Grossly, insanely different PD strengths

Lord_Bob · #1 November 6th, 2007, 02:47 PM

For LA T'ien Ch'i, you have, per PD point below 20,
1 Footman(9 protection, no shield, decent damage)
1 Archer(9 protection and a 12 point damage Composite Bow)
1 Barbarian Horseman(with a Composite Bow AND a light lance)
40 Gold per point

For Patala, you get these(I didn't bother to figure out the numbers, because I don't CARE how many there are)
Some Markata "soldiers"(Morale 7, Melee Damage 8, yes 8, 0 protection, 5 hitpoints)
Some Markata "archers"(Morale 7, Bow Damage 6, yes 6, 0 protection, 5 hitpoints)
1/2 Per Point(YES THAT'S ONE EVERY OTHER POINT) Atavi "Soldier"(Morale 8, Protection 1)
1/2 Per Point(YES, AGAIN, THAT'S ONE EVERY OTHER POINT!) Atavi "Archer"(Morale 8, Protection 1)

Now, with the Barbarian Horsemen shooting their deadly Composite Bows and then getting a lance "one shot" to anyone who reaches them, I can see how they are going to lay down some damage. I can also see how any level of semi-decent archer fire is going to rout any quantity of Patalian PD. They just cannot win against anything with arrows. ANYTHING!

lch · #2 November 6th, 2007, 02:53 PM

<insert comment about OP stating the obvious>

So what?

Lord_Bob · #3 November 6th, 2007, 02:59 PM

That's a good point. You know, 20 Indie Archers and a commander should constitute a deadly and unstoppable raiding force. I mean, how does that change anything? What effect, really, does that have on the game? So for 230 gold you can defeat 20 Patalian PD, maybe even the capital PD, with little casualities, and it would take something like 600 gold to defeat, WITH CASUALITIES, 10 PD of T'ien Ch'i. What effect does that REALLY have on the game? So Patala cannot stop raiders at all, ever. I mean REALLY, who cares. Give a necromancer a shield and have him span terror from behind an "iron wall" of 6 Heavy infrantry. Beats 20 Patalian PD like nothing. Take a 1000 gold army against any T'ien Ch'i PD, unless you want massive casualities.

How, really, could that have an effect?

Lord_Bob · #4 November 6th, 2007, 03:07 PM

Patala cannot win ever. So what? That's a pretty bizarre attitude.

"Use thugs for raiding"

Who needs a freaking thug against Patala? ANYTHING WILL DO. Take a commander and 10 Indy Heavy Infrantry. I'm sure they'll tear through PD like nothing. So really, it's the Indy Commander cost, and the resource cost that's the limiting factor on utterly destroying Patala.

You could freaking RAISE your raiding force FROM THE BORDER PROVINCE ITSELF. EVERY OTHER TURN IF IT'S A MOUNTAIN! Hell, with good scales, the border province itself will even provide the GOLD to create the raiding force.

Ironhawk · #5 November 6th, 2007, 03:10 PM

Hahaha

On a more serious note - yeah the wide differences of PD is a long discussed topic. Generally it is seen through the regular prism of dominions in that "nothing is equal". So some nations have good PD, and others have crap. Just like some nations have good troops and others have crap. Its the way of dominions.

So, if you know your nation has crap for PD, you just dont invest in or rely on it.

Lord_Bob · #6 November 6th, 2007, 03:19 PM

You need a certain minimium strength to stop very weak raiders. Patala doesn't have that minimium.

konming · #7 November 6th, 2007, 03:26 PM

While PD is not supposed to be balanced, losing 20 PD to 8 Agartha (normal) infantris and 2 indy archers turn after turn is something else. What's more, they did not even get a scratch, literally. For some reason, my entire PD starts to run as soon as one or two small monkeys are killed. I have given up on Patala PDs.

Cheezeninja · #8 November 6th, 2007, 03:23 PM

"Patala cannot win ever."

That's just going to get you laughed at brosef.

Lord_Bob · #9 November 6th, 2007, 03:37 PM

Actually, my full statement is now that Patala, Bandar Log, and Kailasa can NEVER EVER WIN in a non-rush game.

It's supported by the MP results at the top of the Multi-Player forum.

Huzurdaddi · #10 November 6th, 2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Ironhawk said:
So some nations have good PD, and others have crap. Just like some nations have good troops and others have crap.

Is it really true that some nations have 'crap' troops? I don't know about that. Clearly some nations have excellent troops: some through potent sacreds, some through tramplers, and maybe some through martial skill (longbow/principe?).

Are there really nations that have through and through 'crap' troops?