Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: pokefan68 ()
Date: September 26, 2010 08:30AM

i think i found a problem with advancing developed countries.

true it'll only take 3 turns to advance a developed +1 70k but in a recent game i found that it only takes 5 turns to advance a +1 40k. the farms take 2 turns to build so you lose about 4 turns. Although that depends on their productivity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2010 08:49AM by pokefan68.

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Paars ()
Date: September 26, 2010 09:53AM

Comparing farming to 70k first by + 1 then advancing saves you 1 turn I guess over 40k +1 advancement then build to 70k, for comparising.

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: acro ()
Date: September 26, 2010 10:43PM

Advancing at 70k+1 means you effectively get an extra farm for 1, not 2, turns. This is almost always a good deal.

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: pokefan68 ()
Date: September 27, 2010 02:20AM

Well i thought i should just point that out.

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Akiran ()
Date: September 29, 2010 02:05AM

they already have

M-K

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Paars ()
Date: October 02, 2010 04:54AM

Since it was on almost last post of the page before I would like to repost it here.

Ok wanted to add and update some stuff.

I´ve seen a lot of people build farms at capital or backlands when they are advanced to the best. Which I consider the listing still in first post.
+2 60k
+1 70k
+0 60k

When your countries are at this, don't farm them until at least all what you consider your territory to be yours is advanced.
Actually, usually you don't need to farm you backlands or capital extra at all. For a few reasons.

Lets go over the simple Math reason first. if you farm your capital to 70k it takes you turns. 2 turn you could for example have gotten 90 to 94 gold. lets say you have either some developped, or even primitive country. With a decent population 50k for example, which is increasing productivity by other countries.

if you would spend that gold on a 50k primitive country, you would have 30 to 34 gold left when buying Development.This now 50 country, faster increases influence, faster starts spreading influence. + its way closer to being advanced.
Which means it can start getting higher productivity even faster. What extra do you gain in building a farm in capital? 6 or 7 gold perhaps.

Consider you saving 23 extra gold + the at least 90 gold you gain from capital, if you'd buy up a developped country, that country will increase productivity waaaay more then your capital. And the extra influence spreading.

Ok that was the simple math part.

Now from strategical point of view. Capital and backcountries are not your frontcountries(Duh) thus, they have no need for high production of soldiers.
Your frontline countries do, so increase those farms rather over some unimportant backlands.

If you'd be ulster vs Grenada in a 3v3. You would consider at least until England yours, perhaps flanders, depending if south has roma Normandy as well, in corsica's case its questionable.
If you farm flanders and England extra, you can gain faster armies at the front, while if you farmed norway extra its pretty useless to create armies there.
More farms, higher production + max soldiers buying increased.

This all comes as common sense to me, to a lot of people it does. But others don't I've seen decent and even strong players still apply this. I understand people feel hesistant to build in front(cuz you might lose it). But in the Ulster case, if you were to lose Flanders or England(Permanently), doesn't that pretty much mean you are done anyway? With or without farmed backlands.In this game let your rational thinking overrule your irrational choises(I feel saver if).

Well that's that.

Small update over my first post.
primitive +2 countries next to capital. In case they are 30k or 40k already, start developping right away.
In case of 20k, its better to start developping right away too.(With an exception if you can farm in 1 turn)
There's 2 very simple reasons for why to develop now instead of farm. First of, less farms, the rebellion chance is lower. Second reason with less farms it becomes supportive/devoted way faster.Usually when your done developping its supportive, 2 more farms and its devoted or almost devoted. Which means you can faster advance it, but the most important reason, you start spreading influence faster to neighboring countries.

Now a perhaps unexpected one.
10k +2, if you conquer this you can obviously build farm and then start developping. But, if you conqueror it you could also first build 1 soldier. it increases their support by a lot, then you can build a farm.And another 1 in turn. Then you start developping it at 30k while it already likes you pretty good.Some people could care less perhaps, but you do gain 1 extra soldier because of this, which at start is a nice bonus.

Ok the next thing, is something I had to test 1 more time for me not to be mistaken, its more of fun fact. Maybe some people already know this. Besides that I need to test it(or someone else) better to see if it could actually used in games.(3v3 NO) (2v2 probably not) (1v1 maybe, also depending on distance of capitals)
I ll just take my last testing game as an example.
I started in holland pushing soldiers attacking my way through until I reached podolia,which was 40k +1 at the time. I build 1 farm in cap and put it to gold. Hannover was 20k primitive, brandenburg 10k delete and poland 10k developped
I just put them to gold.

When I had enough gold I bought 1 extra farm in Podolia(no special reason) Then I bought culture there.Ofcourse brandenburg,poland and podolia still rebellious because they couldn't gain influence from primitive hannover.
I put Podolia to diplomats to increase production etc. After a few turns it became supportive and this is what I wanted to test again. Will it start spreading influence? And yes, it did. Poland became restless, and soon content.

So, you do not nessecarily need your capital for you to spread influence first. But, buying on so early an advanced country + that country wasting turns on diplo's I doubt if its worth it. However, imo a fun fact and since not much things changes, or you can learn its nice to knows there sometimes still is something.
Obviously I will test this better, I hope for some nice results but doubting it. And in case of good results it won't be long before everyone uses it. ;)

Ok another little fact, which is kinda obvious but some people don't realize it.
In my first post, I showed that first saving gold then buying up your capital(if saved in capital) you lose 2 turns.
But, if you have a 40k+2 country developped country witch likes you. And you do happen to have the 113 gold extra. This is what possibly could/would happen if you bougt culture there.

113 gold 4 turns to go till advancement (if you dont buy)
0 gold 1 turn till advancement

3 turns to go
40k advanced

2 turns to go
50k advanced

1 turn to go

60k advanced

40k advanced with still the 113 gold
60k around 45-47 gold

50k 113
60k 90-94 gold

60k 113 gold
60k 135-141 gold -> The actual diffrence here is a profit of +- 25 gold Also, because you advanced it faster it spreads influence faster(if need be).

Small tip:
To some players, don't always directly start farming till 60k with your capital, it really depends on your enemy as well. I see some good players still force this, while they are heavily under siege.

A rewrite of a calculating/logical mistake I made in first topic.
The buying in primitive countries always cost gold.
However, its still true that a soldier takes a production of 5 gold to be created in a dev/advanced country. But, if the gold aint rounded up to a number divideble by 5, the rest of the gold is thrown away. For example, if a country produces 19 gold, it can produce 3 soldiers while throwing 4 gold away. If you put it to gold and bought the soldiers somewhere else, it would save you 1 gold actually.
Well this last part of information won't effect your game that big, but I felt I needed to correct that.

Ok something for consideration.
At start when you take a country its natural to leave it empty the first turn after that if you need the soldier for attacking. Usually the next turn its reinforced by a new soldier. But what if you didn't? What if the country is not highly important or perhaps it is, but you could use the extra soldier (and those of other countries) to gain more countries. There's usually a 15% to 25% chance for it to revolt. It could be worth to risk it sometimes for an important gain on a rich country, depending on how important your country is you leave empty, on how much the chance is the soldier actually will help you with gaining that rich country, + How rich is that rich country. about a 20% gamble on losing a country doesn't sound thát bad. Well just something you may want to consider, its really playing with luck. As you all know its not something I should do. :D

About Diplomats, they are just weird. Its unpredicteble how they influence some countries at certain amounts.I am convinced tho, that buying them is a complete waste.But one game I build a diplo in a 40k+1 primitive country next to my capital @ turn 2 which was pretty much max rebellious. The next turn it already switched to restless, this is 1 of the reasons why I call them weird. But I have more examples, which im now to lazy to name.

Considering the +1 countries if you should build them to 50k first when possible or not. Yes if its 2 turns AND it doesn't have to spread influence to neighbors. Else it might be better ocasionally(I actually always do) to build culture at 40k.

Well, my personal tactics differ a little from those, but usually overall are the same. Theres no specific diffrence in what I sometimes do nor based on anything. And really not even sure if its better. I just like to play with some variation.
That being said, I posted because of the backland farming thing, but also a good moment to write the others things I had on my mind. Hopefully this post can bring even the slightest diffrence into the game.

For the people wanting to know. Yes, I must have to much free time on my hands. And loving it.

Greetings

Paars

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Paars ()
Date: October 17, 2010 08:16PM

First a question:

When you have soldiers in a rebellious country but with 0% rebellion rate, and you move them. Is it able to rebel then when new turn is calculated?

OR

When a country has 25% rebellion rate, and you move amount of soldiers to it which drops the rebellion rate to 0% is it able to rebel then?

You could test this yourselves ofcourse :), but I will give the answer later on. Or earlier on to the persons private messaging me for the answer. But please, do give your first answer to this question in this topic.

Very small update:

I tried to see if there were any bugs considering diffrences in host/clients.
I based this possibility on: as Host in winter you first get gold, then you pay troops. As client You pay troops first, then gain gold. Then with some error fix I guess, you pay again and get back the supposedly deserted troops.

Made me wonder if this also goes for country rebellions.
If host has an advantage to this, by moving soldiers to a rebelious country dropping rebellion rate before rebellions are calculated.

This is not bugged, since it goes for the same for host and client.

The reason for this small update is the question stated above.

Another small edit(Menthal note)
Unpossible to get a prim country devoted with diplos, without influence from other countries.(Only tested for 40k prim, about 30/35 turns) low-moderate supportive at max, not till 2 units production a turn.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2010 08:58PM by Paars.

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Roddy ()
Date: December 09, 2010 11:50AM

Hi Paars,

I was wondering about the strategy of retreating for tax saving, i've seen you and a number of the other best players do this. What is the best way to use this tactic and what are the savings?

KrazyKat

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Paars ()
Date: December 09, 2010 12:17PM

Don't know about other players but I have no real standards for using such tactics. Its always a gamble to pull back in some way, I take in consideration what I am widrawing from. I won't do it if it costs me a productive country I own. I sometimes only partly witdraw so I save some extra gold while making sure my country is still save. Also only use those tactics when I am in the weaker position. To have a huge amount of troops in your capital after winter is very cheap, if you are close enough to front to make them participate before next winter is very useful. This for example especially applies in 3v3 in Ulster position.
retreating from a non-important country you usually can witdraw full force(minus armies that equal farms/population).

Paars

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Captain Planet ()
Date: January 04, 2011 06:01AM

Nicely updated Paars, it's been a while since I've checked in.

You might wanna redo some bullet points if you are aiming towards fledglings, as a discussion thread it's good, you could link to it.

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Attila ()
Date: January 31, 2011 10:50PM

bump

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: live4games ()
Date: May 08, 2011 11:49AM

i hate bumpers

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Roddy ()
Date: January 29, 2012 10:38AM

Bump

KrazyKat

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Squeegie ()
Date: February 03, 2012 12:00PM

roddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was wondering about the strategy of retreating
> for tax saving, i've seen you and a number of the
> other best players do this. What is the best way
> to use this tactic and what are the savings?

I like answering questions that are more than a year old. Paars gave some insight and I'll add to that.

The point of retreating is usually to "cash" your opponent. Imagine it's winter and you (Ulster) have 80 armies in Brittany and your opponent (Grenada) has 90 armies in Gascony. The obvious move for your opponent is to attack Brittany with all 90 to take it. If your first move is all 80 from Brittany to England, your opponent may then have 90 armies in Brittany, that will cost about $350 upkeep that he may not be prepared for. (even if he is prepared, it's $350 upkeep for him and only about $230 for you)

The trick becomes when 2 experienced players try to out-think their opponent. "Will he move out of Brittany? If so, I could take it with just 5 armies and not have to pay so much for it." "Will he attack with 90 or just with 5? I could back out all but 10 so either I hold it or he still has to pay for 80 of his troops if he does attack"... The out-thinking battle can be fun.

Just a little input from the Squeeg.

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Roddy ()
Date: April 15, 2012 02:39PM

BUMP

KrazyKat

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Gratis ()
Date: October 14, 2012 01:49AM

BUMP!

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Attila ()
Date: October 21, 2012 02:48AM

BURP!

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Akiran ()
Date: October 21, 2012 08:31AM

Fart?

M-K

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Attila ()
Date: October 21, 2012 08:43AM

PUKE!

Re: Strategy's of Paars.
Posted by: Attila ()
Date: November 13, 2012 12:09PM

BURP

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.