Using damage in the scenario you used will stay in that scenario...in big wars...if you're going to clash into an army of range with an army of mixed units (A/D/R), you'll surely lose a lot of armor and some damage on the first go...

Battles should end in 1 or 2 rounds most, but it does happen where a battle exceeds that, but even then a battle with range would prove less casualties in the end meaning less resources loss.

Because you'll not only lose armor, but damage as well, and we're talking about uneven terms, because surely a war won't be fought on even terms unless that's what the stake is (if thats all the army they got to match whatever enemy is sending).

i toyed with the simulator and found something interesting. All units are slashing:

9/1/20
4/1/10
3/1/6

beats

9/0/21
5/0/10
3/0/7

the winner uses less money like you said.


i'm not sure. it's always seemed to work very well

More armor/less range (like 10/0/20 for infs) is more defensive side, while the 8 or 9 armor is more offensive side of the units

I have recently done alot of tests and found that building vehicle squads 6.3.6 is better in most cases than 10.0.5

The 1st test i did was a squad of 10.0.5 with gun vs an army of 10.10.10 soldiers with gun
I than repeated the same test but did 6.3.6 with gun vs an army of 10.10.10 soldiers with gun

i worked out the cost of army at start and the cost of troops lost and found that by useing 6.3.6 as to 10.0.5 i would save 400 metal and 200 oil in building and replaceing the troops - that may not seem like much but if you had to do it for say 50 squads on 100% overheat thats 40,000 metal and 20,000 oil (not includeing the overheat increaseing as u build)

The 2nd test i did was 10.0.5 with gun vs 6.3.6 with gun
Result - 6.3.6 won with 6 range left
Next i repeated it with laser and rocket and got these results
laser vs laser - 10.0.5 won but only with 1 range left
rocket vs rocket - 6.3.6 won with 6 range left

This means if u sent 1 squad against the enemies 1 squad you got a 2/3 chance of winning if he builds with 10.0.5

The 3rd test i did was 3 squads of 6.3.6 vs 3 squads of 10.0.5
The battle looked like this:
1 squad of 6.3.6 with gun
1 squad of 6.3.6 with laser
1 squad of 6.3.6 with rocket
VS
1 squad of 10.0.5 with gun
1 squad of 10.0.5 with laser
1 squad of 10.0.5 with rocket

Results: 6.3.6 won with 6 range vehicle with gun left

now some people say that this will only work for small battles so i decided to try a big battle useing these formulas

i worked out for the cost of every 10 squads build 10.0.5 i could build 11 squads at 6.3.6 so for my final battle i used these numbers:

11 squads of 6.3.6 gun (66.33.66)
11 squads of 6.3.6 laser (66.33.66)
11 squads of 6.3.6 rocket (66.33.66)
VS
10 squads of 10.0.5 gun (100.0.50)
10 squads of 10.0.5 laser (100.0.50)
10 squads of 10.0.5 rocket (100.0.50)

total -
33 squads of 6.3.6 gun, laser, rocket (198.99.198)
VS
30 squads of 10.0.5 gun, laser, rocket (300.0.150)

the results of this battle where quite skocking 6.3.6 smashed 10.0.5
from that battle i had 66 range vehicle with gun, 66 range vehicle with laser and 53 range vehicle with rocket left...dont believe me???
look for yourself here: http://i51.tinypic.com/34q93xj.jpg
or try it for yourself with your similator

looking forward to hearning what u all think and if you have any questions pm me

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had someone say to me that because i used an extra squad each in 6.3.6 it technicaly cost me more as i used more workers so i did another test useing 30 of each army so now the worker count is total, keep in mind that in this test 6.3.6 is a cheaper army and for the cost of the 30 10.0.5 squads i could make 3 more 6.3.6

right for this test i put in the same 10.0.5 army as before

10 squads of 10.0.5 gun
10 squads of 10.0.5 laser
10 squads of 10.0.5 rocket
VS
10 squads of 6.3.6 gun
10 squads of 6.3.6 laser
10 squads of 6.3.6 rocket

results - 6.3.6 won with 57 range gun vehicles left
Proof: http://i51.tinypic.com/1zv4jee.jpg

you are forgetting a big detail


most battles are hugely one sided


and in those cases range loses less if you are the winner or do more damage to the opposing army before you die if you are the loser

that realy true? have you tested this?

iv just run 2 tests on sim with armys of same cost resource wise (i did not include workers for this) and they did not support your idea

Test 1 - i tested 10.0.5
10 squads of each gun, laser and rocket
VS
100 gun, laser and rocket shield
100 gun, laser and rocket damage
100 gun, laser and rocket range

Result- test army wins, 10.0.5 kills 175 enemie troops
Proof: http://i51.tinypic.com/24pjwbo.jpg

Test 2 - i tested 6.3.6
11 squads of each gun, laser and rocket (same price as army in test 1)
VS
100 gun, laser and rocket shield
100 gun, laser and rocket damage
100 gun, laser and rocket range

Result - test army wins, 6.3.6 kills 207 enemie troops
Proof: http://i54.tinypic.com/jzzepz.jpg

next question? lol

Battles won't be fault of fair standards / same resource wise, one side will usually have a big advantage, so comparing damage/range like this is useless, really.

you are prolonging the battle by having the concussive and explosive vehicles

when you take them out and only have laser vehicles range is once more superior








and going the other way were we have the advantage range loses less

point being??? who cares if it works?!?! weather it prolongs the battle or ends it in 1 tick aslong as my army is alive at the end and the enemies arnt i dont realy care

i made it VERY clear that when its laser vs laser the range will win, untill you get into the bigger battles where the cheapness of 6.3.6 gives you the advantage

i said this before but ill say it again incase u forgot
for every 10 10.0.5 i build i could build 11 6.3.6 squads

so lets try this in battle sim shal we

Test -
11 squads of 6.3.6 armed with laser
VS
10 squads of 10.0.5 armed with laser

Result - 6.3.6 wins with 29 range still alive

so thats no prolonging used, its just killing enemies by hitting harder

Proof:


Try again

I think this guy is on to something!!! ^