Hammer Building

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    Would you like to know what’s going on in the Tournament 2017 Finals?
    Keep yourself updated by reading "The Corner"!

    • Fizzy wrote:

      The infrastructure must still be a small percentage of the actual cost though, so you werent actually commited.


      True :( its just having demolished everything and having a whole pile of GW and the most boring capital in the world, the 40 days it took me to go level 21 didnt seem that bad and I had 45 days troops in GS GB B and S and SW already stacked - thats all I meant by committed.

      I didnt lose any GS GB stack time going to levels 18 through to 21 as I made sure I was already stacked for the time it took before upgrading each time, that way troops churned off as the fields came on line

      Nope, Im certain another player would have got to 340k troops with my account but not cos of a different spend on wheat fields but because they would have started the server much better than me and not fallen asleep on the job when garaging troops

      My account should have had over 300k and that for me will be a massive disappointment with only myself to kick about it - c'est la vie!

      Id still do it again (except I started late again on server 2!!!!!!!!) as it took me less time to build that last layer of wheat and other fields than to settle and build up the villages I would have needed to get an additional 38k resource per hour let alone wheat production - chiefing would have been nice but my nearest enemy was 24 hours away cos Id gone to the outer hebrides and beyond!

      I know I wasnt clever (no surprise there) but in the test of time over cost, fizzy is right that chiefing is best but when that option is not available, then upgrading to 21 proved quicker than settling and I was after speed not cheapness - bit like cars really :)
    • Fizzy wrote:

      Its not so much that they dont pay themselves off on a speed server, its that whilst you are building them, you are not running GB/GS. In theory, if you chief villages at a quick enough rate for the rest of the server, you dont need to go to 19s anyway, as the continued increase in resource production will equal the increase in troop feeding costs.


      What about settling as opposed to chiefing?
    • Cherrypip wrote:

      What about settling as opposed to chiefing?


      The main issue here I think is CP so that would not make a huge amount of difference in terms of increasing production, however each village you settle has an associated cost of development of between 1.5mil and 3mil resources which detracts from extending troop queues.

      Reading back though, I think I was a little harsh in my previous post - Sleeping Dragon's account was a beast of a resource machine by anyone's standards and not everyone plays purely for troop count. Sorry!
    • Cherrypip wrote:

      What about settling as opposed to chiefing?



      Simmmmmaaaahhhh!!! :p

      It obviously depends on your targets, but chiefing is more effective resource and time wise. Because of the longer time and increased resources it takes to get a settled village to maxed out feeder status, compared to a chiefed village, it would mean more strain on troop feeding.

      However it also depends on your style of play, if you are very non-offensive, then its quite likely your chiefing targets have dug in and are well defended, so the cost in troops might make it more sensible to settle. My issue would be, if you're hoping to be building troops 24/7 for the remainder of the server, having to settle dozens of villages and simming them up would be extremely soul sapping.
    • Good guide for beginner, altough I already knew everything there, I still enjoy reading guides done with care. Also thats sick amount of wheat there, Sleeping Dragon. I barely get 30k wheat production during full server lol