1- Milanos, I feel like you think I will do some noob damage-using build like a 5/5/0 build (5 armor 5 damage). I will not do such a thing. My build is almost as effective in preventing losses than the probuild, albeit a small ammount that the probuild does save when it mediumly outnumbers the enemy (when it heavily outnumbers the enemy, it still kills with almost 0 losses). So (I take it your point is even for equal battles, right?) if my armor is blown as well as my damage, most probably so is your armor and a chunck of your range. Definitely bigger than my range. Remember damage also protects range units

2- (again looking from the point of view of an equal worth battle) Lets say half my damage units survive, and I have 5 range for every 7 range you have. But damage units can take out 1 and a half range units, each. And they also protect my range units, acting as armor with some less health. Still, it takes 3 range to kill 2 damage, while your range are unprotected.

And, I believe you didnt read what I wrote in my first post. I suggest you do before you put quotes of arguments I already attended.

Anyways, you suggest that, if I cant win a battle in 1 tick, I should bring in more squads. Well, I do have more squads than you, and even though they dont have as much range as yours, they have slightly more armor, which decreases the ammount of it that I loose. I havent read anywhere where it says this, but I have seen it. The damage taken is distributed between the armor units. That system beats me, but all I need to understand is its consecuences. And the consecuences are that I will still get the effects I want, which is minimal losses.

And I also have the option of fighting head-on. It doesnt mean it is what I will always do. But I can, and you have to watch out for it. Because, it doesnt matter how much I lost, you lost more, probably much more, and I rebuild slightly quicker as well.


And just so you know, yes I have had such rounds. Most of them I didnt win, but one I did. G1 first era, if I dont recall wrong I was using that build. And yes, Rildor knew about it and yes he accepted it as an acceptable build. And the ones I didnt win were because I was using them mainly for testing such a build. I didnt just think about it, decided it was better than the probuild every1 uses, and blabbered about it here.




If you actually have this, you can most probably win even with my build. Surely not a harder job that with the probuild. Its just different.

Well, I dont plan of always facing off with you 1 on 1 equally, but, again, I have the OPTION. It is one more thing you have to watch out for if youre my enemy. And I can still manouver you. I can still look to gang up against you. But, if were both on a standstill because we dont find a lucky chance against each other, I can bash through. Unorthodox, but it wins battles, And if its the decisive battle, it wins the war. And I trust my diplomatic and strategic skills to prevent getting pwned by teamwork. Again, I am not dumb. My point is, that you cant say my build is inferior, by any means. I can live without saying the novabuild is supperior to yours, but not tat it is considered weaker, when it certainly is not. That it doesnt fit your style? Fine. That just because of that its inferior? Not fine.

So, keep closing out an option you could have with this build. It is only that, and the perks, at the very least, completely balance the costs.

With the new buff to Damage units, the 12-6-12 is going to be noticeably superior to the 3-0-7.

Previously, the 12-6-12 vs the 10-0-20, same-cost builds (met/oil) would end up having the Range build win by a close amount (95%) and being less costly on workers and armor repairs.

I'm keeping a lot of my calculations to myself but I think the standards for warfare are going to change.

I've even found calculations that show that 100% armor build is more cost efficient than the 10-0-20 when using 100% tanks. It's true up until about 250% overhead, assuming that you have no problem getting extra workers.

One thing that is certain is that my all armor squads were grilled with BBQ sauce on M1 with a normal range units.

I don't know why all armor is better. First it's cheap cost will make us recruit more. And eventually eat up all ur worker. Second, it will be killed without dealing any damage, and if they do, the only they kill is some armor.

Vault, just read my entire post again, where I explain in DETAIL why you should never never never go for a 1v1 squad battle, and why in ANY other case than a 1v1 battle your build doesn't do well.

This really is the last I'll say about this. There's a reason the people that go for 20/10 or 21/9 win all the rounds, and that you don't win rounds (except for a galaxy server once). The build is simply superior.

An equal fight is never good. If you bring 5 armies against 1 army, then that is good no doubt. But you dont win because you had damage in your army. You win because of your Range and armor and the fact that you outnumbered me. Other factors like what chassis you built against are worth taking note of.

The thing with battles is that, you do as less rounds as possible AND lose as less as possible. In a 4 or more round battle, you DO kill the opposition, but you go back limping. You lose a LOT. Such a battle is a waste of resources and not good strategy.

Again, who says I have to wait till round 4 to get the benefits? I said Milanos did not read what I wrote, because I explained that damage is actually already matching up to the range's effectiveness right at round 2! Definitely numbers alone do not set the final word in this discussion, unless those numbers are "experimental" (have any of you actually tried a build like this?). I have experimented with it, and Im sharing the knowledge Ive gained from it, and my understanding of it.

And, again, one of the most important points of my build is being overlooked: that having damage in my build instead of some range units lowers the cost while staying just as effective in combat! The cost for it is very low, and the bigger, more powerful army compensates for it! And in a battle, every single factor counts. In such wars in which both sides are apparently equally matched, this kind of things are decisive. And sometimes the best course of action is an almost equal battle, but, since the mentality of the players blockade it, you do not see the uncommon, yet best choices in war.

If you simply dont like more options, more army and more military power, simply because when you gang up against weaker oponents you loose a couple more armor, ok.

And Milanos, thats just not true. My build isnt just good in 1v1 battle. Its almost as good as the probuild in team battles... but I respect your opinion. I just want MY opinion to be respected as well, specially when its based on information Ive gathered by my own experiences, and experiments. So take my arguments, chew em up and throw em here. Im no longer going to try to get my voice heard. I will keep it for the ones who have ears.

It certainly lowers the cost alright. But how does it become more effective at round 2? "Effective" would mean that a damage unit does more damage than a range unit. Which is not until the 4th round currently. I dont even let most of my battles get to round 2. I finish battles in round 1. If I cant do 1 round battles, I simply move out and dont fight until I have a favorable situation.

No, I measure the effectivity with the ammount of enemy units killed, in this case the armor. If the armors survive till round 2, they will be crushed by damage. Simply put, damage is better at killing armor than range. Many times better. You can sim that, either small-scale (2dam VS 3arm) or big scale, and same results: damage wins easily. But when you put range VS armor, theyre at a draw. Somehow, at second round, theyre able to kill almost as much armor as range did a round ago. That way, damage pwns whats rest of the armor, while my range units fire away at your range. And all the while my damage also holds up most part of your damage.

And, how many times do I have to say it, that you can always do that anyways! Even if you have this build, you can simply pull back and wait for reinforcements when you dont win be4 round 2, but that doesnt mean this build fails! You have bigger army, with less cost, and you DO have the option of staying and fight, while not loosing almost all of your range: if its a battle between equal worth armies, something between 1/3 to 1/5 of your army will survive. Mostly range, and some damage left depending on chassis, etc.

If you read what I wrote the first post I made, I explained what I believe was happening: the distribution of the damage between the armors, etc. Again, you dont have to believe me, but that is what Ive seen that happens, I just putted it a name and theorized why it happened. But its certain that it happens.

If the number of squads i.e overwhelming your opponent is not up for debate, then your definition of efficiency is wrong. Efficiency is not just cost vs amount of enemy units killed, its cost vs units killed vs losses taken. Any battle that goes beyond round 1, will take more damage than a battle ending in round 1. If Damage is not useful before round 4, spending for them is useless because I dont have any intention to do a battle that lasts more than 1 round. MAYBE 2. You would ultimately end up loosing a lot more Armor (even if you manage to lose just armor) than you would with a Range/Armor combo (If you manage to win ofc).

BTW the 2nd round of a battle, is not when damage fires. Damage just fires 2nd. But it does fire in the 1st round as well. It works like this:

If you dont take into consideration which chassis you built against or whether your squads contain explosive, beam or concussive units then generally speaking:

Range fires first - Armor takes the hit first followed by damage and then range.

Damage fires second - Armor takes the hit first followed by damage and then followed by range.

Armor fires last - Armor takes the hit first followed by damage and then range.

Damage indeed will do more damage to armor, but the ranged units will do much more damage. And as rounds progress, you will keep losing armor and therefore your losses taken will actually be more. Therefore not efficient.

Though correct me if my understanding regarding rounds and when damage fires is wrong.

Umm no, damage doesnt attack in the first round. If it did, we wouldnt see range at all, and we would see A LOT of damage builds, even at pro level. The point of range is that it attacks without letting the enemy attack it in the first round. You can have 1 range unit VS 999 damage units, and that range unit will fire without dying in the first round. Good luck doing that on second round tho...

And, even in your definition, my build pulls through. If you take 70 range tanks + 30 armor tanks VS 70 range tanks + 30 armor tanks, both would die. If, in change, I take an army worth the same, but of my build, VS that number of range and armor tanks, I will win. Thats less losses, by every mean. In unequal battles where I heavily outnumber the enemy, I would still win in round 1. And when I outnumber my enemy not-so-heavily, thats where I have a couple more armor losses. If the case is where I loose all my armor, I definitely wont loose all my damage. But in an analogue case with the probuild, that winning probuild would loose range units instead, in most cases, as their armor would also be blown.

There is just a small window of a situation where I would loose more than the probuild, and thats when the extra range of the probuild kills the enemy on the 1st round, where mine leaves a couple enemy range (though limping, but there) which would cost me a couple of damage units. Yet, nothing considerably big, and I would use my skill to avoid such situations.
Anyways, I made this topic because I consider Michael's suggestion to pump up damage units useless. I mean, Id love that they get stronger, and that ppl still wouldnt use em (good 4 my build! lol) but I must be fair here. Damage units are very well as they are atm, its just a shame that the top peeps cant see it or realise it.

PS: I cant write the Z word (my PC is trashed) so my apologies if I change it for an S sometimes. I had to copy that word from Microsoft Word just now to put it there. SO DONT BOTHER ME WITH IT FROM NOW ON!!! Thxkbay.