Samantha78
07 Mar 2012, 12:32 AM
At a member's request, the table below sets out the tribes of the UK's previous winners - given a debate around which wall was the best choice
https://img.skitch.com/20120307-nagtir38dnug54adm8hy7tuyxx.jpg
So from first glance, it is very unusual for a roman holder to win a server - but some do brave it and succeed with a 5x strength artefact.
For 'slow' servers, Teutons definitely outperform Gauls - but is this because they are intrinsically better, or just because people think it is the safe option?
For speed servers, Teutons and Gauls are pretty much equal - may be the higher defences make Gaul's a stronger option?
Commentary from the legendary RinTinTin's guide (which I guess many may have followed) is:
# What race is the best to choose to defend a WW?
This is an excellent question, and there’s no “right” answer. I’ve seen Romans and Teutons win servers, and I’m sure there have been plenty of Gauls that have won too (just not on the servers I have played). However, here’s sort of an analysis:
From what I've seen on servers past, nobody takes rams seriously. I've seen very few hammers that have enough rams to make a significant ding in WW villages. What does this mean to the topic at hand? Well, Roman walls are notoriously wimpy against rams. If a player takes rams seriously, that Roman wall will be down with very little effort. However, past precedence says that people will continue to lack in the ram department, making Roman walls for WW defenses very doable.
If the opposing players are not going to take rams seriously this means that a Roman will more than likely be able to enjoy their 81 percent defense bonus that the wall gives them. When you're applying that to WW defense stats, that's some serious D. In a "perfect" situation where the players forget about the need for rams, the Roman WW village is by far the very best of the best. You can't beat the bonus, and the double build feature is cool (but not really helpful for a WW village at all).
The benefits of a Roman WW village are obvious. However, if a server decides to wise up and send some rams with their hammers (perhaps a restarting server that has numerous experienced people playing them), then the Roman wall becomes as ineffective as a Phalanx is at attacking. This leads to the question of which other of the two tribes should be used to defend that WW?
Personally my favorite by far is the Teuton WW village. The Teuton wall is about 5x stronger than the Roman wall and still receives a very respectable 49% defensive bonus. Were this to be relatively even between the tribes, the Teuton wall would get 1/5 of the 81% bonus that the Romans get, but they actually receive much more than that.
Keeping your wall intact is a huge time saver and benefit to WW villages that is practically priceless. While Romans are stuck rebuilding their walls after a successful hammer, a Teuton could keep plugging away at the WW race since their walls are much more likely to hold. The WW race is a marathon, but rebuilding wall levels can cost an alliance the WW race if they are forced to do it one too many times (servers have been lost by as little as 2 hours difference in when lvl 100 of the WW finished).
Now, there are some things to be said about the Gallic wall, but with the palisade you are still taking a risk against rams. Teutons give a person the most insurance in an attack. I won't say a lot about the Gauls except that they are the middle ground.
There is one counter argument that the bonus of the Roman wall should even out the difference between it and the Teuton's Earth Wall strength. Starting out with an 81% bonus versus a 49% bonus at the beginning of the attack may even the difference. Well, I would argue that the Roman wall will be taken down so quickly in an attack that the 81% bonus is diminished to a point that is even with (or lower than) the Teuton wall strength so early in the attack that it won't matter hardly at all. If the Roman wall is taken down that quickly in the attack like I think it probably would be, then the Roman bonus is mitigated and shows why a Teuton wall is so much more beneficial. A Roman wall could be lowered by a small amount of rams and the bonus lost very quickly whereas the Teuton wall is MUCH harder to lower at all.
Summary (personal opinion): Teuton walls FTW. Roman walls if you're feeling lucky. Gaul walls if you stand by the power of the bonus and want to play the middle road.
And for pure geeks, http://archive.forum.travian.com/showthread.php?132039-Combat-system-formulas&p=1537514&viewfull=1#post1537514 is kirilloid's guide to the calculations used when rams are involved [caution: there is a chart with parabolas ;)]
[With enough useful discussion, I'll update this first post with a better summary of wisdom]
https://img.skitch.com/20120307-nagtir38dnug54adm8hy7tuyxx.jpg
So from first glance, it is very unusual for a roman holder to win a server - but some do brave it and succeed with a 5x strength artefact.
For 'slow' servers, Teutons definitely outperform Gauls - but is this because they are intrinsically better, or just because people think it is the safe option?
For speed servers, Teutons and Gauls are pretty much equal - may be the higher defences make Gaul's a stronger option?
Commentary from the legendary RinTinTin's guide (which I guess many may have followed) is:
# What race is the best to choose to defend a WW?
This is an excellent question, and there’s no “right” answer. I’ve seen Romans and Teutons win servers, and I’m sure there have been plenty of Gauls that have won too (just not on the servers I have played). However, here’s sort of an analysis:
From what I've seen on servers past, nobody takes rams seriously. I've seen very few hammers that have enough rams to make a significant ding in WW villages. What does this mean to the topic at hand? Well, Roman walls are notoriously wimpy against rams. If a player takes rams seriously, that Roman wall will be down with very little effort. However, past precedence says that people will continue to lack in the ram department, making Roman walls for WW defenses very doable.
If the opposing players are not going to take rams seriously this means that a Roman will more than likely be able to enjoy their 81 percent defense bonus that the wall gives them. When you're applying that to WW defense stats, that's some serious D. In a "perfect" situation where the players forget about the need for rams, the Roman WW village is by far the very best of the best. You can't beat the bonus, and the double build feature is cool (but not really helpful for a WW village at all).
The benefits of a Roman WW village are obvious. However, if a server decides to wise up and send some rams with their hammers (perhaps a restarting server that has numerous experienced people playing them), then the Roman wall becomes as ineffective as a Phalanx is at attacking. This leads to the question of which other of the two tribes should be used to defend that WW?
Personally my favorite by far is the Teuton WW village. The Teuton wall is about 5x stronger than the Roman wall and still receives a very respectable 49% defensive bonus. Were this to be relatively even between the tribes, the Teuton wall would get 1/5 of the 81% bonus that the Romans get, but they actually receive much more than that.
Keeping your wall intact is a huge time saver and benefit to WW villages that is practically priceless. While Romans are stuck rebuilding their walls after a successful hammer, a Teuton could keep plugging away at the WW race since their walls are much more likely to hold. The WW race is a marathon, but rebuilding wall levels can cost an alliance the WW race if they are forced to do it one too many times (servers have been lost by as little as 2 hours difference in when lvl 100 of the WW finished).
Now, there are some things to be said about the Gallic wall, but with the palisade you are still taking a risk against rams. Teutons give a person the most insurance in an attack. I won't say a lot about the Gauls except that they are the middle ground.
There is one counter argument that the bonus of the Roman wall should even out the difference between it and the Teuton's Earth Wall strength. Starting out with an 81% bonus versus a 49% bonus at the beginning of the attack may even the difference. Well, I would argue that the Roman wall will be taken down so quickly in an attack that the 81% bonus is diminished to a point that is even with (or lower than) the Teuton wall strength so early in the attack that it won't matter hardly at all. If the Roman wall is taken down that quickly in the attack like I think it probably would be, then the Roman bonus is mitigated and shows why a Teuton wall is so much more beneficial. A Roman wall could be lowered by a small amount of rams and the bonus lost very quickly whereas the Teuton wall is MUCH harder to lower at all.
Summary (personal opinion): Teuton walls FTW. Roman walls if you're feeling lucky. Gaul walls if you stand by the power of the bonus and want to play the middle road.
And for pure geeks, http://archive.forum.travian.com/showthread.php?132039-Combat-system-formulas&p=1537514&viewfull=1#post1537514 is kirilloid's guide to the calculations used when rams are involved [caution: there is a chart with parabolas ;)]
[With enough useful discussion, I'll update this first post with a better summary of wisdom]