Hello, i will happily take you on there routhy

we going to build same chassy or build in private as we would in a game and give the details of the army to a middle person so that we cannot change the army at the last minute to be perfect against each others?

There should be no need for a middleman - if you can prove damage to be superior than I should be completely unable to make a force that can match it, and vice versa.

Remember I will be using an identical ratio of chassis and weapon types as you, if we both keep our armies secret then obviously we will end up using different chassis/weapontypes and that will affect the result.

Post your 100k army and I'll kill it, then you're more than welcome to attempt to attempt to kill the army I post. We can keep going until we reach a reasonable, unbiased and scientific conclusion about the ideal mix. I expect it will end quickly and in favour of range.

If it's two people against each other with the same amount of resources, damage will prove superior. In unbalanced battles range proves superior. You can't name one better than the other because their usefulness is in different things.

The point that it seeming to be constantly missed is that no pro is about to go into a battle where everything is even... They're going to find the uneven attack and therefore making range the most dominant. No pro is about to go on a possible suicide mission.

Damage will slowly do better if the battle is drawn out, but during that time range will still keep hitting them and by the time you get in the later rounds most of them will be dead.
The old adage holds true, "You get what you pay for". Damage is cheaper, but does that mean it's better? My advice, don't be cheap and just cough up the extra metal for range upgrade.
Besides, the point of a range army is to end it within 1-2 rounds.

There is no best squad.we can only ask what is the best army.let's take 10squads in a fantasy world.the best would be for 5 of the squads to each have 5 trebuchet,3 ballista and 2 fire catapult.3 of the squads to have the troops in the same ratio except that they are armour not range.the remaining 2 squads would also have the same troop ratio except in damage.this works as I have used 10squads like this to take out 4 times more troops in a mixed army,not all infantry.you can change the squads to Calvert which then would be 7,5,3 ratio

7.5.3? with only 3 shield per squad you would be murdered

I took overhead out of the equation because the armies (and the overhead %) would be of identical size. Plus that's a whole lot of work, and many many possible combinations as to what would have what % apply to what unit cost etc.

I also didn't do the math to see if the cost of KIA would be less if I made both armies a 6/3/6, but using the 1.2x more resources (I combined oil and metal into one 'resource') on one army. (someone do that for me, we'll have our answer then )

7/0/3 is 1.2x the cost of 6/3/6

I know it's highly unlikely that an alliance would have armies as such, but I needed to be able to bring everything together.

Hello just want to add my vote

Long read ahead but i hope i convert some DMG users with this

Range for the win!
why? Becouse you do not seek long conflicts!
Every battle you do when using 10/0/20 as myself (yeah infantry is being used mostly now and wont really change a lot since they are better against nukes and spys with faster healing and so on... blah blah blah)
you seek to end it in max 2 turns... why? so that you loose less armor
To do THAT you use a greater force than your enemy making the battle highly unbalanced to your side. EVERY good tactician will use a large army to destroy a small one. In this game IF you dont hurt your enemy badly then it's not worth fighting the battle

so what do you do? you are at a huge disadvantage 450 infantry is coming at you you got 40 ranged slashing and 20 ranged piecing + some armor ...
you KNOW that in a battle you get knocked out in 1 round. Do you fight the battle
NO you retreat becouse you kill only ~24 armor units at a huge expense...
Even if it is a battle for your colony and crystals loosing a fighting force is unreasnoble becouse in a war those few men might make all the differance

So people say: You won the battle but you have not won the war.
Win many such battles with small losses and the outcome is cast in concrete

Damage is NOT to be used but in the beggining first 40 infantry unless you are a booster(if you are you race to range and skip dmg if you are smart even tho they are more expensive you lose less men what means less resources to rebuild the units^^). It's a known fact!

Range is used to crush smaller armies with bigger ones...
Range is nothin special in a battle until you got many of them
Range is what makes you able to stay in the top ranks while constantly beating down noobs with small armies... They may have 10/0/20 ratio or 8/0/22 or whatever amount of range as long as you bring enough armor to suck the first round of dmg and a few extras and range to beat the enemy in 1 or 2 rounds you will have the least losses no matter what type of squads you make

that brings you to conclusion that DMG units are useless in warfare becouse you do NOT seek prolonged conflicts... What you do is:
USE all avaliable force to destroy the enemy or not fight at all if he is too powerfull
IF your enemy is weak however you are able to split your army and keep the same losses while fighting 2 fronts
If you have 100 ranged against 100 armor and 100 range or 200 armor and 200 range the losses of the stronger side are the same
same applies to all battles that end within 1 turn
basicaly the edge that range gives you in battle is enourmous as long as you dance on the stage that you set. WHEN your enemy is the one dictating how the conflict will resolve you must know that he will do everything to turn the battle on his side by a huge factor.
nukes and sucides that are sent on the same tick as the nuke killing up to 3 and 4 times as much as you lose if army is mixed and huge losses if it is only Heavies. He will use spys and obstruction of radar to make sure you dont know what he is doing. He will gather a larger force and he will attack only when he is CERTIAN he will win
Battles are fought Rationaly. Cost and return. You might not admit it but no veteran even if mad with anger will go and get his army killed only to kill half as many as he has ranged units of the enemy armor becouse it's not worth it. He will wait until an advantage has appeared or the time for the last glorious stand comes.

A good read of some books about war gives you some insight while you need some insight into the game mechanics aswell

When thinking it over DAMAGE clearly becomes useless
You do not seek battles on even terms!
YOU SEEK TO WIN BIG!
anyone that fights battles on even terms or defends against people that have 2 or 3x as many men as him and has the armor/range squads is dumb
You can use all the men you would lose later on your terms.
So yes you can use a lot of Armor/damage/range to kill a smaller army but will it be as effective. NO!
And that NO is what makes BD veterans so damn loyal to the A/R build