about the selling wood or food discussion i would say that every 60 wood chopped you can gather a 300 food that means you can get 5 times more gold selling food, before there is no more wood, than selling wood.
about the selling wood or food discussion i would say that every 60 wood chopped you can gather a 300 food that means you can get 5 times more gold selling food, before there is no more wood, than selling wood.
This is actually true? I thought wood was gathered faster...
yeah, I got it. But if youre fighting 40pala vs 40 halbs youre fighting 5400res vs 2400res. Considering your eco of 160 is just enough to support that 40pala non stop, those 160 vills gather 34res each before they die. 130 vills gather 4420res which allows you to have 70halbs (4200res).
Those are no real gather rates or some stuff, just considering both players have the same eco.
So we fight 70 halbs vs 40 pala. Im pretty sure halbs win this. And you have your snowball effect the other way around.
I never said its about waisting gold or something its about using pop better.
Carlos Ferdinand said:by [India] Carlos Ferdinand » Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:16 pm
Yea even I don't agree myself with the pala vs halb stuff. It will never be 40 v 40 because halb player can go with lesser vil amount or trade carts
But you wont have unlimited ressources in any game. You may have acces to unlimited ressources. So you need more eco for pala than halbs. Means less pop wasited on eco. Means more pop for army. Means you wont fight 40 pala vs 40 halb, but something like 60-70 halb vs 40 pala, maybe.
Am I somewhere completely wrong?
about the selling wood or food discussion i would say that every 60 wood chopped you can gather a 300 food that means you can get 5 times more gold selling food, before there is no more wood, than selling wood.
This is actually true? I thought wood was gathered faster...
Wood is gathered faster. But he meant that it takes 60 Wood tu bild a farm which contains 300+ food. So in the long run you would make more gold from farming. On the other hand, cutting wood is much faster, but you get less gold for the same amount of wood.
Ya, I will have 60-70 paladins. I have the same population limit as you - and I'm using gold units that have a kill death ratios of 1 for 2.5. I am keeping those units alive longer, they kill more, i waste less. I require less vills, I'll definitively have a bigger army then you eventually
That effect is even bigger if there happens to be 2nd unit mixed that counters halberdiers
He's not saying that fight will be cost effective. He's saying he'll still win that fight. Then he moves across the map to the next fight. And wins that fight, even though it wasn't cost effective.
His cost-inefficient fights give him access to more gold. If he can take enough cost-inefficient trades to come close to your production, the fights very very rapidly become cost efficient for him to such an extent that it quickly outweighs his previous cost-inefficient fights. You win by making the fights so cost inefficient that you never let him start the snowball.
This is extremely difficult and requires a different point of view of when a fight is good to take to what most RM experience will tell you. It's why the market starts are so strong in DM and also why most RM players suck so hard against them. Because it does go against everything your standard imp RM experience tells you. (BF/LN with infinite safe trade notwithstanding).
I thought it was common knowledge that paladins with plenty of gold would beat halbs cost wise. It comes down to a matter of pop, and the fact taht its really easy to raid wood sites and farms, whereas its a lot harder to raid a trade route( its at the back and you need somethign with range usually) SO paladins eco can end up with maybe 20-30 farms and like 3/4 lumberjacks if you start with a nice 1k stockpile of wood. Whereas the halberdier guy has to have somethign like 40/40 wood and food, absolute minimum of vils. And those are easy to raid.
Also paladins are obviously faster than halbs so its way easier to end up fighting battles of 40v 40 with paladins v halbs because you can choose the battlefield. And again in these scenarios the efficiency of pop will end up winning easily.
He's not saying that fight will be cost effective. He's saying he'll still win that fight. Then he moves across the map to the next fight. And wins that fight, even though it wasn't cost effective.
His cost-inefficient fights give him access to more gold. If he can take enough cost-inefficient trades to come close to your production, the fights very very rapidly become cost efficient for him to such an extent that it quickly outweighs his previous cost-inefficient fights. You win by making the fights so cost inefficient that you never let him start the snowball.
This is extremely difficult and requires a different point of view of when a fight is good to take to what most RM experience will tell you. It's why the market starts are so strong in DM and also why most RM players suck so hard against them. Because it does go against everything your standard imp RM experience tells you. (BF/LN with infinite safe trade notwithstanding).
Except that 40 palas hardly win 60 halbs. I think the ratio you need to win halb vs pala is only a little more than 3:2, and when I say cost-effective I am telling you halbs will win the match even if they lose the first fight due to unfair cost-wise numbers.
And 3 halbs = 180 res while 2 pala = 270 res so even to get this ratio you need a mere 100 vil eco to match a 150 vil+cart eco (assuming carts produce gold almost at same rate as vils eventhough it's actually slower than vils gathering the extra food/wood).
In other words, you have 100 pop for army while pala player has 50 if pop was ur issue.
If you actually want to win fights and still win eco wise, go something like 120 vils vs 150 and you will have 3.6 halbs per 2 palas (easy win cost wise) and 80 halbs vs 50 palas (a win in a pop-limited fight as well).
Anyway this discussion doesn't have too much relevance because in combo fights with ranged army, palas will win. Nevertheless suggesting pure palas win pure halb in any RM scenario is wrong IMO.