Why Kailasa, Bandar Log, and Patala NEVER WIN

Lord_Bob · #1 November 6th, 2007, 05:11 PM

Lanka has maintenance free demons and undead as PD. Led around by their bloodhunting priests. Attempts to raid them with "200 gold force" stops when you hit the blood hunters and they kill you instantly.

thejeff · #2 November 6th, 2007, 05:17 PM

Again, nonsense. Your scouts tell you where the bloodhunters are, if you don't just guess by raiding the farms and other high income provinces where no one blood hunts.

Then you send real forces after the bloodhunters. Raiding weak provinces is fine, but trashing your enemies blood income is a real prize.

Lord_Bob · #3 November 6th, 2007, 05:30 PM

So Lanka can be "freely raided" except for the multiple road blocks that completely destroy such raids. These roadblocks cost nothing as they consist of priest that MUST be there, and maintenance free undead. Or maybe demons for some reason.

Multiple, Lanka Player Placed, Free, raid blockers seems to be quite a difference between them and the other Ape Nations. Also, since blood summons cost no gold to maintain, "Garrisoning" is a perfectly viable plan. And, of course, Lanka is a blood nation and the others aren't.

VedalkenBear · #4 November 6th, 2007, 05:32 PM

Care to respond to the fact that you have no basis for your assertion, considering the lack of data?

Or do you just want to rant some more?

thejeff · #5 November 6th, 2007, 05:48 PM

Those aren't roadblocks. Those are targets. Unless you've built forts or strong garrisons.

Even demonic/undead garrisons have opportunity costs. They aren't counterattacking/raiding your enemy. The mage is summoning not bloodhunting, etc etc.

And the other monkey nations have cheap priests for blessing and upkeep-free sacred summons right? If you really wanted to stop raiders, a couple of those in each province will stop your "200 gp force" dead.

Lord_Bob · #6 November 6th, 2007, 05:52 PM

So you are now comparing priest and gem summons with spending 200 gold(whenever you want, the turn before the attack is just fine) for maintenance PD? Are we even having this discussion?

Reverend Zombie · #7 November 6th, 2007, 05:55 PM

There is only one way to settle this argument: Lord Bob plays the nation of his choice vs. a monkey nation, mano a mano.

Lord_Bob · #8 November 6th, 2007, 06:16 PM

And what does this have to do with MP? Hmm? 1 on 1 Rush Games. The Measure Of A Nation. That said, why not. I'll play MA Man. No Bless at all. Sure. Bandar Log guy can do whatever he wants.

thejeff · #9 November 6th, 2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Lord_Bob said:
So you are now comparing priest and gem summons with spending 200 gold(whenever you want, the turn before the attack is just fine) for maintenance PD? Are we even having this discussion?

I was comparing with the Lankan example you'd given. Should have quoted, given the flood of posts here.

Anyway, all these examples are silly. You're talking cheap indy attacks, not flying or stealthy or anything. So you're talking attacks along a hostile border. You don't rely on PD to hold a hostile border. You get choke points, build forts, etc.

Sure if you get blindsided, that crappy PD leaves you vulnerable, but that's what happens when you're taken by surprise. If they get behind your lines, hunt them down and kill them, but strengthen your border too.

When I think of raiders, I think of stealth/fliers and remote attacks. They can easily get into the backfield where you'll have little but PD. Anything that has to cross the front lines shouldn't be able to do so with a handful of indy archers. Garrison the borders. There should be troops able to reinforce any border province within a move or two.

VedalkenBear · #10 November 6th, 2007, 05:23 PM

To be short, blunt, and to the point:

You have no basis at all for extrapolating from the given data an unequivocal statement on _anything_. Having just had a test where I was required to calculate confidence intervals for several questions, I can tell you that you have no idea how unsupported your claim is.

Your statement is not supported by the evidence. If you made a statement like, "The Ape nations have not won YET because people haven't figured out a way to compensate for their PD being unable to stop raiders," you might get a bit more agreement.

You are making an obviously flawed argument from the subject line on. I would suggest a basic course in statistics before you try to make this or similar claims.