hm this is very interesting,lets see what happens if this new build is widely accepted in the future.
i conducted a massive scale war and the results are the same,a few more damaged survived.

It won't happen, because 3/0/7 is superior.

hm maybe theyll build 3/7/0 instead

Then they will not succeed.

Hey guys.
After 32 posts since the one after i started this discussion there are certain conclusions i have come to:
1.10/10/10 sees your best bet for a build that is cheaper than the probuild yet as if not more effective.
2.With large armies facing small armies even 10/10/10 will finish the battle in one round when you're using something like 200-300 ranged units and 200-300 armour and damage,
3.For large armies vs large armies even if you use 10/0/20 the chances that it will run into more than one round is pretty high with such battles often lasting 3 or more rounds.
Hence the damage build comes into play.

I'd really appreciate if someone uses the 10/10/10 build and gets feedback here.

So far, my 10/10/10 is working incredibly well!

Its like you guys have never heard of spys or nukes before? Why exactly are you battles lasting so long.

Well I can't speak for anyone else but it'll generally take half a dozen perfectly timed nukes to trap me. And the I just ion the one that would hit when it's too late to do anything.

And as for spies. Spy protection does exist. Most players (not me) can't see further than 12 hours to a day ahead. Meaning when they send 20 squads at your 35.... yeah they're going to try a spy attack. And AT BEST they'll have 30 infiltration so they can lock down and do a damaging attack. One payment of protection and we have a real fight.

BD is about surviving the longest with minimal losses. NOBODY wants an even fight and if it looks like they'll be a close-matched battle consisting of more than 5 squads on either side... expect a spy attack.

If the round had only lasted 1 round, the 9/0/21 build would have been better(its also better than the 10/0/20 build.. since when has that been the standard?).

I've played this game for year(going back to its very first rounds), and I can safely assume that damage is pretty much useless, i've rarely had fight in which the damage units get 2 rounds to fire.

With the enhanced damage they do now, it may be worth throwing in a few damage units instead of some armor. They'll come in handy in a close fight. But as I've said before if you're expecting a close fight you've alreadly lost.

So to sum it up yeah damage has a use now. However it's usefullness is only helpful in a bad situation to begin with.

... UNLESS you go all damage.

I believe a 5 armor/ 25 damage raito army would beats a 10 armor/ 20 range raito one, quite handlily if you build them to cost the same. As you'd have 7 or 8 more units.

Assuming you could keep your exp. damage units alive long enough the could easily destroy ANY type of unit, then they get +1 range.

But you'd have to be an EXTREMELY good player and have an INSANELY good alliance to help protect and provide cover for your damage units.

But in theory 5/25 is now the "best" set up when resource cost is concerned. In action..... Well, I'm not using it.