These results speak more about the strength of armies with good heroes, and mercenaries, than they do about how well I set up my army.
The other guy did some things right - he split up his ranged units into small armies - range strike units - for one thing. But you see he had only one hero for all those armies. All of my squads have heroes with some master levels. I had more ranged mercs. For the size of his army - I would have had more meat. This time the kill ratio was greater than 14:1 in open combat. So - a lesson in what to do with your hero in his spare time - go out leveling. The armies that beat him had about 3/4 the total troops, half as many archers, marksmen, and rangers, but more swords, normans, and horse archers. And more heroes.
[code]Results of campaign in Darkness. You lost: Man-at-arms 3, Pikeman 3, Swordsman 830. You killed: Man-at-arms 200, Archer 2870, Hero 1, Scout 2, Marksman 2859, Norman Archer 119, Pikeman 223, Ranger 3077, Royal Guard 244, Highwayman 22, Swordsman 8349, Knight 55. You robbed: {0}. Results of a fight in resources: not available. [/code]
Just to make sure I don't get a big head over this, here are some more results.
[code]Campaign in barbarian fort.
Results of campaign in barbarian fort. You lost: Horse Archer 183, Hero 5, Scout 1, Pikeman 899, Ranger 882, Knight 269, Man-at-arms 968, Archer 986, Horseman 364, Marksman 960, Norman Archer 583, Royal Guard 190, Highwayman 134, Swordsman 6706. You killed: bear 939, Horse Archer 362, Teutonic knight 127, Hero 2, Scout 8, Cart 619, Pikeman 150, Ranger 328, Knight 582, Archer 298, Barbarian 200, Man-at-arms 177, Horseman 507, Marksman 282, Norman Archer 360, Royal Guard 318, Barbarian 2830, Highwayman 695, Swordsman 4429. You robbed: 0. Results of a fight in resources: not available. [/code]
This time you will notice that, while I still won - the kill ratio was very close to 1:1. This player is learning. I've whipped him twice before - and always with very close to the same size army. The previous two times I had over a 2:1 kill ratio, one of those times it was about 2.5:1. In this battle I had a similar army and composition to the first battle above, but I had fewer mercs. This guy had more mercs than me by quite a bit, he had one hero for each of his armies. I was running 6 armies to his 3, same as above, all with master level heroes. A few minutes into this battle this player closes to melee range - where his army is much stronger than mine, with full complements of teutons and barbs, etc. 4 of my armies were primarily range, with meat and minimum melee defense. So, as far as range was concerned, the situations in these two battles was a little reversed. In the first battle above, I had a distinct range advantage - in spite of the fact that he had twice as many striking range squads. I had better heroes and better troops. In the second battle, it was me that was trying to make up for the lack of merc range by creating more range squads to strike. He had better troops.
Also, to judge from the change in results from my previous battles with this second player, either this player had leveled up his heroes, a lot, or he had far better artifacts, or it could just be that his melee mercs made the difference. I know I had been leveling up my heroes a lot. They spent over a week in the monster cave. I'll have to examine the log in detail to know more.
There ya go - two battles, two wins.
1
hiero
on: 04 Mar 2011 [17:04]
Btw - the 2nd result set is wrong - I sent a report and cleared the log before I left the hut - so it doesn't show the right numbers. Sorry! The total results were he lost 13600, I lost 13200. He lost 755 horse archers to my 183. 109 Teutons - I had 0; 750 normans to my 583. 677 highwaymen to my 134, 279 royals to my 190, 560 knights to my 269 - get the picture?
crimson
on: 04 Mar 2011 [17:16]
updated: 04 Mar 2011 [17:24]
hope they were not on same cell (unless each group minus 1 has a hero but I only see you killed 1 hero so this action is from a person who has little knowledge and is still learning)
mercenaries are about 1.5X stronger than normal troops.
heroes offer massive bonuses if used correctly. all I see from this is that you are more knowledgeable than the person who is on the receiving end but as you have stated, the receiver is learning and progressing! The way I see it, win or lose, if you gained knowledge and utilize it, you are a winner in any situation.
here is one of my recent battles:
You lost: Barbarian 5, Man-at-arms 43, Teutonic knight 60, Horseman 58, Scout 3, Knight Templar 63, Pikeman 42, Highwayman 87, Knight 548, Swordsman 7357. You killed: Horse Archer 979, Teutonic knight 260, Hero 8, Scout 36, Knight Templar 158, Slave 446, Pikeman 2534, Ranger 307, Knight 780, Barbarian 1666, Man-at-arms 2103, Archer 3897, Santa Claus 70, Horseman 762, Marksman 2672, Norman Archer 2057, Royal Guard 250, Highwayman 23, Swordsman 14598.
I only had 6 heroes compared to the 8 heroes 4 people combined had (I think there were 7 to 8 groups combined) so hero/group was the same but they had 2 groups more than I. However with the tactics I used were complemented by my heroes skills. now, if the full melee potential each of those 4 players were there, it would be a completely different story. but at the time, their tactics provided me a window to use my tactics with gusto.
hiero
on: 08 Mar 2011 [02:41]
I would say I was more clever --- --- , but ok! Both players have been playing longer than myself. The first opponent put some of these small attack squads on the same cell, some not. And certainly you are correct about the heroes. I attribute the lopsided character of that win primarily to the power of heroes. As for the 2nd opponent, he has been learning. However, a detailed examination of the battle log leads me to believe that the primary reason for his performance improvement was that he closed to melee range. I only had a small advantage in heroes in this battle, and he had a large advantage in melee mercs.
--- , but ok! Both players have been playing longer than myself. The first opponent put some of these small attack squads on the same cell, some not. And certainly you are correct about the heroes. I attribute the lopsided character of that win primarily to the power of heroes. As for the 2nd opponent, he has been learning. However, a detailed examination of the battle log leads me to believe that the primary reason for his performance improvement was that he closed to melee range. I only had a small advantage in heroes in this battle, and he had a large advantage in melee mercs.
