It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:28 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Forum rules


Please only post here if you have questions about BattleDawn game play, or if you have information that can help another player asking questions.

Please stay on topic.

No spam.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 10-20 VS 10-5-15
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:22 pm 
Specialist
Specialist
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:00 pm
Posts: 24
Lolowut wrote:
kelulen wrote:
Interesting.
:geek:
What else combination are there?


Endless combinations, but the only ones that work are between the ratios: 3:7 and 1:3 (a:r)

The point of using only armor and range is to play smarter. You utilize spies and nukes to ensure that round 2 never happens, or you outnumber. The point is, the ideal battle ends round 1.


true story bro


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: 10-20 VS 10-5-15
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:41 pm 
Specialist
Specialist
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:00 pm
Posts: 24
Milanos wrote:
Alright. You want the full explanation then :lol:

I hope you will agree with me on this: The key to winning fights and minimizing losses is to do all your battles in as few rounds as possible. The key to winning an era is to make sure your enemies die, while at the same time preserving as many of your own squads as possible.

For objective #1, minimizing losses, you want your battles to be done in 1 round. For a battle to be 1 round, there is absolutely no reason to have damage in your squad. They have 1 HP per 25 metal, and will do 0 damage per metal in a 1 rounded battle. Therefore in a 1 rounded battle they are inefficient both as armor as for dealing damage.

Then of course you might say that not all battles will be 1 round, and that many will be 2 round or more. This however is ignoring objective #2, preserving as many of your squads as possible. If you are constantly fighting battles where you lose more than you absolutely need to, you have a problem. This should be avoided at all costs. Therefore 1 round is always the objective and damage is obsolete. Armor is most efficient for HP, range is most efficient for doing damage.

Yes, your squads wins in an even fight. Wohoo. Tell me the last time you saw someone attacking and you thought: Heck, I'll just send the same amount of squads as he did!

Quote:
Cheaper. Better. Stronger. Damage units, if have a lot of experience, will just absolutely annihalate in this build.


Cheaper: Yes. Better? Subjective. Stronger? How? You are sacrificing 7 range units in a squad to build 7 damage units.

What I find funnier about that comment is the last part though: If they have a lot of experience, damage units will annihilate in this build. Man, if range units have a lot of experience they will have range 4 or range 5. That's not a reason to go with damage at all, I would rather have my range get +1 than my damage. Because +1 range for damage still means they fire at the same time as the opposing range units.

A long story short.. If you are playing a world to WIN, as in to get rank 1 and nothing short of it, you will want to minimize armor loss and go for 1 round kills. Building damage units is obsolete in this case as the resources would be better spent on recruiting more range units leading to more damage in round 1 and therefore the ability to take on larger fights in 1 round. Going damage will work, but for damage to be efficient you need to do at least 3 round fights, since in round 2 range still has done more damage than damage. Doing round 3 fights consistently, which seems to be what you are aiming at otherwise you would not have this damage would mean unneeded losses and therefore a large increase in the amount of metal you will be spending on unit substitution.


Sorry dude! i didn't see this post :/ :oops:

Thanks a lot for outlining this. I didn't consider the first round thing *facepalm*

I see what your point is. I agree totally.

I have another question then; i was speaking to yesnomaybe, my friend james, we go to the same school, you may know him. He said that sometimes, top alliances fill some squads with damage units just to make sure they win even battles...which is confusing...because i tohught pro's "never fight even battles" and round 1 was always the objective?

Is there EVER any reason to build damage? I love my damage :'(


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: 10-20 VS 10-5-15
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:10 pm 
AANC Mentors
AANC Mentors
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 3:53 pm
Posts: 462
Gender: male
'Is there ever a reason to use damage'

Yes, there is. As anti-spam/spam squads they're very effective. You can use damage units solely to take outposts and accumulate EXP on them until they are range 3 and they make very very potent weapons mid-late game where there are serious wars going on.

'People start to use them when they're against an opponent who fights evenly.'

'pros' you said do this. They shouldn't. During a war where the powers are pretty much even, the war evolves into a war of control. This means that whoever has the larger territory acts defensively to try to keep it all, while the other acts offensively to try to even that out. The point is, when you're even with an opponent the ideology behind the war is more of: We gain more resources, if we just prevent them from gaining anything, we will win in the long run. I'm talking mostly on an Earth-perspective, as it's much easier to control territory. When you delve into strategy on Mars or Fantasy the idea changes a bit. Mars and Fantasy maps are more open, making territory a near impossibility to lock down. The idea on this type of map is an ebb and flow. You push and recede to try to keep the income advantage in your favor.


I guess my point is in this: When dealing with an enemy who is even in terms of activity and macro-strategy, you have to gain the income advantage and outlast them. I don't see how damage will help you accomplish this if the goal isn't to remain even, but to eventually outnumber your opponent.

_________________
Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: 10-20 VS 10-5-15
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:33 pm 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 1136
On a more debatable point. Who thinks that 6/4 is more effective than 7/3 in the fact that it will minimize armor loses that you will have to rebuild. 7/3 always leaves me feeling like i dont have enough armor and it takes awhile to rebuild it all.

_________________
BoS (E4) NUKE (Fantasy)
Image

Retired NEWS Reporter.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: 10-20 VS 10-5-15
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:22 am 
AANC Mentors
AANC Mentors
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 3:53 pm
Posts: 462
Gender: male
Slinkybd wrote:
On a more debatable point. Who thinks that 6/4 is more effective than 7/3 in the fact that it will minimize armor loses that you will have to rebuild. 7/3 always leaves me feeling like i dont have enough armor and it takes awhile to rebuild it all.


6/4 used to be the ratio. 3:2. (R:A) This was in OC when the battle system was more uhh.. primitive. When Kane, Chrs181818, and I toyed around to make the battle system that premiered in late OC and early NC, I believe we actually did the exact math proof of why 7:3 > 6:4 in the new system. I would go as far to say you need less armor. The aim is to win in round 1. So you only need enough armor to outlast THEIR range, whatever that number may be. Late OC, we still had the EXP system, though it wasn't as fleshed out as this one. So I can attest to the fact it doesn't change much even now.

7:3 to 3:1 is the honey pot range.

_________________
Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: 10-20 VS 10-5-15
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:33 am 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:48 am
Posts: 8018
Location: Fuyuki City
Gender: male
Slinkybd wrote:
On a more debatable point. Who thinks that 6/4 is more effective than 7/3 in the fact that it will minimize armor loses that you will have to rebuild. 7/3 always leaves me feeling like i dont have enough armor and it takes awhile to rebuild it all.

my advice, have 2~3 pure armor squads near the front line so u don't have to waste time rebuilding armor

_________________
Image

Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: 10-20 VS 10-5-15
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:47 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 1136
Lolowut wrote:
Slinkybd wrote:
On a more debatable point. Who thinks that 6/4 is more effective than 7/3 in the fact that it will minimize armor loses that you will have to rebuild. 7/3 always leaves me feeling like i dont have enough armor and it takes awhile to rebuild it all.


Quote:
6/4 used to be the ratio. 3:2. (R:A) This was in OC when the battle system was more uhh.. primitive. When Kane, Chrs181818, and I toyed around to make the battle system that premiered in late OC and early NC, I believe we actually did the exact math proof of why 7:3 > 6:4 in the new system. I would go as far to say you need less armor. The aim is to win in round 1. So you only need enough armor to outlast THEIR range, whatever that number may be. Late OC, we still had the EXP system, though it wasn't as fleshed out as this one. So I can attest to the fact it doesn't change much even now.
7:3 to 3:1 is the honey pot range.

This is part of the problem, once the bare minimum armor is gone it can be problematic if you are in multiple wars. You may be maximizing exp over protection
Quote:
my advice, have 2~3 pure armor squads near the front line so u don't have to waste time rebuilding armor

This is essentially the same thing I said if you do it once every 10 squads you make >.<

_________________
BoS (E4) NUKE (Fantasy)
Image

Retired NEWS Reporter.


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
WarLingo Android Mobile Game

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Copyright Tacticsoft Ltd. 2008   
Updated By phpBBservice.nl