Debate: Nobling active player villages against Barb Nobling.

[DeletedUser]

This has to be a big topic as in any form of competition we have those who favour attack or defence as the best way to play the game.

It also cant be just in UK7 that the debate rages as I have seen it in other UK worlds.

Preference is a key point to how a player will go about the game. Some will Point Whore and grow their buildings in the hope it will impress those around them into not daring to bring down the wrath of the massive player by attacking. Others will Troop Whore and then work from here by either playing a heavy D game or a heavy O game.

Those who play defence only will have little choice but to cluster, stack and barb noble until they outgrow the attacking players who expend resources of troops trying to clear these clusters. Those who play O are will either understand how to force an error or commit an error when clearing a village.

Unfortunately there appears to be no real argument as those who play Defence should win with correct play over those who attack with correct play. It rather ruins the fun of the game sometimes to see complete D everywhere but O can only be successful when allowing D to stretch itself so D must always be challenged and tricked into mistakes.

I play chess and enjoy the occasional lurch into military history and have noted a few things. The first is that in chess the best moves are always development as you are forced to advance along with the game and you may chose to play quicker or slower then your opponent by your developing move order. Often the winning move is a mistake is when a player choses the wrong path and the opponent remorselessly beats them to death with the mistake the move after.

The second is in military doctrine the term force multiplier. Defending (your walls, paladin items ect) will kill more attackers and therefore is easier to sustain as the attacker loses more resources destroying you. As such you have to be in possession of a completely over the top force to clear a defensive player without significant loss. Very unlikely will most players manage this.

I would like to here the views of proponents to both kind of game styles. I am sure that I have made some poor examples for strong points but think this could be a good thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, offense has an extreme advantage usually early on. The same player (because skill levels vary) can't make enough D to outdo the O. If they grow in relative terms using the same strategy, the offense will always clear the defense. Now, what happens is that most players big enough to clear, or even any offensive players is not dumb enough to take the losses needed to clear. They know they will lose a lot, even before stacking. This is where you see turtles slowly grow and make it into the late game where defense takes the advantage.

Most players that barb noble do it because they are unable to clear, new to the game, scared, or just don't want to sir any mess. Most players who are "skilled" seek challenges within the game. You can't really get a challenge nobling something that doesn't fight back. This is where you get the elitist view of barb nobling and why it's bad.

When it comes down to it, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Are you taking our your largest threat? Are your troops low? Are you looking for a bonus pop? I find nobling only players, and nobling only barbs to lack strategy and is fairly stupid when both are purely done.

 

[DeletedUser832]

What are you talking about Dominus? Defense is an instant lose in this game.

To build a cheap defense you use spear and sword which grows about 10x slower than normal offense and doesn't lend itself to FARMING, which is the main skill of the game. Spear/HC requires too much iron unless you have offensive villages to help with the farming. HC's aren't the greatest farmers.

I'd bet most good players have between 25 and 50 percent defense. Since this is a church world, players might be tempted to substitute some defense for a church level or two.

If you wanna win big, you gotta be aggressive and take big villages, not barbs. You gotta do your part as a tribe member, which means building support and lending it out, cause you never know when you'll need the return favor. I'm not sure there is room for alternative views.

 

[DeletedUser]

Spear/HC is totally doable if you farm enough.

 

[DeletedUser5175]

Well I don't play this game to be around in 2 to 3 years trying to win, so for me fun is the most important and it's a lot more fun when your attacking players not barbs

Although in my experience i grow well when i noble active players and it works as an excellent defense as after a short while there are less threats around you and you scare the locals so much the only attacks you do receive tend to be leaving the game suicide attacks

 

[DeletedUser]

A conversation I had the other day.

Me:
question. In your opinion what is the most effective playing strategy. O or D.? ( accepted that some worlds may favour one over the other depending on settings)

Nauzhror:

D
[15/02/2011 04:20:43] Nauzhror: long term absolutely D

Me:

shame as we were all taught in tutor about the greatness of o
[15/02/2011 04:21:33] Hidden Legend (Dominus Aethelread on TW): only now is locutus trying to bring the strength of d into it
[15/02/2011 04:26:58 | Edited 04:27:11] Hidden Legend (Dominus Aethelread on TW): [15 February 2011 04:20] Nauzhror:

<<< D
"long term absolutely D" Quote

Is that because it is more expensive to clear a village unlike just spear nuking?

Nauzhror:

it's because nobling barbs and tribemates is the best way to get rank 1
[15/02/2011 04:28:11] Nauzhror: and you need no offense for either of those
[15/02/2011 04:28:22] Nauzhror: best meaning most effective
[15/02/2011 04:28:26] Nauzhror: not necessarily most fun


Are there perhaps some players opposed because it is not so much fun to play with Turtles?

Noted Nauz has played both O and D recently and been successful with both at start up. Hope he does not mind the quote being here.

 

[DeletedUser5175]

When was the last time nauz played late or even mid game though?

sorry had to be said

and he's right, whether it's better or not as a tactic and im inclined to agree, it's epically boring to barb munch >.<

 

[DeletedUser]

When was the last time nauz played late or even mid game though?

sorry had to be said

and he's right, whether it's better or not as a tactic and im inclined to agree, it's epically boring to barb munch >.<

Not denying it. Everyone knows Nauz world hops but doesnt mean he hasnt seen effective d in late game.

I find attacking D players almost as boring as barb nobling. But that is my personal opinion.

 

[DeletedUser5175]

I find attacking D players almost as boring as barb nobling. But that is my personal opinion.

Surely the challenge is in nobling players though? In the later game you expect a villa to be very heavily defended so you need plenty of well timed nukes and an effective plan to be successful. Defense should be expected when your nobling the skill and so the satisfaction is in out strategising your opponent.

 

[DeletedUser1511]

This has to be a big topic as in any form of competition we have those who favour attack or defence as the best way to play the game.

It also cant be just in UK7 that the debate rages as I have seen it in other UK worlds.

Preference is a key point to how a player will go about the game. Some will Point Whore and grow their buildings in the hope it will impress those around them into not daring to bring down the wrath of the massive player by attacking. Others will Troop Whore and then work from here by either playing a heavy D game or a heavy O game.

Those who play defence only will have little choice but to cluster, stack and barb noble until they outgrow the attacking players who expend resources of troops trying to clear these clusters. Those who play O are will either understand how to force an error or commit an error when clearing a village.

Unfortunately there appears to be no real argument as those who play Defence should win with correct play over those who attack with correct play. It rather ruins the fun of the game sometimes to see complete D everywhere but O can only be successful when allowing D to stretch itself so D must always be challenged and tricked into mistakes.

I play chess and enjoy the occasional lurch into military history and have noted a few things. The first is that in chess the best moves are always development as you are forced to advance along with the game and you may chose to play quicker or slower then your opponent by your developing move order. Often the winning move is a mistake is when a player choses the wrong path and the opponent remorselessly beats them to death with the mistake the move after.

The second is in military doctrine the term force multiplier. Defending (your walls, paladin items ect) will kill more attackers and therefore is easier to sustain as the attacker loses more resources destroying you. As such you have to be in possession of a completely over the top force to clear a defensive player without significant loss. Very unlikely will most players manage this.

I would like to here the views of proponents to both kind of game styles. I am sure that I have made some poor examples for strong points but think this could be a good thread.

Troopwhoring is something done by those who do not know to play the game.
Recruiting troops 24/7 does not mean you are troop whoring. It has always been an arguement presented by noobs who do not know how to play.
Nobling barbs- once again there is nothing wrong with it. Done in excess then sure it is bad, not in terms of that it makes someone a bad players. But merely in that you have to question how sad someones life is, that they get a thrill out of nobling nothing but barbs and supporting tribemates assuming that they do that.
I mean its like people who trying to be pacfists on a war game :icon_neutral:

 

[DeletedUser]

I mean its like people who trying to be pacfists on a war game :icon_neutral:

Yep, there is alot of them on this game :|

Personal Alliance ring a bell?

There is always going to be pro's and con's in nobling just barbs or just active players, it best just to mix, but you have also got to know when to leave a barb or a player not to take over but to farm.

 

[DeletedUser1511]

Yep, there is alot of them on this game :|

Personal Alliance ring a bell?

There is always going to be pro's and con's in nobling just barbs or just active players, it best just to mix, but you have also got to know when to leave a barb or a player not to take over but to farm.

Pros and cons. Anyone who works by the logic of i will "just noble X type" does not know how to play the game full stop.

 

[DeletedUser1410]

Barbs are off limits in most of my tribes at start up, unless they are players that have been cleared and restarted, But I can see the point in taking a bonus village, as some have said Nauz has done both start ups on the last few worlds and still been top for some time, but saying that sometimes taking a barb in a good place to help you move or help you grow is sometimes better then having to clear a player.

 

[DeletedUser]

Barbs are off limits in most of my tribes at start up, unless they are players that have been cleared and restarted, But I can see the point in taking a bonus village, as some have said Nauz has done both start ups on the last few worlds and still been top for some time, but saying that sometimes taking a barb in a good place to help you move or help you grow is sometimes better then having to clear a player.

An example being a barb village in a no major threats 15 that you could turn into Church village to help build another village with a NUKE closer to your intended target. (Hope that made sense)

Edit ska I meant 1 village for church and D a second village within that church radius for O. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[DeletedUser5175]

^^ sort of did, but you'd lose strength in your nuke due to the pop space it takes to build a church so then you'd need to noble another barb and that makes the noble train all that more expensive . . .

i saw a post somewhere likening barb munching to heroin addiction and it made me chuckle, the point was that once you start you keep on finding excuses to keep at it . . .

EDIT

thinking about it, if you really did want to do that, given the time it takes to build a nuke in an incomplete villa, 3k villas arent that smexy after all it'd make more sense to noble the player then noble a barb nearby and build a church to cover your new cap

 

[DeletedUser8815]

question:

which village will produce a full nuke first?

1. 3000 point village

2. 10000 point village

 

[DeletedUser832]

question:

which village will produce a full nuke first?

1. 3000 point village

2. 10000 point village

I agree. I really take issue taking low points in my tribe, but people need to figure it out on their own for it to truly make sense...if they can.

When you have a couple hundred villages, the question doesn't matter as much since you'll have plenty of nukes and defense villages. I think its just different. Trying to articulate:

It only takes a few percent of the resource cost of a noble to build up a small village. BUT, you only get about 1-2 nobles per day so, if you waste those nobles on barbs instead of player villages, you don't make progress against the enemy.

 

[DeletedUser8815]

The answer is the same time, provided the 3000 barb has max barracks and stables. Of course this is not likely to be the case, but in about 3 days you will be able to max out barracks and stables, thus building nukes as quickly as any 10k village, just so long as you are able to feed resources to it.

So you can waste a nuke taking a 10k village and the result is you have 2 empty villages or take a barb, save your nuke and in 3 days longer than the 10k vill have another nuke. Barbs and farms don't build troops but it is troops that wins the game for you.

 

[DeletedUser6695]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a vill with max Rax and stable be bigger than 3k? ( considering it will most likely have an academy)

 

[DeletedUser5175]

I agree. I really take issue taking low points in my tribe, but people need to figure it out on their own for it to truly make sense...if they can.

When you have a couple hundred villages, the question doesn't matter as much since you'll have plenty of nukes and defense villages. I think its just different. Trying to articulate:

It only takes a few percent of the resource cost of a noble to build up a small village. BUT, you only get about 1-2 nobles per day so, if you waste those nobles on barbs instead of player villages, you don't make progress against the enemy.

Oreally 3k villas with max farms, rax and stables . . . no wonder you love playing with your barbies so much Locutas