Nope. I would never fight an equal battle. Anyone who DOES fight an equal battle deserves all the extra losses that come with letting a battle make it to 4 rounds.

well my armour damage range sysem has got me a K/D ratio of 170 to 500 on e3 so far and there have been some pretty good battles there.
also damage happen to be cheaper than range = more of them. if youve never fought an equal battle then im assumeing uve never fought any alliance better than you... because if your fighting alliances with more power then it a good result to ven get them down to an even battle or mabe you didnt know that?

The best alliances always get ganged up on, if you are allowing yourself to enter into 4 round battles against enemies who have more combined armies than you do, you'll never be able to fight them all because you'll keep losing your armies bit by bit.

The only way to do it is to reduce your losses by as much as you can, which means getting 1 round battles as much as you can. My way of play is not to have the most efficient army for even battles, because if I fought even battles I'd never win against enemies who have more allies, more subs, or more tokens. Your method is "numbers win". My method is "skill wins". Mathematically speaking, the best way to play is to get only 1 round battles, this means you lose the least amount of units possible.

If you are more active and smarter than the enemy, you can do it. Fighting an even battle is like admitting defeat. It's like saying "Well I know I can't trap you or maneuver well enough to force a battle that is in my favor, so I will just take whatever I can get and hope for the best."

I don't like thinking like that, I keep maneuvering and keep planning until I can force a battle that is in my favor.

haha. then youve never lost a war.
when you lose a war you are outnumbered and trapped and cannot relocate.
if youve never been in that position then u havnt played very long. but im thinking u have..

I've played for over 4 years. I've been in that position, and in that instance you only last very long at all by keeping your losses at a minimum. Your build does not minimize losses at all, it is welcoming the enemy range units to fire at you FOUR times. That's letting them do way more damage than you should.

I lol'd hard.

Seriously ... this is to much for me.. lol

Unky

...damage = win get over it. there cheap and with the amount all you nerds donate shouldnt be a problem adding them into an army.

I've given you plenty of reasons, and your only argument is that I'm not experienced enough to see your side. It's a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.

Damage are useless, it lets the enemy do more points of damage since it takes longer to kill them, that means you take more losses. Simple as that.

There are plenty of tricks and tactics allowing even the largest battles to be finished by just one round, nearly every single experienced and tactically advanced player favours range over damage by far and except for possibly conquering at the start, they are virtually useless.

You're making a very big mistake discussing with Kane, in a fact, Rewiind, I dare say he will beat your damage armies without even losing a single unit Even if you got double or triple his units.

This thread reminds me of a puppy coming to a pit bull saying that he should learn biting more efficiently, because the puppy gets to do more bites in less time and thus would beat the pit bull, not realizing he doesn't even get to bite as his lifeless body will be thrown into the gutter before he is even aware of what's happening. ;




Oh and try not to be so ignorant, donations are limited and doesn't change the fact that overhead continues to increase. Truth is, if Admin Andrew would give us all 100 free damage units mid age, most of the experienced players will disband them for workers and build range.