I disagree.. It does happen, just not as often because not many people play with that setup because they have baught into the steroetype of range units.

Its ironic that your saying my argument is moot becuase my situation im proclaiming never actauuly happens.... Yet your theory is based on IDEAL circumstances... That you should ALWAYS have your target outmatched, and my situation should never happen. The fact is, it does happen and thigns dont always work the way you plan.

As another poster pointed out, You cant always choose your battles and have everything perfect because sometimes the battles choose you, come to you, and you have no choice but to deal with it.

What Im saying, is NO MATTER how you try to twist it, no matter how much resources your income is, whatever you spend on your range/armor combo will get you more power AND more capability to recover (Which is another huge deal I havent touched on yet) if you spent those SAME resources on armor/damage combo's.

The guy using range/armor, sure it works GREAT when it works... when you have the other guy outmatched... but the odd times you lose or end up facing and even battle, it hurts you a LOT more and is a lot harder to replace those units and recover than the guy using armor/damage.

In every situation as you even said the armor units in both combos are nothing but fodder. Both range players and damage player will take armor unit loses and have to replace them. If you want to talk about survivability and the goal is to always lose less units than the other guy, a person who spent all his cash on damage that the other person spent on range, damage wins, has units left over, and is cheaper. You dont want to believe this because hardly anybody ever plays damage unit armies properly, so people RARELY see it work. This si because those who "TRY" out damage units usually only half ass it, or try to put 5000 worth of damage units against 10000 worth of range... And of course they get slaughtered.

ooow Bork, now theres a logical point thats very true... needing more units indeed uses up a lot more workers... a point neither of us addressed, economically, your very right.

Though you are still wrong that more units live using range than damage.

Even using the same amount of workers 30 armor/ 70 range vs 30 armor/70 damage... Damge still wins, is cheaper, and has 30 units that survive, whereas range is wiped out.

Again, people want to argue because theres basically no one who uses damage properly... they either try to do SOME range and SOME damage, or split their armor units up for damage... or what have you.

As many have said in this topic, who goes to a battle when you know
you will lose many units? I guess nobody here in this forums
would like to lose any amount of armor even if its a little portion of it.
Theres something i agree with you , yes its possible to use a
damage-armor combo at the beggining of any round.
But sadly when the round is already advanced , its useless to have any
damage units. If you are willing to keep your strategy, you are
really welcome to do so. But believe me sooner or later you will realize
your little mistake will really hurt a lot.

Cheers
Unky

This conversation is hilarious
From what I've seen, Odin likes to tell us how our situations of outnumbering the enemy are not 'ideal' yet he posts BR's from the BCalc with EXACTLY equal armies fighting one another. how does that not count as ideal? Now look, TECHNICALLY, you are correct, but battles are not fought like that. I've beaten people who have had armies 3 times my size. So I don't care what your statistics say, it rarely, if ever, works like that. I GUARANTEE you Odin, when you get into a big war against experienced players using range/armor, you'll get smashed. Don't complain to us when that happens. So go ahead, use damage. I'll stick with my range/armor.

only if your units dont have the weapon for killing your enemies

ie 30 armor and 70 range concussion infantry verses 30 armor 70 damage concussion infantry

range wins with 9 units left therefore its better

because your no going to attack someone without any units made to kill them

Do or Die~ sigh, another blind (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..) poster.... I NEVER told you that your situations are NOT ideal... in fact I said the OPPOSITE thaT all your disscussion IS based on ideal conditions.

I agree no one likes to lose units.... hence would it not stand to reason that the army that losses LESS units be more favourable?? Every calc shows that damage setup losses LESS units.

NO MATTER WHAT the situation is, WHATEVER your army size... WHATEVER you spend on it... you will kill more and lose less with DAMAGE.

Stop YAPPING smack talk and show some calculations to prove me wrong...

PS: Yes bork your calculations are perfectly correct, however the range army in your example cost 3500 more than the damage army...

it may have won the battle, but with only 9 units left over thats only 1800 worth of units, meaning the damage army still did more damage, killed 1700 worth of units MORE than the range army did... How does that prov your theory that range units lose less??

Edit: Also... Regardless if you think range/armor is better than damage/armor... you CANT say you will even save your armor units if you use range.... because if you use range and the other guy uses range.... even if you have enough to 1 shot the other guy... you will still lose just as much armor in the first round as the guy using damage.

First off, insult levels, bring them WAY down. Keep this conversation semi friendly. Secondly, WE'RE the blind ones? So the 4 or 5 of us are wrong, where as YOU are correct? Also, that means you pretty much just called Unky a blind poster. Do you even KNOW who unky is?

That's kind of the point of armor, as a meat shield

EDIT: Ok, it's 4:40 in the morning, and I'm bored out my mind. Let's play Odin's little game. I present to the forums, THIS.


I show this for two reasons!
One, that would be my average build. I took my build, and figured that's how you would do yours. NOW! ALL of your damage units died in the second round. As calculations were given earlier, they only do more good against range in battles lasting more then 4 rounds. So that point is now moot. SECOND! This is also to show you people to stop using the BCalc, because IT IS BROKEN! It does not take into account that explosive weapon units get shot first, then beam, then concussive. It just shoots at things willy nilly. But you like to use the BCalc. So here's your stats. YOU LOST THAT BATTLE. Have a nice day.

you're also calling kane blind

kane and unky two of bd's best and most experienced player having played for years and all the other veteran players against someone who has been playing for 2 months

even if i never played the game i could guess who was right

these guys have done the math over and over and the armor / range combo is the best for most of the situations you will encounter in game

you calculations only show damage winning when neither army has weapons that get bonuses against each other now why would you fight when you dont have units with weapons good against your enemy? you wouldn't so your calculations are not ideal


and as for your cost issue metal for a top player isnt as important as workers because when your getting a 2 k per tick or more metal isnt that important

RESERVED FOR ODINGOW


I present this again.

Q: Are you too thick headed to admit you're wrong?
A: Yes, you are. You are in la-la land.

LOL!!!

so you think because most people agree compared to a few that the majority is right??? hahaha my friend, the Majority of people are almost always wrong!!

The ratio of intelligent people to not so intelligent... theres a lot less intelligent people... but I guess they must be wrong because the majority of stupid people say so.

Also your calculations further prove allllll of my points.

1) that your blind because after everything else I said you blantly ignored it just to try and justify your position.

2) how much resources did the damage army lose??? how much did the range army lose???? hmmmmmm????

3) YOU were the ones who brought "outlasting" your enemies theory into play TRYING to say range losses less. This game is based on resources. It doesnt matter if you win the battle if it cost you more resources to do so.

4) That setup is exactly what I was addressing when (god I hate repeating) I said the majority of people that TRY damage units only half ass it and don't do it properly.

5) YES... goood boy... armor are meat shields soooo I get attacked with logic that "range losses less armor too and Id rather lose none than some" or something to that sort when its an attempt to attack my reasoning... but when I address that saying range and damage will lose same amount of armor regardless the repsonse is " yaaa well no kidding armor is meatshield".... lol... that type of debat manipulation is reserved for the weak minded.

******** EDIT ****** now I see with those calcs that yes the range survived with 1600 metal in resources after evrythingwas said and done... However, this brings me back to my point of people not using damage properly. Redo those calcs using only damage for the other side instead of a mix and tell me what you get Since this is about range/armor vs armor/damage not vs mix

Edit #2 ************ Redoing those calcs myself with the damage team all damage instead of mix, damage wins with over 250 units left over, AND it cost 55K less to train them..... and yes BD calculator does take into account taking out explosive first etc... since they've updated it at least.