GUERILLA STRIKE

Twillight · February 02, 2003, 10:40:49 PM

RATS.

Most warlords find no value in this dumb, stupid and rather weak unit. They are quite right if they have only a few rats.

GUERILLA STRIKE, in my opinion, is the most Important and powerful attack. To have extremely sucessful geurilla strikes, set your RAT TRAINING SETTINGS to 95%[/COLOR] and skiffs to 5%.

I have over forty thousand rats which increases by a thousand with every five turns on rough estimation! Have around seventy barracks.

The Beatles · February 03, 2003, 02:07:27 AM

For shame. Tarsonis makes a million rats a turn. :lol:

Shael of Torethevel · February 03, 2003, 05:40:49 AM

lol. I was like, wow, 40,000 rats! That's how many rats I had 30 ranks ago!
I don't think Guerrilla Strike is weak, that's actually the one I always used, when other prefer the old Frontal Assault. As Beatles said, Josh makes a million rats a turn, and if he's running a little low on money, then he just sells 30 million rats...nothing too big. :D lol.

Bloodrath · February 03, 2003, 07:54:17 AM

I prefer Frontal of Naval attacks myself, and I have set up my training settings in a way that I can recieve tons and almost the same number of troops for each unit.

A high number of rats may be good, but if you only concintrate on rats and a low precentage of skiffs, well you are going to be in trouble, but hopefully you only keep it on for a few turns.

Menatus · February 03, 2003, 04:55:41 PM

Ah, an exceedingly...stupid strategy. No offence, but someone can know that you have no stoats and weasels, so they can attack with that. 40,000 is not a lot. Josh makes 1,000,000 per turn and has ...alot.

You'll have no offense and defense plusses. Yes, massing rats is good to an extent, but having nothing of everything else is dumb.

Orcrist · February 03, 2003, 08:12:06 PM

Nah- build up on ALL troops, that way, you can take down anyone...

calria · February 03, 2003, 10:54:02 PM

anyone ever notice how Weasels are next to useless? yes, we all mass them, but do any of us actually attack with bombardments? nope.

but as I've been noticing on these boards for weeks, with NO notice being taken of me *squeams* rats are a trend that I hate hate hate lol they're evil. I luff skiffs. But stoats are more effective.

On a slightly prim and prissy old-warlord note, it seems to me that the new warlords seem more impressed with rats, while those who've been around longer stick more with frontal assaults. I've been attacked by newer numbers twice more often at least with rats than anything else. they mass up 3 million rats and 20 thousand of everything else and think you won't notice. *chuckle*

griever · February 03, 2003, 10:59:41 PM

Weasels aren't meant for attacking, really. They're defense units. You could do a bombardment, but it's not as good as a frontal or whatever the other attacks are.

Lots of people go with rats because they're cheaper and more expendable. Stoats cost more money, plus, as you pointed out, lots of new players are attacking with rats. So to have a huge rat army to fight back - it's worth it.

I think the best strat, for the most part, is to be relatively balanced. It's okay to be better in one thing than another, but not so that it cripples you. I've had people attack me with stoats, only to get hit in retaliation with rats. It goes both ways.

calria · February 03, 2003, 11:03:25 PM

it would be interesting to see what would happen if there were only one unit for attacking... who would have the strongest army if it were based on brute force instead of the sometimes-delicate balancing of troop numbers? not that I'm saying I want that to happen, but it would be interesting, and, I'm sure it would shift some balances.

griever · February 03, 2003, 11:06:11 PM

If there was only one unit for attacking and, in context to this game, the other three were defense, then only a very few would ever win a battle.

calria · February 03, 2003, 11:08:01 PM

nooo what I'm saying is only one type of unit period stop. like, instead of saying buy stoats/buy skiffs/buy rats etc it would just be "buy more armies"

bulk in numbers rather than balancing numbers... that's what I wonder about.

griever · February 03, 2003, 11:13:02 PM

Oh...I figure that there wouldn't be a lot of strategy then.

Holby · February 04, 2003, 02:53:26 AM

I've always had 25% on everything. Then, by checking stats, I found that people had about equal troop numbers. But, this was of course just the impression I got. Now, I've got my skiffs and stoats set higher than weasels and rats, to even it out.

What I don't understand is why people get heaps of skiffs and use them to attack? They have high offense, but their defense is higher. The wiser option I gathered was stoats and rats?

Corrections?

RazorClaw · February 04, 2003, 06:01:18 PM

Call me stupid, but I use standards. I (used to and soon will again) have lots of troops and I simply use standard or leader attacks. I find them more effective. For different enemies, I might use the other attacks but not right now. Actually, I'm +700,000 at rank 108, so I should be able to simply loot a bunch to earn enough. Or steal.

calria · February 05, 2003, 07:19:33 PM

in my way of thinking, it's better to have a slightly higher offensive capability in your forces. Just safer, I suppose. So skiffs are a good attacker, but they're hide-behind-able, too...

I know what I'm getting at... how I'm saying it isn't making much sense though.
Anyone get it?