This isn't about which specialist is over powered. This is about feed back. You have argued your case against countering the king with generals- generals can be countered by anti specialis specilailists.
The problem in is that losing to a King a sucks and feels unfair.
When I fight a general I feel like there is many solutions in dealong with them- they also need a farily specific set up and a longer time to work to full potential. When I fight a King I feel that if I didn't invest early in dealing with a king It's hard to win and I feel hopeless.
Again I don't think at this point its a contest about who is the most powerful- but rather which is more toxic to deal with.

janitorialduties wrote:The very fact that there is many many king posts and nearly zero complaints about the general is evidence of this.

That is exactly what I argued against. I mean, have you ever even fought someone with a general stack? It's the momentum of Kings and everyone thinks the only way to counter kings is to get kings yourself. No-one really ever tries anything different before complaining that the person who gets the first kings always has a huge advantage.

Your point has been countered many different ways. And you still keep saying the same thing.

Anyone who thinks Kings are overpowered obviously hasn't used or seen an effective General strategy. Multiple kings are meaningless against multiple generals.

bobthj wrote:Anyone who thinks Kings are overpowered obviously hasn't used or seen an effective General strategy. Multiple kings are meaningless against multiple generals.

Okay let me put it this way. Two or Three hypnotists make you set. To defend a king with generals, that's a different story. You need 3 generals, a pirate, diplomat and some misc specs to use a cannon fodder. That's 5 specs to set the conbo, and you need 2-3 more misc specs to actually run it. You just need more specs to make the General conbo work. Also, anyone can use kings to win a battle, but generals take skill.

Generals is a later game strategy as it requires more specialists - so kings is easier to set up.

nojo34 wrote:Also, anyone can use kings to win a battle, but generals take skill.

Totally agree with this.

I guess the counter point is this:

I never lose to kings with generals. I can lose all my outposts and turtle up and still make a comeback as soon as I set up generals. I strictly play for the general strategy anymore and the only time I don't wind up at the top is when I screw up majorly.

Now admittedly, I play domination and rarely play the basic game. I suspect generals is much less effective there as the game ends much quicker. But in domination I smile whenever I see my opponents going for kings because I know it's almost a guaranteed win for me. I've even taken to gifting kings to my opponents (when I get them) just to bring down their shields allowing my specialists to run over them even more quickly.

bobthj wrote:Now admittedly, I play domination and rarely play the basic game. I suspect generals is much less effective there as the game ends much quicker.

^this
Domination is an entirely different beast. Also, keep in mind that the game was balanced for mining, not domination, so it stands to reason that the king *should* be more balanced than it is in mining.
Another minor note: Your argument seems to hinge on niche situations where the general is unstoppable or the king is weak. The issue, however, is not that the king is unbeatable, but rather that it's far too easy to dominate a game with kings.
Keep in mind that any pleb can use kings to enormous effect. It removes the skill from the game.

bobthj wrote:I never lose to kings with generals.

This guy knows his stuff.

Me either. In fact, I just don't lose to Kings (unless I am already losing anyway, before the Kings stack).

Roadkiehl wrote:Keep in mind that any pleb can use kings to enormous effect. It removes the skill from the game.

There is some truth to this, for sure. It isn't complicated to stack some kings, make a big sub, and aim it at someone.
But a big part of the effectiveness of this "strategy" is that so many players just sit and wait for it. They see Kings coming, become indecisive or play passively, instead of using better tactics or diplomacy.

mm1menace wrote:It isn't complicated to stack somee indecisive or play passively, instead of using better tactics or diplomacy.

In a game I'm playing right now, a player is about to have a third king in day 6-ish. I'm trying to rally everyone around him to stop him. No luck so far.

nojo34 wrote:

mm1menace wrote:instead of using better tactics or diplomacy.

In a game I'm playing right now, a player is about to have a third king in day 6-ish. I'm trying to rally everyone around him to stop him. No luck so far.

This is what I talked about earlier, when I said that kings are excellent at intimidation.

mm1menace wrote:Yes, they are strong, and in my opinion, they do two things extremely well:
1. extend or solidify a lead
I can honestly say, in my somewhat limited experience, that I have never lost to stacked Kings because of the stacked Kings. Generally, if they beat me...I was already losing.
2. intimidate other players.
This does have a dramatic effect on diplomacy: who, what, when, why, and how.

People are so used to fighting drillers with drillers. Obviously, Kings give you a significant edge in that fight. Since there are so few players that understand the best ways to fight back, they instead try to ally themselves with the kings (not necessarily a bad strategy), or they give up and get rolled over.

I hope you have some success with your diplomacy. Good luck!