Not if its based on resources, as you will have more damage units than range units (Since range cost more than damage...)
Also range has less HP than damage units do, so although it takes more rounds for damage to equal/surpass the amount of damage done, it doesn't actually need to do more damage.

If you get what I mean??

you do make good points but range armor is better against most ratios but damage armor is only good against a few

I used a [5/5] Damage/Armor worked only to get conquers. For big wars range is the way to go! I went head to head with someone, I used [5/5] Damage/Armor vs his Range/Armor got 18 kills he killed over 150 of mine. After that I only used Damage troops to get conquers and use Armor/Range for wars and has worked out great for me.

Sorry for the late reply.

This isn't meant as offensive, but you were using a terrible damage combo, also types of units can be a factor (Weapon and Chassis type).
My Damage/Armour that I am recommending is 6/8 Damage/Armour (Sorry for the repitition for any of those reading, but posters seem to forget to read it!) Which is more than one squad, but same metal to build as the traditional 7/3 Range/Armour.

From peoples advice from posting and from testing.. it has.. once again... Been concluded that range is certainly more successful, with a lower casualty count, in an unfair battle, where your resources used to create units far outweighs that of your opponents. However if it is a fair battle, the Damage/Armour combo I have suggested does seem to be more effective in most situations, at least according to the tests I have run through the battle calc, which is the same system I use when working it out by hand. (And has also been correct when testing it against some of the battles I have fought.)

REMEMBER - I have just been working through this alone, and I am not necessarily correct, so check things for yourself rather than relying on only what I say then getting angry at me if you suffer losses!

your "fair battle" is more units on one side then on other, correct?
therefor not fair ether

I believe the fairness of the battle should be destermined by the resources used to create the units, not the amount of units fighting.
So yes I do believe a fair battle can fought fought when more units are on one side.

You are making this assumption that the only resources you should include in your calculations is the metal and oil required to create the units, while not factoring in the workers. This is the fault in your analysis. Take this example; we will use tanks for the analysis, 100 vs. 140 tank comparison.

70/30 R/A = 51000/21000 metal to oil, 300 workers
60/80 D/A = 51000/13500 metal to oil, 420 workers

That is a 120 worker difference, or at level 5 metal/oil structures, 24/16.8 metal/oil per tick. So in 850 ticks, assuming you saved up all your extra resources you made, you would be able to build 40 more tanks at 7/3 with just the extra resources you made. So at tick 850 the armies would look like this.

98/42 R/A, 140 tanks = 71400/29400 metal to oil, 420 workers
60/80 D/A, 140 tanks = 51000/13500 metal to oil, 420 workers

So then put those tanks in the battle calculator, you will see it ends up being a 3 round battle and the 7/3 army ends up with 38 range tanks left. So at tick 850, using only the extra resources you can then make the additional 40 tanks. And this doesn't even factor in all the extra armor replacement units you will have to make because of the fact you will have some 2 round battles that the range/armor army would have won in the 1st round.

So at the end of the day, if you value workers, which you should to get resources, you can build a bigger better army.

I agree the replacement cost for the Damage/Armor is to high even if you do win. Is there even a situation where you want to have the same number of troops as your enemy when you fight? You always want to have more troops instead of having the numbers even. I'm paranoid so whenever I fight a battle I send in at least 30-50% more troops than needed, never the same amount as the person I am attacking because to me that is just asking to lose.

Creel
THANK-YOU
You have finally explained properly why its more efficient to use range. People touched on workers on the first page, however none actually did an indepth analysis of it. I didn't know the exact effect (Numbers) workers had on resources when working with level 5 structures, so I couldn't work out how many extra resources would be produced.
Thank you for providing some proper research and evidence that Range is better to build when preparing an army.

No problem, glad to help...