looks like i have to stand up for vault here
i to have used damage in a lot of eras in my past (not as much damage in a ship as vualt) but i have had my best eras using that
milonas and allen yes you are supposed to fight armies smaller than yours with the 20/10 build to end the battle in round 1
what vault is saying is that you can put some damage in a ship outnumber them and also make the kill in round 1
what damage is good for is if you have to go into an all out fight where numbers are almost equal then the damage is going to win that fight again what vualt is saying that he has more flexability in the fights and can go in a 1 on 1 fight so he can have the win (yes still take a lot of losses) but a victory is when you kill more than was killed which is what damage is for in a close fight
and damage is for the people that arent constantly on the top and need to find an extra edge to compete with the higher up players such as me and vualt since personally i'm a bad start and constantly have to fight my way up to the top

I simply can't agree, Littleconqueror.



If you are going to kill them in 1 round anyway, your damage is USELESS and you should have spent it on more range or armor.



As has been mentioned a lot of times now. If I am rank 1, I will never do a 1 on 1 battle because I most likely outnumber you anyway, so I can bide my time and wait until I can hit you favourably to kill you in 1 round, if not by sheer numbers then probably using a nuke.

If I am NOT rank 1, but a lower rank, I'll most likely have less squads and less income than the guy I am fighting. If I do a 1 on 1 then and we lose almost equal, or even if he loses a bit more than me, he will still have more squads to kill my remaining and will be rebuilt quicker.

In both options, you DON'T go 1 on 1.

Yeah, but you cant compare like that. Like I said in these cases where you outnumber because of your lower damage unit cost, chassis would matter.




That.

If you are gonna finish your battle in round 1, then damage is useless. Cuz it doesnt get to fight. You have actually wasted resources on units that dont fight. Therefore taking more losses than you would have, if you had replaced the damage with either range or armor.



Yup. If you are in an even battle, only then damage will be useful. But I wont get into even fights. Nor should you. Its just not good strategy. Ideally you are not supposed to lose any range. You build them once, you accumulate xp, but you never lose them. What you do lose or can afford to, is armor. They cost the least, so you gotta plan battles such that you have minimal armor losses, as much as possible.

But things arent always like theyre supposed to, nor in life nor in BD. Youre just going for "the ideal situation". But what abut when its not the ideal situation?

________________________________________________________________
Milanos, I do not like your opinion, but it is yours, I respect it. I might look myself in the mirror and tell me Im a noob from now on, as I know youre the better player here. But, the fact Im a noob or not doesnt change the data I got from my experience. Im bringing results. You and allen are bringing what you understand of theory. As much as theory is accepted, it is NOT a hard fact, but what Im bringing here is just that. Im not saying that "you should loose less, you should win more" or something like that. I said what HAPPENED, and what will happen without fail, under certain circumstances, which Ive numbered down, explained, and exposed, and include all of the general scenarios youll encounter. Details like chassis and experience can be discussed later, but that is besides the point: those factors are completely related to the player, not the build.

So, if you count your own experience so much, you must recall if youve ever used a build with damage, that isnt a nooby one. Were not talking about nooby ones, but of a build that actually works of this type. Have you ever? I really doubt it. You two have said it yourselves: pros dont use such builds. So you know virtually nothing about it, just the general common sense that says damage-using builds suck. When youve tried it, warred with it, let me know. Till then, this sucky player knows better than you, because Ive been there, and walked that way, with both the builds.


Btw, thx lc. You actually pointed it out better than me. I ramble too much

no prob and i've had my experiences as well i was in UN alliance which was rank 2 and we were at war with #1 alliance and 1 night i fell asleep on a gate and somehow their leader got to me and attacked me with a larger army but i had a damage build and ended up winning that fight ideal situation isnt always reality and from what i have learned you should always prepare for the worst

When I said more is more, I meant the losses. The thing with your win here is that you lose a LOT more than a person with a range/armor army. That is what I have been trying to stress from before. a) You wont win unless you get into an even fight b) Yours is not efficient cause it results in a lot more loss of metal and oil. EVEN if you manage to win. So the cost advantage is negated by the loss. AND the losses are not the same as a range/armor army. Its a lot more. And a unit that doesnt get to fire, which means you effectively have a squad of less than 30 workers, is not efficient by any means.



You use less resources. But you lose a lot more. If you used a range/armor army, you would see that your losses are much lesser. Like I said before, your losses negate the cost advantage.



Its not an ideal situation by any means. Its a matter of coordination. In an era where I am serious you will NEVER see me go for an even battle. NEVER!.



Whoa. Who said we are bringing theory? This is solely from my experience. In your experience you have lost a lot of units, but you still think damage is better because of a lack of understanding.

Again, you calling me a lier? Ive said one and a thousand times that this build DOES NOT loose A LOT more than the probuild! And, its funny that you say youve got experience against my novabuild, when you dont even know it. Its my build specifically, so what would you know about it? Again, the general theory established for damage units. And I HASE USED THE PROBUILD on most of the alliances Im in. Specially the serious ones. So I know how to compare them, and let me say it again: the novabuild doesnt loose so much units more than the probuild! That is if it actually looses more units than the probuild. Now tell me, in what scenario are you saying that the novabuild looses more units than the probuild? Or is it on ANY battle? Or just in the non-equal battles?

You keep going on and on about the losses. If you have a probuild army, and a novabuild army, both of them are equally worth and face the exact same army, at the end of both battles, the novabuild army would be very slightly worth less than the leftover probuild army, but still stronger. And the difference between both worths would be a couple of thousands of metal, which is definitely not worth mentioning, as it doesnt overshadow what you win of this build.

This will be my last message. If you get it or not through your really stubborn skulls, I dont care: Im locking this thread, because this is getting less like a debate and more like a personal verbal battle. Now I respect both you and milan, but the feeling seems to not be mutual. And its spreading out to this theme. Again, this isnt a personal contest to see who writes best - this is about the novabuild = probuild. Bye.

The thing is a couple thousand metal that you lose more than the range/armor build that I go with, is less efficient nevertheless.

Secondly, what IS your build?

Whatever your build, its all calculation in the end. There are only two scenarios:

a) You outnumber your enemy:

In this case, a range/armor army will definitely take less losses than a range/damage/armor army.

b) You get into an even battle:

You PROBABLY win. But go back home limping, making the battle useless.

On a side note in both these scenarios, what chassis you have, what chassis your enemy has, whether he has range/armor and whether he has one kind of armor etc matters.

I dont know why this is hard to see.

Lastly, you only get into battles favourable for you. 1 round battles, which is how I play. Secondly, I always send defence as per the chassis of incoming units.

Now if you have any BR, or any sort of calculation the bring that to the table, instead of saying you have experience with a damage army.

i'm confused how can the "nova build" have more losses than the pro build if both battles finish in round 1? wouldnt the losses still be the exact same?

Its because you will have less armor. Armor is the cheapest. Anything else other than armor you lose, is gonna make the losses higher. If you lose JUST armor with the novabuild, since you have lesser range, and your damage never gets to fire, you will lose a lot more armor than you would have if you had a range/armor army. Again making your losses more.