quasi random (kaolinfire) wrote,
quasi random
kaolinfire

A game I play... sad to admit.

A game I play... sad to admit. It's like Diplomacy or Risk mixed with Farmville or something. "Crazy Tribes". Anywho, I was curious as to the various efficacies of the various troops. I'd been meaning to put this into a spreadsheet for months, and I finally...did. Crazy Tribes Troop Efficacy.

This breakdown ignores the rock/paper/scissors nature of artillery/infantry/cavalry, and also ignores the fact that you can only support so many troops in a base (so once you hit your limit, it's worth buying less cost-efficient troops that are more food-efficient).

In the short game, though, I was a little surprised given the caveats above how stand-out the choices were. If you want to build offense quickly, bikers are the way to go. If you want to build defense quickly, gunners or knockers are equivalent (with gunners being half-again more costly).

If you're strapped for resources, then your best offense is scouts, while your best defense is knockers.

This is a pretty superficial inspection of the data. What would you get out of it? Any thoughts on how to best divide the separate "artillery", "infantry", "cavalry" overlap for both offense and defense?
Tags: crazytribes, data
Subscribe

  • feedback loops

    Ah, feedback loops. I was kind of out of sorts, yesterday, and for some reason had a lot of diet coke (to try to feel better, though I "knew" it…

  • What would I say?

    What would I say, if I were here? It's 2014, almost 2015—though on and off this year, I've been sure it was 2015. Something about that number. Next…

  • a list of games....

    A friend recently asked for a list of all the games I have available. And I'd made most of this list up a week ago, for someone else, and figured,…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments