prove to me 1 situation, just 1 where 10.0.5 is better than 6.3.6 but to make it a fair test the cost of troops must be taken into account

you must also test in all 3 situations, gun, laser and rocket
not just 1

I shouldn't have to as those are the least likely scenarios for large battles where there will be significant loses

if you want to build your army to be less effective in the important, more frequent battles then fine me and top players will stick to our range armor

well all the top players iv spoke to agree 6.3.6 is best so you and your top players stick to 10.0.5
my and my top players will move onto 6.3.6 and we will see how we get on

times change, people find new and better ways to build all the time

look at the squad builds now, before everyone would build tanks untill a few people started takeing advantage of the vehicle vs tank 25% bonus than eventualy more and more followed
now most people build vehicle while most others still stick to tank but like what happened with people building tank all the time, now people have started to build soldier only armys to help kill vehicle armys

i say soon most people will adopt to soldier armys while a cleaver few will go back to tank armys

its just like my new formula clever people will use 6.3.6 and as more and more adopt 6.3.6 others will join. i hope 1 day it will take of like 10.0.5 did and than eventualy someone will find a better ratio than 6.3.6

People already have adopted the infantry armies, you might not see it but it's quite common now.

Also when you fight a big war...say 200-300 squads(common scenario) vs to the same comparison, the range will deal great damage because there will be a lot whereas you'll have to wait for Round 2 for damage to fire...which some might be already dead..

i dont think you realy get the main way damage work in this formula

in small squad battles when the damage will die before doing seriouse damage they act more like a more expencive shield

in large battles not only do they act as a 2nd shield but they are also heavy hitters

thats exactly what i meant about people adopting soldier army, go back a few months the only time u saw soldiers where noobs that have just left protection or pros useing them as scouts

now you see armys of like 2000 soldier flying around

soon most poeple will use soldier, some will stick with vehicle but the clever people will go back to tank armys

and nearly all of those 2000 solders will be armor range

and as for top players here is unky's (one of the best of the best) army in a round where he broke records for most power, crystals, conquers and highest score for a single player



one damage unit in an army worth 3000 soilders

well its a shame 4 him he didnt use my formula or he wouldent have just beat the records, he would have smashed them

he already did smash them

but if he had used 6.3.6 he would have smashed them more, thats my point

In my entire 2 year career, I have never seen a damage force face off against an equivalently valued range force and win. And I've seen a lot of battles that fit that description happen (usually inexperienced alliances vs experienced ones)

The issue is that an 'ideal battle' is classified as a 1/2 round battle, as 3+ rounds usually means significant losses to the victor. Since damage is incapable of firing until round 2, an ideal battle with damage is a nigh impossibility.

If anybody wants to challenge this, I give you a 100k m/o budget in which to build any damage-using army you want (no converting oil/overhead) and I'll build a range army with identical chassis and weapon type ratios that can beat it.

For the record, Sky would not have had anywhere near as much success if we had been damage users - Unky included.