage gains are lower,
the bigger the difference between kingdom sizes.
The larger the kindoms you conquer, the more land you will gain.
Unless you are a Visionary forced to do it, you don't actually want to "bottom feed".
You will grow faster (with fewer hits and hence fewer casualties) attacking larger kingdoms.
A larger DPA will reduce your losses by meaning the kingdoms that attack you are larger,
hence take smaller amounts off you. However, a larger APA will mean you attack larger kingdoms,
and get greater returns for it.
That's the "swings and roundabouts" of WarBook.
In some ways, it doesn't really matter whether you have high APA and low DPA,
just so long as you attack large enough kingdoms with your high APA,
to make up for your lower DPA.
It is efficiency, not DPA or APA, that is the key.
For example, if you occupy land with less than a full army,
you are reducing both your APA and DPA.
A strong army at 50k acres, that wins 10k acres, but only replaces losses,
is now roughly 20% weaker, in both attack and defense.
You will not perform as efficiently and will lose ground,
maybe falling back close to 50k.
Other examples of efficiency come from use of buildings.
A Mogul using full Amplifiers will not operate as well as one who doesn't.
He needs to think how much money and land he's getting from the Amplifiers,
and how much money he's losing from them. (Answer zero gain - big loss.)
This probably explains why I don't capture Amplifiers when eating Moguls.
What is more controversial is the place of Forts and Training Grounds.
Effectively, what these buildings allow you to do is give up income
to beef up either defense or attack.
Buying Training Grounds is great for gaining income by hitting higher sized kingdoms,
Forts are great for increasing the size of your attackers, hence reducing losses.
However, income is more flexible than both.
It is more efficient to work with the strengths and weaknesses of your class,
rather than to pay to compensate for them with buildings.
If you want a different ratio of attack to defense,
you should probably try playing a different hero class,
not change your mind by using the combat mod buildings.
Well, that's it, that's the secret. DPA only minimizes losses, it doesn't stop them.
Also, there's a trade-off, so that your reduced attack power will mean slower growth.
I understand the defense heavy option, I'm a Visionary,
I'd love to have more attack options.
But even with Forts you'll not outdo our defense,
why surrender that income when you can be using it to grow more quickly.
Players lose far more land from not attacking, from attacking lower acreages than they need to,
and from multiply attacking targets when resources are low than they do from enemies!
It's just we never see the land that we otherwise could have had,
so we get angry with those who attack us and retaliate against them,
rather than make maximum, efficient progress, ultimately leaving others far behind.
That's the best retaliation, out growing our opponents.
