i dont think your less exp than i am (becaue you have pretty much triple or doble my exp on this game..) i think that you dont give damage a chance ;p
my army is a range armour army that i added damage onto when i had spare resource so i doubt he wouldnt lose a single unit as ive already slaughtered everything that has come against it...and it looks like my army gets to fight agaisnt 600 h1n1 infantry on e3 so bleh.




ive given you more reasons ;p
first off there cheaper
second off after 3 rounds they are more useful than range

theres an easy way to settle this and i dont know if my thing will win but anyway.

you have 15 units in a viechle squad so what will your set up be?
then i wil say my setup (because im jsut going to change your setup slightly to include damage) and then we see what ech team hits each turn and whcihever wins wins k.


hes much easier to dicuss with than half the world when there roleplaying for the alliance your ins destruction so hes not the worst to dicuss with is he?

11 range and 4 armor. Will it win against a mix with damage in a 1 squad vs 1 squad fight? No it won't.

Would I EVER engage in a 1 squad vs 1 squad fight? No I wouldn't.

What happens when you have multiple enemies? Let's say there are 500 units to kill, and you only have 200 units. How would you kill them? If you can catch 200 units off by themselves to fight would you do it? With your build you are letting them do extra damage to you, so maybe you survive with 100 units left... now it is 400 vs 100. What do you do now? Fight a 100 vs 100? Maybe you are left with 50, now it is 350 vs 50. See what I'm saying?

In that same situation with a range build you could catch 100 by themselves and lose only 30 or so. Now it's 170 vs 400. You can catch another 100 and lose another 30. See what I mean? It's better to only fight battles where you lose the least amount of units. That way you only ever have to replace armor units.

Which is something maybe you've overlooked. Range units are supposed to be bought once, you should never have to replace range units, only armor. With a damage build I can pretty much guarantee that since you are fighting even battles you will be regularly replacing damage units, which are more costly than armor.

Range armies are more expensive to build but cheaper to maintain if used properly, which in the long run is much much cheaper.

I really don't know why I am trying to teach you, I love when my enemies have damage units in their build. Please keep using damage units, so if I ever fight you it will be easy.

umm my armies are range armour that i then add damage onto when i have spare resource after building squads so what would be more likely to happen is my range would slaughter your armour then my amage would come into range and add extra damage to the damage im already doing with my range ;p.
since ive been useing this mix ive killed 200 enemy units and lost 20 armour so in the case of outnumbering people there still not getting through my armour.
the army i am currently useing is
70 x 3 range viechles so 210 range
60 damage
105 armour and it seems to work fine.

over the last 100 ticks on e3 i have 4 colonys armys of about 200 units every time sometimes more by a few sometimes less but about 200 from every member thats 800 units and now getting atatcked by another alliance.
there still not through my armour and ive only rebuilt about 10 i still have 70 left and i have just rebuilt the rest.

If you're going to talk about E3, then let's talk about FEAR.

They all use 5/0/10 and 4/0/11 builds. You see, no damage.

All their battles end in 1 round, they attack together to be in a mass, to prevent losses, to end it 1st round for sure, so the battle is NOT equal.

As Kane said, battling on EQUAL terms just welcomes losses, and uneeded losses at that. You want to REDUCE losses not INCREASE it.

Damage is cheaper yes, but if you use it you'll be losing range (and sooner or later will increase your overhead) which in the long term will cost you more to repair.

Ok, aside from skill and good alliances using better TACTICs by only fighting un-even fights... lets discuss it in equal terms.

say 2 players both have 10000 gold to buy units.... Damage are cheaper allowing more of them, and have more health.... So wouldnt those two factors add up to allowing them to last long enough to be more effective?

lets run some numbers using cavalry units.

damage squad for 10000 can run 11 armored/ 26 damage.

Range squad can run 10 armored/ 20 range

Using battle simulator fight last 4 rounds. Range squad lost everything, damage lost 11 armored and 5 damage. 21 Damage units survive.

Damage squad took 3700 gold in damage and saved 6300 gold worth of units.

This is the only fair way to properly analzye this, because yes experienced players use only range and damage but thats because they "are like school bullies" and only pick on people weaker than them. These numbers clearly show that 2 players with an equal amount of resources damage wins HANDS DOWN.

This principle no matter how you argue it reminds true no matter how many people are involved, if 12 players have same amount of resources vs 12 others the result is the same... in fact the group using the range setup MUST outnumber the people with the damage setup just to win... and to win without losses they have to have like 4X the mount of money spent on their armies.

Some more interesting calcs ~~

10,000 cost anti-vehicle infantry army with 40 range and 20 armo vs 11 armor 26 damage anti infantry vehicles = DRAW, mind you this is becuase infantry get a bonus vs vehicles.

40 anti-tank range infantry and 20 armor vs 7 armor 17 damage anti infantry tanks = Infantry LOSES, tanks losses = 7 armor, 9 damage. 8 Damage tanks stay alive also the tanks army is 250 short of 10,000 as well.

The BEST range gets to is a DRAW with damage armies and thats only infantry vs vehicles or vehicles vs tanks because of the bonus damage.

You obviously haven't been in a #1 vs #2 ranking alliance major war before have you? I mean, ones with nearly equal power.

And experienced players use range and armor, not range and damage.

You have to attack the weak to grow, and keep them weak to keep that power.

You use that power to grow stronger to attack stronger people, when you're in war, you should not even be thinking fighting ANYONE on equal terms, because quite frankly unless you want to lose units for NOTHING you would not fight on equal terms.

As you said if 2 players had same resources and creating squads, it would not matter, both production rates will be different, and you should be attacking with your alliance and not just by yourself, in every aspect you should be outnumbering your enemy either with your alliance or by yourself -- catching them off guard.

who said anything about range and damage units? I said experienced players use range and armor!! Why do you THINK all my calculations were vs armor/range combo????

I know all that... This thread isnt about alliance wars, its about the potential of DAMAGE units. In EVERY cacluation using the same amount of resources, damage prevails or ties...

#1 alliance vs #2 alliance what? who cares that is a totally different conversation because that is SOOOOOOOO situational. Even with alliance vs alliance.... like I said (and I hate repeating myself because some people are too thick to comprehend it the first time or blind to read it before they yap) The theory with my calcs remains the same. If 12 players (an alliance) used armo/damage, and another 12 used range/armor.... the alliance with damage would win, with units left over if they both had the same resource size of armies.... if the alliance with range wins its for no other reason than they have a LOT more money invested into their armies. I dont think any top alliance has ever had the balls to test this out since everyone seems to want to play it without trying anything risky or new.

The POINT is with EQUAL resources, damage wins... PERIOD.

Case in point ~ your "3/7 ratio ZOMG all best players use this"

70 range cav/ 30 armor vs 30 armor/70 damage, Range DIES and damage army has 30 units left PLUS their army was 7000 cheaper.

Your calculations means MOOT because they are useless, a potential that cannot be obtained...or one that cannot be reached, hmm. Well, if you look at it, damage barely does affect, yes you're comparing it resource wise and seeing if range/arm can beat arm/damage.

You do compare these in battle, but as I said, the calculations are MOOT because when does this actually happen? Never.

That's right, never. If it never happens, then it's useless. And because it never happens...then the calculations of it is useless as well.



Range would have obliterated the armor and many more of the damage already.

You're suppose to have your resources invested into your army, as I said, calculations are moot, they are useless. Fact is, this is how people play, and this is how it works, they use range, try to end everything fast, kill all in one. Simple as that, no point in dragging out rounds with damage which is unneeded.

= Calculations -> Useless

Keep in mind...you're not playing on equal terms and never will be. Making calculations to what CAN happen between a equal army again, useless. It's all about overpowering and strategy. If you're too THICK to comprehend the true fact that people don't want to see a ROUND TWO then you should look at what you type yourself;



RESERVED FOR ODINGOW

all of your equal comparisons are based on equal metal but most experienced players care more about workers than metal and if you go by equal workers then armor range is better because they win against armor damage and lose less units and with experience coming back if more of your units live then more of them get better

meaning damage get even less useful