Advice

[cloud]

Shadow is watching things from above, most of his advice is based on his observations of how people are playing.

Get out of my account Shadow...It's hard enough to be a 1-man army.

[Shadow]

tip of the day:

using leader buffs on your attacks can still have an effect even if you don't break with troops - send 1 rat along with a good leader offense to do partial damage. You can use this to kill off towers or murder health with troops to pave the way for other attacks. The offense buff can also be used to give your troops 20% offense boost, so that if you break with leaders, your troops are 20% more effective.

[Wolf Snare]

You might as well give them a full fledged strategy, they won't figure it out.

Flattered all the same.

[Shadow]

tip of the day #2:

I've said this several times already and people are still doing it.

Health affects the output of both cash and food from your markets, foragers, and workers. If you are running turns with high tax and only heal to 90% before you start buffing turns, your output is 10% lower than it could be.

[Sharptooh]

Never knew that health had such a profound effect, by output, do you mean troop and/or cash and food output? What about worker output and leader output (number gained per turn) etc. ?

[Shadow]

just food and cash output

[Shadow]

another tip of the day

you should never overestimate the power of an opponent's army based on their net. In 3.0, you have a lot of workers, and they are worth 3 networth each! Thus, a significant chunk of  everyone's net is their worker force, which means that on average, your army in 3.0 will be quite a bit weaker than the army that would have been associated with the equivalent amount of networth in the old code.

I am going to reiterate this since I think it was too subtle for people: here is the sort of analysis you can do.

Let's take the example of Sevs. Land is 500 net per acres, cities are 750,000 net each, and workers are 3 net each. Leaders are 2 net each and we can assume he has around 20 leaders per acres. We can assume roughly 50 workers per acre as a rough estimate.

That means that

111,477,500 net is land
18,750,000 net is cities
~30,000,000 net is workers
~5,000,000 is leaders

This leave, currently, 124 million net to be accounted for by army and resources, which we can't know without an espy. Let's assume he has only 24 million net in resources to be generous.

This means that he has at most 100 million in in actual army, spread over all 4 troop types in some way. Which means that if someone on low land and resources had say, 50 million networth in a single troop stack, there probably have a pretty good chance of breaking him even though they only have a fifth of his net. And so taking potshots is probably not a bad idea even when you think you are far too low to be able to do it.

There was a term back in the old days of RWL: "land fat". People who have less than 1000 net per acre of land, or thereabouts, usually have a pretty weak defense compared to other people in their networth range, and are often worth taking shots at even if they have net that is quite high.


(I didn't use any info here that wasn't public already, so don't be complaining about  me using admin powers or anything. I make no claims that my estimate of his leaders or workers are at all accurate, they are just reasonable order of magnitude estimates)

Now that the moment has passed I can explain why Snare was making fun of you guys after that takedown. It relates back to this.

Snare, post-takedown, had 150m net on 100k land, with 50 cities. Let's do that math:

50 cities * 750,000 net each = 37.5m net
100k land * 500 net per acre = 50m net
75 workers per acre * 3 net per worker = 22.5m net
20 leaders per acre * 2 nt each = 4m net

75 is a decent estimate for someone with a lot of cities, use 50 otherwise

totalling that up: 114m net in land and related things. This leaves 36m net for his army, assuming he has no resources.

Whereas most of VTN had more than triple that in their army.

Any one of your clan members could have taken every one of his cities without any work at all, but nobody tried because you all assumed (I guess) that you cannot take cities from someone who is on roughly the same net as you.

^_^

Net is different in 3.0.

[Sharptooh]

Any one of your clan members could have taken every one of his cities without any work at all, but nobody tried because you all assumed (I guess) that you cannot take cities from someone who is on roughly the same net as you.

And because I don't understand how the cities code works :/ my understanding is they're impossible to take (unless you're on a lot of troops)

[Shadow]

Steal city is basically like standard attack, but with more advantage to the defender. If you can break with standard, you are not far away from being able to break with steal city.

On the other hand, it won't matter soon.

[Sharptooh]

On the other hand, it won't matter soon.

This is mostly the reason I haven't bothered to learn about cities

[Firetooth]

I actually realized about the cities after I sent you that message ingame, lol. No need to be reminded. :-[

[Shadow]

tip of the day:

throw sacks or pillages around, even against people with high net. Might get lucky and find that that net is mostly resources.

tip of the day: people don't follow tips of the day enough.

[Wolf Snare]

"like"

No one will take my cities from me!

[Shadow]

another tip of the day

you should never overestimate the power of an opponent's army based on their net. In 3.0, you have a lot of workers, and they are worth 3 networth each! Thus, a significant chunk of  everyone's net is their worker force, which means that on average, your army in 3.0 will be quite a bit weaker than the army that would have been associated with the equivalent amount of networth in the old code.

I am going to reiterate this since I think it was too subtle for people: here is the sort of analysis you can do.

Let's take the example of Sevs. Land is 500 net per acres, cities are 750,000 net each, and workers are 3 net each. Leaders are 2 net each and we can assume he has around 20 leaders per acres. We can assume roughly 50 workers per acre as a rough estimate.

That means that

111,477,500 net is land
18,750,000 net is cities
~30,000,000 net is workers
~5,000,000 is leaders

This leave, currently, 124 million net to be accounted for by army and resources, which we can't know without an espy. Let's assume he has only 24 million net in resources to be generous.

This means that he has at most 100 million in in actual army, spread over all 4 troop types in some way. Which means that if someone on low land and resources had say, 50 million networth in a single troop stack, there probably have a pretty good chance of breaking him even though they only have a fifth of his net. And so taking potshots is probably not a bad idea even when you think you are far too low to be able to do it.

There was a term back in the old days of RWL: "land fat". People who have less than 1000 net per acre of land, or thereabouts, usually have a pretty weak defense compared to other people in their networth range, and are often worth taking shots at even if they have net that is quite high.


(I didn't use any info here that wasn't public already, so don't be complaining about  me using admin powers or anything. I make no claims that my estimate of his leaders or workers are at all accurate, they are just reasonable order of magnitude estimates)

You guys still aren't getting this one (not snare's cities, just the idea in general) ^_^

Over the summer I am going to do some data mining on RWL and build an algorithm to estimate this stuff based on net distribution, see how good I can make this estimate based on the stats alone.

[Wolf Snare]

leave me be!