How to play Drakes

[csarmi]

Drakes do have some blade resist, yes, but it matters much less than you'd think, because of their low defense. Low defense makes you get hit a lot. Fighters do a good damage on counters and when YOU attack you slow first. Of course Shamans are Da Real Bomb! Slowing stops retreats. I would not recommend many archers, maybe 1 or 2.

[Guo-Jia]

2. Drakes are alla about waiting. Again, your units die with relative ease, so you should be the one deciding when and where to attack. If this means sitting on your villages, so be it, as long as it leads to victory.

Drakes are all about mobility. Opportunities will not come by waiting.

These do not necessarily contradict each other. You can still use the advantage from their mobility, even if you wait few turns before that.
And I disagree with that, opportunities do come by waiting, at least if you can spot them. Of course you can't win a game just by waiting, I didn't mean that... just that there's more to a match than just the climax, preparation for it is important tool.

[Pentarctagon]

Of course you can't win a game just by waiting, I didn't mean that...

not true. i have won matches by simply waiting and eventually they get annoyed and bring their leader out to try and swing the match in their favor, i swarm the spot where the leader is, trap it and kill it. against about 80% of players, you can sit back on good terrain and wait for them to come to you, watch them get slaughtered against your line while you get some good experience, and then advance against them in their weakened state. the other 20% are the smart players who know that waiting for the right opportunity is the key.

[jmegner]

Of course you can't win a game just by waiting, I didn't mean that...

not true. i have won matches by simply waiting and eventually they get annoyed and bring their leader out to try and swing the match in their favor, i swarm the spot where the leader is, trap it and kill it. against about 80% of players, you can sit back on good terrain and wait for them to come to you, watch them get slaughtered against your line while you get some good experience, and then advance against them in their weakened state. the other 20% are the smart players who know that waiting for the right opportunity is the key.

So, what is the best way to defeat someone who is being very defensive and is occupying high-defense terrain? How do the opportunities you talk about emerge?

[Velensk]

If he's just sitting there it depends on your faction and map. For most factions and maps you simply invest in some heavy artilery wait for the right time of day and pry him out. In most maps you're forced to either stand unit out in the open or have a cornor with 3 sides exposed. Either of these can be defeated by the right units at the right time of day. This way when you expose yourself, they still have to expose themselves to kill you and you can use your time of day advantage to mop them up when they do. If they don't attack you or move from their good terrain, you can simply methodicaly kill them/steal villages. The problem comes in mirror matches when there is no right time of day.

[Pentarctagon]

thats about right. the drake faction are particularly good at countering defensive play styles because they can utilize both night(saurians) and day(drakes).

[Yoyobuae]

I've been playing Drakes for a while now. I only play Drakes, in fact.

I've noticed a few nice things about drakes (the race):
- Drakes do well on poor defense terrain (a high hp drake can endure 30% def of flat much better than other races with 40% def).
- Conversly, drakes do horrible on good terrain (40% def vs 50%~60% is a HUGE disadvantage, far more than it seems)
- Drakes are actually quite fragile (the higher hp doesn't really compensate for 30~40% def, plus having resistance weaknesses everyone can exploit)
- Even if a drake survives thanks to high hp, he will take ages to heal

On the flip side, there also some things I noticed about saurians:
- They do great on good terrain (again the HUGE difference between 60% and 40%~50% def)
- Bad terrain is suicide for them (this one is pretty obvious)
- Even in good terrain, they are quite fragile if RNG hates you. Or the opposite if RNG likes you.
- When a saurian survives an enemy attack, he will probably be healed back in a few of turns
- They get far more benefits out of resilient/strong hp bonuses

It is like the two sides of the coin. Combining saurians and drakes into a single faction was a great idea from the devs.

But I'm seeing that saurians are considered a second class unit when compared to drakes. The guides above frequently talk about the "awesome" or "massive" damage of burners/clashers.

On the other hand, when saurians are mentioned as "essential" or "crucial", inmediately after you're reminded about the "incredibly low hp" they have. Well, maybe that was in a previous version when skirms had 22 hp and augurs had 18 hp (that must've been ridiculous).

IMO, between drakes rather weaknesess and bad defense, they are nearly as fragile as saurians in good terrain. The difference is that saurians are more prone to the luck factor than drakes.

But luck can be good, particularly in defense. 60% defense works great as a deterrent against attackers. When they see saurians in good terrain, they rush to get the mages/marksman/poison/etc units. But against drakes they'll just attack you outright, and have some certainty of making a kill at least.

Even worst if saurians can be healed. It is a huge turn off for the enemy when he sees the unit he had badly damaged, now is at full health after a few turns. Augurs make this even more efficient, by healing the saurians even when at the battle line. If they level up to Soothsayers (not that hard either) even better.

But there's still the issue of low hp. At 26 hp, your regular skirmisher is likely to get one turn KOed. But what about a resilient one? 31 hp@60% def is no joke. That is just enough to put him out of one turn KO danger in most cases (unless leadership, high damage impact/blade, normal damage fire/cold, magical/marksman, temporary bad luck, etc comes into play. probably a when combination of the above comes together).

Drake units are good too. But when I use plenty of drakes I either get pushed around (or risk taking tons of damage). Sure when ToD helps drakes can push back. Dunno, it feels weird not being able to hold your opponent back for half of the day.

Am I making any sense here?


Note: To tell the truth I focus on Isar's Cross map mainly, I can't say I know much about using drakes mobility. I know, Drakes on Isar's is a bad idea. But I figured that there most be a way to play it somewhat effectively with Drakes (ocassionally you hear "pro" players say that it is possible).

Dunno why, perhaps I see it as a challenge. It would be really nice to be able to play Drakes O.K. even on small maps.

[JW]

On the other hand, when saurians are mentioned as "essential" or "crucial", inmediately after you're reminded about the "incredibly low hp" they have. Well, maybe that was in a previous version when skirms had 22 hp and augurs had 18 hp (that must've been ridiculous).

I wrote these guides for version 1.0.2 of BfW I believe. Many, many changes have happened to the balance of the game since then.

(Look at the original posting dates for how long ago that was!)

[chaoticwanderer]

Augurs with 18 hp... I can't even imagine that...

Especially considering I am very partial to the augurs.

[silent]

Unless playing against loyalists, the unit I am most partial to would be the drake fighter.

Essentially, it is the spearman-esque unit of the drakes, except with better movement and a ranged attack than can be useful at times.

Being able to bring several of these guys from far away to converge where the battle is at it's peak and turn the tide is extremely useful.

If playing loyalists, I'd prefer a combination of the clasher/skirmisher, with 1 to 2 burners and augurs, since the fighter is atrocious against spearmen.

[Yoyobuae]

Drake fighters are good on the ofensive. They have Ok damage + can fly in from afar.

Defense-wise though, they are just plain fragile. I wouldn't call them spearman-esque at all. A spearman on 50% defense is comparable to a clasher on 40% (not including resistances).

A normal saurian skirmisher at 60% defense terrain is just as good at holding ground as a fighters (leaving out resistances and with average luck). And a resillient saurian skirmisher is much tougher than a resilient drake figher.

Fighters get an advantage over saurians against enemies with blade/impact/fire attacks (cold is bad for either). But seriously, someone who recruits those kind of units against drakes is just asking for trouble.

I normally only recruit fighters as quick reinforcements to provide extra melee damage when on the ofensive (when a clasher would be too slow or expensive).

[silent]

Drake fighters are good on the ofensive. They have Ok damage + can fly in from afar.

Defense-wise though, they are just plain fragile. I wouldn't call them spearman-esque at all. A spearman on 50% defense is comparable to a clasher on 40% (not including resistances).

A normal saurian skirmisher at 60% defense terrain is just as good at holding ground as a fighters (leaving out resistances and with average luck). And a resillient saurian skirmisher is much tougher than a resilient drake figher.

Fighters get an advantage over saurians against enemies with blade/impact/fire attacks (cold is bad for either). But seriously, someone who recruits those kind of units against drakes is just asking for trouble.

I normally only recruit fighters as quick reinforcements to provide extra melee damage when on the ofensive (when a clasher would be too slow or expensive).

I meant spearman-esque in the sense that I would recruit several as a loyalist would recruit several spearman, due to it's overall usefulness.

And I don't know what you're comparing saurian VS fighter to at holding ground, but saurians are simply too frail to do this effectively and, this is just my opinion, I don't think using something frail to hold against an attack is a good idea. Ignoring undead, I'd prefer the clasher mostly, saurian skirmishers if against rebels.

And the only way a resilient skirmisher is better than a resilient fighter would be if the RNG favored the saurian, which is far from guaranteed. Relying on luck to save your unit is rarely a good idea, which is probably the reason I like drakes, since you know you'll always get lousy luck, which you can prepare for more easily, and any other result is a bonus.

[Yoyobuae]

2 spearman vs 1 drake fighter (8-3 damage against fighter), 40% defense: chance to die 23%
2 drake fighters vs 1 saurian skirmisher (8-3 damage against skirmisher), 60% defense: chance to die 18%

Yeah not much difference, but saurian skirmisher is cheaper. And like I said before, the drake will take more damage because of the lower defense, and will be harder to heal back to health.

Unless there is a strong reasons against (fire/cold/magical attacks or pierce resisting enemies), I prefer to keep a front line of skirmishers mostly and keep drakes behind. If the enemy attacks and the skirmishers survive, they go to heal, if they don't at least I didn't lose a 17+ gold recruit. In any case, the drakes behind are at full health and ready for the counter attack.

It's probably not the best way to play drakes, but it has worked for me.

It's a different story when attacking first, though. The drakes have much better damage, which allows for much better chances to actually make kills.

The blade weakness works badly against saurians. I don't just use saurians though. I also have a couple of clashers handy for when the enemy goes crazy with blade/impact/fire.

I guess it also depends a lot on what the enemy has recruited.

[csarmi]

With drakes, you always attack first. That's the point of the whole race.

[Yoyobuae]

I seem to be going against the flow here. So I'm gonna stop here. Feel free to ignore everything I've said about skirmishers.

I'm still learning to play drakes myself anyway.