It seems that raze is much better than HnR- it takes out homes and you don't have to be smaller than the enemy to hit them with it. Is there any reason somebody would want to HnR now? If not, how can we change it to make it useful?
Joe, January 2010
It's the most effective way to kill military I think. So you want to use it to cripple non-semi-immortal attackers.
Cecil, January 2010
it preps the other attacks so they are more effective
Bolle, January 2010
no it doesnt preps the other attacks so they are more effective, whatever that is supposed to mean. It just kills military. Rather effectively, I must say. Much better than razes.
CBeast, January 2010
Hmmm, I didnt know losses were significantly higher on HnR. Good to know :)
Chonka, January 2010
What I think Cecil is saying that it lowers Defence so the attackers don't need to send as much.. eg; be more effective.
Wolfbrother, January 2010
We'll soon find out when a certain all-viking alliance decides to hnr a bigger tribe to death.
Halcyon, January 2010
why bother. 10 in range razes sounds like the quicker way to it :P
Wolfbrother, January 2010
Just for fun i guess. Or maybe if the target is a dwarf.
Aqualightnin, January 2010, edited
HnR is for when a kill isn't the objective.
lets say i need to do a land grab, but no appropriate targets are in range that i can break... some ally mates could HnR a target, or i could even HNR them myself as well if its bigger than me, to reduce their troops enough for you to break.
then again that's not a situation that happens often. but hey, it's a time when it could still be useful :).
~aqua
Cecil, January 2010
also works for knocking mags/thfs defenses down so more BCs can be made by more alli members
