Forum: empire-en
Board: [589] Strategy & Tactics Discussion
Topic: [76298] Attack And Defence
[-76298]
JoshRuler190 [None]
:: Aug. 27, 2012, 6:36 p.m.
Heres a simple 1, instead of getting attack AND defence units, then why not get just swordsmen, there all purpose! 
[1381381]
Badgame [None]
:: Aug. 27, 2012, 6:43 p.m.
They are very weak and once my 150 swordsmen lost to 100 strong defenders with the addition that only 20 were killed
[1381384]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 27, 2012, 6:51 p.m.
Here's a simple answer: because swordsmen are completely rubbish.
Veteran spearmen have 142 melee defense power and 52 ranged defense power.
Veteran bowmen have 59 melee defense and 132 ranged.
Veteran macemen have 118 melee attack.
Swordsmen have 31 melee attack, 38 melee defense and 36 ranged defense.
This makes a total of 201 melee defense power, 184 ranged defense power and 118 melee attack power from 3 troops. 3 swordsmen have 114 melee defense (87 less), 108 ranged defense (76 less) and 93 melee attack (25 less).
Or, if you want to go by food:
12 food's worth of veterans: 201 melee defense, 184 ranged defense, 118 melee attack
12 food's worth of swordsmen: 152 melee defense (49 less), 144 ranged defense (40 less), 124 melee attack (6 more)
And that's not even mentioning the fact that you want all your power in as little troops as possible: you might not be able to fit 1,000 swordsmen in one attack, but you can easily fit the necessary amount of veteran maces to get the same power (263).
Veteran spearmen have 142 melee defense power and 52 ranged defense power.
Veteran bowmen have 59 melee defense and 132 ranged.
Veteran macemen have 118 melee attack.
Swordsmen have 31 melee attack, 38 melee defense and 36 ranged defense.
This makes a total of 201 melee defense power, 184 ranged defense power and 118 melee attack power from 3 troops. 3 swordsmen have 114 melee defense (87 less), 108 ranged defense (76 less) and 93 melee attack (25 less).
Or, if you want to go by food:
12 food's worth of veterans: 201 melee defense, 184 ranged defense, 118 melee attack
12 food's worth of swordsmen: 152 melee defense (49 less), 144 ranged defense (40 less), 124 melee attack (6 more)
And that's not even mentioning the fact that you want all your power in as little troops as possible: you might not be able to fit 1,000 swordsmen in one attack, but you can easily fit the necessary amount of veteran maces to get the same power (263).
[1381389]
B.Stinson [None]
:: Aug. 27, 2012, 7:06 p.m.
Why you all hating on Swordsmen they're the best units till you get Veterans.
They're the fastest unit in the game to recruit [even faster then Macemen!] while being able to attack and the defend! The reason why Swordsmen are the least used unit in the game is due to the fact that people don't know how to use them. Only these who have been taught the teachings of Wing Chun will know that...
I win all my battles, be it attacking or defending cause I build Swordsmen. :thumbup:
They're the fastest unit in the game to recruit [even faster then Macemen!] while being able to attack and the defend! The reason why Swordsmen are the least used unit in the game is due to the fact that people don't know how to use them. Only these who have been taught the teachings of Wing Chun will know that...
The hand which strikes also blocks.
I win all my battles, be it attacking or defending cause I build Swordsmen. :thumbup:
[1381393]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 27, 2012, 7:15 p.m.
Why you all hating on Swordsmen they're the best units till you get Veterans.
They're the fastest unit in the game to recruit [even faster then Macemen!] while being able to attack and the defend! The reason why Swordsmen are the least used unit in the game is due to the fact that people don't know how to use them. Only these who have been taught the teachings of Wing Chun will know that...
I win all my battles, be it attacking or defending cause I build Swordsmen. :thumbup:
Even if your first sentence was true, the fact remains that veterans are undeniably better than swordsmen.
The main factor here is "cramming all the power into as few troops as possible". Will I stand a better chance of keeping my castle from being set on fire if I have 1K defense power on the walls and 9K in the keep, or if I have the whole 10K defense power on the flanks? You can win battles with swordsmen - in fact, I once won an offensive battle with 30 archers (now, that was one weak player), but if you want to win with minimum losses, swordsmen are not the best way to go.
Speed of recruitment isn't too much of a problem - since the King's feast was implemented, coins have been my only issue. In the long run, it comes down to quality over quantity, regardless of the costs of either.
[1382055]
dragon21 (US1) [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 3:27 a.m.
What's the best troop (or combo troops) to use to attack/defeat Swordsmen? (one-handed)...
Swordsmen vs Swordsmen? or other combo?
Swordsmen vs Swordsmen? or other combo?
[1382094]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 7:40 a.m.
What's the best troop (or combo troops) to use to attack/defeat Swordsmen? (one-handed)...
Swordsmen vs Swordsmen? or other combo?
Well, swordsmen are worst (in defending) against ranged troops, and in attack, you want to match melee with ranged, so the best offensive ranged troop you have.
That means crossbowmen, heavy crossbowmen or veteran crossbowmen.
[1382099]
xJadetsssx [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 7:47 a.m.
BobFighter834 wrote: »Well, swordsmen are worst (in defending) against ranged troops, and in attack, you want to match melee with ranged, so the best offensive ranged troop you have.
That means crossbowmen, heavy crossbowmen or veteran crossbowmen.
Your information is incorrect, the best troops to attack the swordsmen are two handed swords and veteran macemans
[1382105]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 7:54 a.m.
xJadetsssx wrote: »Your information is incorrect, the best troops to attack the swordsmen are two handed swords and veteran macemans
Do you mind explaining why?
Melee vs ranged. Weaker against ranged in defence. I don't understand how melee could possibly be better.
[1382106]
undeafted [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 7:55 a.m.
I lost my 445 attacking armies in the period of system maintenance. I was unable to shift my armies and and maintain defense. why should we suffer the error created in the system???.. so either i should be properly repaid of my armies loss during that period otherwise their is no worth in playing the game..... bearing the system error & maintenance and restart all the time
[1382107]
xJadetsssx [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 7:58 a.m.
BobFighter834 wrote: »Do you mind explaining why?
Melee vs ranged. Weaker against ranged in defence. I don't understand how melee could possibly be better.
Melee is way better when attacking with swordsmen, you really need to check the stats of the soldiers again to see why...
I lost my 445 attacking armies in the period of system maintenance. I was unable to shift my armies and and maintain defense. why should we suffer the error created in the system???.. so either i should be properly repaid of my armies loss during that period otherwise their is no worth in playing the game..... bearing the system error & maintenance and restart all the time
send a ticket to support then
[1382109]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 8:01 a.m.
xJadetsssx wrote: »Melee is way better when attacking with swordsmen, you really need to check the stats of the soldiers again to see why...
Swordsmen - 38 melee defence, 36 ranged defence
Veteran macemen - 118 melee attack
Veteran crossbowmen - 98 ranged attack
Surely it's not due to the strength. That's like never using HCB, even against melee defenders, because 2HS are "stronger".
[1382111]
xJadetsssx [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 8:06 a.m.
BobFighter834 wrote: »Swordsmen - 38 melee defence, 36 ranged defence
Veteran macemen - 118 melee attack
Veteran crossbowmen - 98 ranged attack
Surely it's not due to the strength. That's like never using HCB, even against melee defenders, because 2HS are "stronger".
This situation where attacking melee defenders with melee attackers only happens with swordsmen and farmers, If you carefully read (something that you didn't) I said with swordsmen I didn't mention that will be useful with any other type of soldiers...
And yes attacking swordsman or farmers with melee attackers (except for macemans) causes less casualties than attacking with ranged attackers, despite those defenders are melee too
[1382113]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 8:14 a.m.
xJadetsssx wrote: »This situation where attacking melee defenders with melee attackers only happens with swordsmen and farmers, If you carefully read (something that you didn't) I said with swordsmen I didn't mention that will be useful with any other type of soldiers...
And yes attacking swordsman or farmers with melee attackers (except for macemans) causes less casualties than attacking with ranged attackers, despite those defenders are melee too
I never said that you didn't say with swordsmen. If you carefully read my posts (something that you didn't), you will see that.
As I said originally, why?
[1382114]
xJadetsssx [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 8:18 a.m.
BobFighter834 wrote: »I never said that you didn't say with swordsmen. If you carefully read my posts (something that you didn't), you will see that.
As I said originally, why?
BobFighter834 wrote: »Surely it's not due to the strength. That's like never using HCB, even against melee defenders, because 2HS are "stronger".
I know you didn't say that, but you said that above, suggesting that what I said works with other type of soldiers, thing that I never said
[1382118]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 8:26 a.m.
xJadetsssx wrote: »I know you didn't say that, but you said that above, suggesting that what I said works with other type of soldiers, thing that I never said
You'll notice that I said "like". I was exaggerating your point and criticising the result.
So, back to my original question:
WHY?
[1382121]
xJadetsssx [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 8:36 a.m.
BobFighter834 wrote: »You'll notice that I said "like". I was exaggerating your point and criticising the result.
So, back to my original question:
WHY?
So you want a proper explanation why the melee attackers are better than melee defender swordsmen
that is simple
the defense power of the swordsmen is 38 defense against melee and 36 defense against ranged
The power of the a veteran maceman is 118, and the attack power of a veteran crossbowman is 98
If you take a look the power of the veteran maceman is 20 point above the power of the Veteran Crossbowman
So if we do the math
118 melee attack power vs. 36 melee defense power = the difference is of 82 points
98 ranged attack power vs. 38 ranged defense power = the difference is of 60 points
Hope you understand already
I experimented with Robber Baron's and I found it better to attack swordsmen and farmers with veteran macemans, but again, with Veteran Crossbowmans is not bad, but it will cost you a few more casualties, depending of the size of the fight
[1382123]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 8:46 a.m.
What about melee vs. ranged? But I guess if you really have tested it, then I guess it's true.
[1382127]
xJadetsssx [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 8:55 a.m.
BobFighter834 wrote: »What about melee vs. ranged? But I guess if you really have tested it, then I guess it's true.
I have no reason at all to lie to you, you can try that yourself in the Everwinter glacier, with level 20 barbarian fortresses for giving you an example, attack one with "X" amount of ranged attackers V. Crossbows for example, and attack another one with the same amount of melee attackers V. Macemans for example, if you use the same tools and the same setup, (but with the different soldiers) you will notice you will have less casualties with melee than with ranged, despite the farmers are melee defenders
[1382231]
dragon21 (US1) [None]
:: Aug. 29, 2012, 2:21 p.m.
Hi guys, thanks for the reply...
I'm Level 23 with Lv 4 barracks right now so my strongest troop is 2HSM (2 handed swords) and regular CBs. I don't know yet how to get veterans maces, so I trust you guys that's the best...
Let's try an example with my current set-up:
Specifically, I'm attacking the Level 15 RBC (with 5 to go) = 20 SM on the left flank, blank everywhere else.
It's a good set up for a pure comparison as I will be attacking at 0% in the keep.
I sent:
| -blank- | 20 CB + 20 SM | 15 2HSM | --- And I got -7 losses. (no ladders needed)
My attack cost me 2 2HSM (35 minutes plus 230 gold) and 3 SM and 2 CBS (about 25 minutes plus 360 gold)
Total loss = 1 hour time plus 590 gold.
I don't currently have a block of 40+ 2HSM to throw at the castle, but would that be most optimum?
Would 40, or 50, be best?
My next attack I am thinking to try 30 CBs and 20 2HSM and see the results.
It's an interesting puzzle to find the optimum attack with my set-up.. I'm also interested in trying to do this using the least troops possible and get the best results.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
Raj.
I'm Level 23 with Lv 4 barracks right now so my strongest troop is 2HSM (2 handed swords) and regular CBs. I don't know yet how to get veterans maces, so I trust you guys that's the best...
Let's try an example with my current set-up:
Specifically, I'm attacking the Level 15 RBC (with 5 to go) = 20 SM on the left flank, blank everywhere else.
It's a good set up for a pure comparison as I will be attacking at 0% in the keep.
I sent:
| -blank- | 20 CB + 20 SM | 15 2HSM | --- And I got -7 losses. (no ladders needed)
My attack cost me 2 2HSM (35 minutes plus 230 gold) and 3 SM and 2 CBS (about 25 minutes plus 360 gold)
Total loss = 1 hour time plus 590 gold.
I don't currently have a block of 40+ 2HSM to throw at the castle, but would that be most optimum?
Would 40, or 50, be best?
My next attack I am thinking to try 30 CBs and 20 2HSM and see the results.
It's an interesting puzzle to find the optimum attack with my set-up.. I'm also interested in trying to do this using the least troops possible and get the best results.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
Raj.