Forums

Posts in the format of “X race sucks.” will be removed to keep the thread on topic.
Posts in the format of “X race sucks BECAUSE” will be kept.
Posts commenting or arguing previous posts will be kept.

TLDR; Stay on topic

I personally think dwarves suck, because:
- They're an attacker that is very hard to play as an attacker, and much easier to explore with. Why are they considered an attacker?
- They can't run the mines they need to get better income because they get Engineered Explosives-d / Pillaged into rubble

Dragons suck because,

In the current META late game attackers will rarely make it, the exception to this is Balrog (OP another issue) as they are able to explore in early game.

Dragons lack the income to explore.
Lack the playerbase to grow through pillage (which is the weakest attack type currently)
Lack effective units to actually give them good ratios.


Brittonian and Spirit both suck because they are thieves, and well thieves suck atm quite significantly.
Mori Hai is a touch better due to the extra homes and attacker utility.
Thieves are Easy to kill as soon as they do offensive ops and thieves are out.
Their damage output is very low comparitively.
Citizen ratio is terrible due to thieves.

Fairy ''sucks'' because they are so unbelievably OP its shameful. I always take the lead of 125, they always identify the Broken races and play them well. When they pick 3 fairy thats cast iron evidence they are broken. (thats not a dig at 125!)

dwarves are OPed as explorer and unplayable as an attacker unless you can keep 200dpa all age

fairies should have been removed last age for balancing but here we are..

Fairies only seem overpowered because any bonus that is fame driven is normally not balanced after a certain point. But fairies are not overpowered if your alliance is not warring all the time and making kills like 31 last age.

you shouldnt be able to throw 250DMs regardless of how well you played it. it's easy to get to 20-30k fame as fairy and the bonuses then are quite substantial

@Fairies:
There was discussion 3 ages back about capping their fame bonus to 30% or so. That was not done in the end I guess
I think it would make them more Fair(ies)

A strong alliance can make any race seem OP with a playerbase this size.

That said, I haven't tried dragons but it sounds like they are unplayable. And that's too bad because they are a key race.

Thieves would be better with increased efficiency. Too easy to kill. Their defensive & elites are little better than that of mages. An easy change would be to improve Poltergeist to 2/9 and Tree Ent to 0/10. And decrease auto-fail.

I didn't see dwarves sucking - 32 had two attacker-dwarves (and warred most of the age - they lived) and 125 had an attacking dwarf. Jeffe didn't really count since he didn't get offense until 2/3 of the way through the round.

Spirit does not suck
Because, failed Intel doesn't generate news and can't be visioned, military units are relatively well balanced compared to other races, only thing I would consider changing is the def unit being opposite the elite (2/6)

Fairy does not suck
Mainly because it's my favourite race to play however it does need some balancing that much is obvious, no mage should be able to throw out 250 dms under 10k and even at 10k 200 dms should be a cap or lower dragonmage damage


Brittonian sucks
Because, they have insane income, cheap units and decent population, too easy to get big from exploring and when killed can reset and be even more of a pain in the ass then before
Would propose lowering their income or raising their unit costs

Dragon sucks
Because, with current player base it is almost useless unless they can survive to end age, units are expensive and their income is very low, pillaging and raiding still don't really help.them to be efficient at all

Instead of nerfing the respawn we could always bring back size requirements for various ops/spells.

mage limit = size/100 was the old tried & true.

so strange to me that anyone can respawn & start throwing arson or DM within a few ticks.

An easy to agree upon, incremental betterment to dragons would be to provide:

* 25% magic & thief resistance
* 40% ordinary losses

Basic Baby Dragon 2/2 175 cr
Off Green Dragon 10/2 525 cr --> 11/2 550 cr
Def Black Dragon 0/10 600 cr --> 0/11 625 cr
Elite Red Dragon 15/6 1,100 cr --> 16/5 1100 cr
Thief White Dragon 2/3 400 cr

Would I play them yet? Not sure, but they are certainly getting closer.

i dont think dwarves are what it's supposed to be atm.. exploring is too easy if you can keep mines your income is ridiculous. i've ended up #1 and #2 and the second time was after getting killed after week1 of age. both times it just wasnt worth attacking and was risky due to poor efficiency even when i had 100% infra and 60% war. jeffe did good but he's crazily active. the 32 dwarves were only able to get away with attacking early due to keeping 200dpa as they were on warring path killing everyone who grabbed them.

so reduce income /increase cost and improve efficiency of offence would be nice

That's fair, Anon.

So we agree they are meant to be faster attackers (we need to challenge the raven) and not explorers. And they could use a little efficiency boost.

I'd rather boost defense since offense is supportable by weaponries, which dwarves can build quickly. Dwarves are builders, after all, so what about --->

To start we could:
+35% exploration costs
-40% build costs
Off Hammer Smasher 5/0 400 cr --> 5/0 325 cr
Def Mortar Team 0/6 725 cr --> 0/7 900 cr

off spec might be a bit cheap especially when you can run 80% mines early age? someone needs to do the numbers. i wouldnt mind an increase in cost for def specs to around 1k if 0/7, should be at least 25% more than comparable 0/7s as income would be more than 50% more than other races. would give more incentive for attacking

Re: Dwarf

We all agree we need more early age attackers. We have ravens and raven hunters presently.

Including soldiers the cost of off spec is decreased by 15% (500 -> 425)
Including soldiers the cost of def spec is increased by 3.8% (825/6 = 137.5) vs. (900/7 = 142.9)

It looks like you're right about def spec needing to cost more. 1,000 cr (1100/7 = 157.1) is increase of ~14%.

To challenge a raven early age would kinda defeat the whole purpose of them being an week 1-2 strength. I dont feel its needed to add another early age attacker. Raven die in week 3 90% of the time anyway. The 3 raven are wrecking havoc atm and its keeping us thieves and mages on our toes. I dont think I've seen this much activity in a while honestly. Those ravens are making people more active.
No need to add an early age attacker imo.
But I love this whole conversation and conception!!!!!

What we do miss is the followup attacker that starts steaming up in week two.

Dragon used to be that. Dwarf is the most likely option but would need to get +50% explore costs and improved unit values (not costs, just attacker values, stuff like 8/0 and 4/8)

Okay, the dev team will read through this. Looks like three races were highlighted specifically for balancing.
Thanks for all the posts :)

Being dumb ignore me.

What post?
*Edit* Found your post in different thread: alliancesatwar.com/forums/game/778220/poll-for-races/