Posts from Round table

Ms. Smekhova has a habit of not finishing games when she's in a bad situation. Even if it's the final of Peter's championship :)

If all games were played to the end, the percentage would be around 70, and even less with top players.

I have about 50% win rate against TOP players, and even more... But how can it be more when they are Stingers, Paladins, DS-Vasi, Napalms, etc.? The only ones I have a significant advantage against among the TOP players are Samumai, SIL, and Mike... And out of the unfinished games in the season, I have 1-2, and that's by mutual agreement, not because I'm running away...;)

For example, Alex_P, who once tried to convince me that calculating damage in battles is completely unnecessary (and couldn't say how much damage 200 Troglodytes deal:)

And why would I need that? I believe that purely mathematical calculation not for a specific case, but for an imaginary situation, is not justified in terms of effort, since situations where a couple of extra points of damage decide the outcome of an unpredictable battle are very unlikely.
During the game, I prefer to look at how much damage the main stack deals and then estimate the upcoming battle — it's not hard to do, adjusting for the hero's Offense skill, additional attack parameter, number of monsters, and the defense of the intended target.
Don't misrepresent the info. Your question back then was about how much damage 200 Troglodytes would deal in a Griffin Conservatory, and there it's stupid to calculate — you need to look at the situation.
Sometimes it's roughly 170-500, and other times 300-900 (numbers taken without calculation, based on personal observations).

Added after 22 minutes

Yes, Pash, you're right about Alex:) , I remember in my only game with him, where due to my deep noobiness (only my 2nd month playing) I lost on day 117 even though the game was going well for me, and the funniest thing is that he also lost:D, because supposedly he was planning to take on angels with centaurs on week 1 and to speed up the pace he attacked 20-49 elves on the grass — just a fatherly game, nothing to say;)

What can I say to you... you said yourself that you're a deep noob, so why are you discussing my level of play if you're far from it? It's stupid to explain to you why I attacked the elves — there were about 46 of them, split into 2 or 3 stacks, some upgraded. In my memory, this is one of the few losses in all my games, and by the way, not without the help of neutral morale, but I never asked for auto, and in those rare cases when it was offered, I refused. Which is more than I can say for you and many other players, including top-tier ones.
In my opinion, there are 2 indicators here:
- Aggressiveness in the game
- And actually the player's skill
People who lose and use auto, for me personally, have less skill than their results suggest.
I think it's unnecessary to explain why — there have been many super-important games where not only did it not come to a fight, but there was no real clash at all... including cross-server and other tournaments where games ended on days 112-113 (among TOP players).

What especially amused me was his remark about taking Neo-Endi's maxed Griffin Conservatory as Cove without oil on week 2: he apparently lost a lot of Gnolls there — almost implying that 4 angels aren't worth the loss of 80 or 90 Gnolls:D ...

Such amusement is a very negative indicator of you as a person, but like Oelm, you heard/read what you wanted, not what I actually said/wrote. I roughly remember the gist of that phrase — it was about exchanging almost all of the Cove's two-week growth for 4 angels. Of course, there were maybe 2-3 Wyverns and 10-20 Lizardmen left, but the Basilisks and Gnolls almost all died, considering that 90 Gnolls is a very solid stack both in damage and tankiness and is clearly strong for the second week. In such situations, in a decent number of games, the opponent arrives with spell power 5-8 or maybe 10, and the angels die from magic, at best killing one of the opponent's 6-7 stacks per round in turn, but are neutralized in a couple of rounds by magic + getting swarmed, whereas if you hadn't lost the army, you could have fought wall to wall.
And by the way, I had a similar example where on week 3 the opponent traded 70%-80% of his native troops for 12 angels, while I, with my growth and only 3 angels, dug into his capital and held off the assault even with lower stats and development.

Added after 1 minute

Interesting, how did Alex_R manage to lose only 3 times in 2 years?

Probably a cheater too!?

Added after 10 minutes

P.S. If Alex_R is not confident in his gaming superiority, then playing with him is a big(!) problem.

What a clever thought! ... and I didn't even suspect I was such a big deal! :smile04:
It's just that in the statistics, I probably have one of the highest percentages of unfinished or unconfirmed reports, and clearly not through any fault of my own ;)
Although you're right about one thing — since I prefer to enjoy the game or chat with my opponent, but with people like you, that really is problematic.
P.S. Be less envious of others and take everything else more lightly.

because he was supposedly going to use the Shrine of Mercy to summon Angels on day 1 and, to speed things up, attacked 20-49 Elves on the grass – a truly masterful play, nothing more to say.

The irony here is unclear.
1) Angels can be easily summoned on day 1.
2) There could have been 22 Elves without upgrades, and they can be defeated with a loss of 2-3 Marksmen, 5 Archers, and a Griffin.

Don't be afraid of Archers. 20 Elves are just 20 creatures of level 3.

I don't understand the irony here.
1) Angels are easily defeated on the first turn.
2) There could have been 22 Elves without upgrades; this is achieved by losing 2-3 Marks, 5 Copppers, and a Griffin.

Don't be afraid of archers. 20 Elves are just 20 creatures of level 3.

1) The fact that they are easily defeated on the first turn in SOD is not a given; at most, it happens in the 1st game out of 5, and even then, only with top players. Even average players are unlikely to achieve this (or only with extremely favorable conditions, such as all crypts being at their maximum, gnomes not being demoralized in the dwarven mines, etc.).

As for archers, I'm not particularly afraid of them, especially after reading about grand armies on the 1st turn, defeating them with only level 1-4 units from the Conflux with minimal losses (I think I saw this a couple of times with Vikka). There was a time when I defeated them (archers) with lamas:smile02:.

Here, Anatoly, explain why you would put Angels on the combat map. I still don't understand this; if the attack power of the Knights is not less, and they are noticeably cheaper. That is, instead of having all the heroes simply earn money, you can engage in scouting and even level up the main hero on treasure chests.

Here, Anatoly, explain why you should place Angels on the Combat Map. I still don't understand this, especially since the attack power of the horses is not less, and they are noticeably cheaper. That is, instead of just earning money with all the heroes, you can engage in scouting and level up the main hero on treasure chests.

To create archers on levels 1-2-4) 2+rations. (if there are rations and canned goods)
2 Archers have a much better attack power than 5 horses)

Okay, but 2 Arches cost 50,000. + 20 resources each (I think). Since you can't destroy Utopias by this time, the strategy focuses on free resources and buildings that generate money. I don't know, I really don't know:rolleyes:
If you're trying to build up your army with Conserve-Hives and capture Utopias, even a tier 3 Conserve won't be able to handle that build order.

If you try to recruit troops from canned hives and capture utopias, even a tier 3 conservationist won't be able to manage this build order.

45-50 Marksmen + 50-60 Pikemen + 2 Angels + a few Griffons can capture a tier 3 town even without magic - Valeska with experience in ranged attacks (if without the book and necessary skills like defense and with weak stats, it will be difficult, but in real games, something like this usually happens).

Added 3 minutes later

Okay, but 2 Archangels cost 50,000. + 20 resources each (or something like that). Since utopias can't be destroyed by this time, the strategy relies on free resources and buildings that generate income. Well, I don't know, I don't know:rolleyes:

In reality, it's even more expensive, and it's practically impossible to earn that much on a small map in the first and early second week (well, there can be one game out of 20 with incredibly rich resource spawns and a lot of income-generating buildings, but that's more of an exception), so on a small map, Angels are built very, very rarely in the first week (almost never) - and that's a fact (in reality, not theoretically)

It seems that the discussion about why horses are better than angels, with supporting data, took place earlier in this thread.

I had the opportunity to build Angels on level 1, but I usually didn't, so I asked here about an alternative. An early rush to Archons might fail precisely because of a lack of resources.

Roma, you have this in your signature:

So, are you taking maximum mana on turn 2? I'm losing a lot! You need to think with your head! (AlexTheGreat)...

You're starting with Barbarians on Gurnison, but Crag is much stronger in the early game!

Roma, you have this in your signature:

You start with Barbarians in Gurnisson, but Crag is much stronger!

Oh, look who's so smart, acting like I don't know that Crag is better. It's just that I play poorly, and Gurnisson is easier to manage!!!!:smile04:

You start as Barbarians with Gurnisson, but Crag is much stronger!

And I start as Barbarians with Gurnisson. Gurnisson is very strong :cool:. You say "by an order of magnitude"? Do you even know what that means? Let me tell you – it's at least 10 times stronger. So think twice before you speak next time. But it's not even about the formal meaning of that expression – in reality, Crag in the early game is not much stronger than Gurnisson. And considering the saved troops (thanks to the cannon), he might even be stronger. So you were completely wrong, sir =)

AAAAAA!!!!! "Someone, please turn off this ridiculous voice chat!!!!"
I'm so fed up!!! Someone is trying to help, and you keep shutting everyone down!

You start with Barbarians, and yet Crag is significantly stronger than Gurnisson!

I always choose Gurnisson as my starting hero for the Citadel. Let's estimate how much stronger Crag at level 10 is compared to Gurnisson.
Crag's damage increase with experience: 1+0.3*(1+0.05*10)=1.45 times
Gurnisson's damage increase with experience: 1+0.3=1.3 times
1.45/1.3 = 1.115.
Conclusion: Crag's damage (at level 10) is 11.5% higher than Gurnisson's.
However, the ballista is very helpful for defeating neutral creatures.