recently, damage has received a buff, and is actually pretty good! Considering it costs LESS than range, it's not bad! It sometimes even out does range!

here are some things i tested out:
in these tests, i used a random build i made on the spot, and are not refined in any way what so ever. i'm pretty sure they can be improved.


ok so my damage/range/armor vs a pro-build 1 on 1:

as you can see, pro build is more expensive, and lost.
but admittedly, as many have pointed out, this is the "weak spot" of the pro build.


against 1hp units:

many people agree that the pro build's best strength is against 1 hp units.
well in this one, the pro build saved 80 units from dyeing so one could say that it is better, but one must remember that since it was damage that died in the damage build, and not range, the range losses would have cost more than if the damage losses were the same amount. still the damage build still lost. also remember that the damage build was one i randomly made on the spot, and that i'm pretty sure it could be changed to be made better.


against 600 armor:

this is where the damage build shined the most. now although it is very unrealistic to be fighting 600 armor, it goes to show that damage is overly powerful in big, close to call fights that last many rounds.


against a stronger enemy:

well, well, well.... this one is debatable... on one hand, you can say that the range won, because it killed 10 more units. but on the other hand, since you saved money wit the damage build, maybe you could have built more units that would have killed more units. Basically, it's close enough that it doesn't matter to much, but if you had to declare a winner, i think it might goto the damage build...


other scenarios that i did not screen shot:

both sides at 1 hp.
this test i had my damage build/pro build vs 450 units of pro build.
now during the test the pro-build won by a landslide, until i realized that my damage build was going against a larger sized pro-build (and the probuild was in the situation that it most exceeded in) it didn't really say much about damage, just about how good pro-build is at 1 hp


against a weaker enemy:
they basically did the same thing, so it made no difference.



Now, i use the pro-build because i think it's the best publicly known, but there is definitely a better pro-build (lets call it pro build 2.0) waiting to be found. i mean damage proved its self to be cheap and deadly.

can't wait to see 2.0 when someone finds it.


and to all of you who hate just even the mentioning of the word "damage", bring on the hate

I agree. It's much smarter to have your entire build based on damage. One could even argue that it is much smarter to have sufficient armor to get through round 1 and then enough damage to kill all in round 2, leaving out all range from your squads. It's cheaper too.

But if you're facing armies you could one round with range (sub alliance/meat shields) you are just wasting your armour on them in the first round, to get to the second round Then when the big guns come in and you've wasted your armour you're pretty screwed

wrong, it's cheaper to do it all armor, and have them kill everyone in the 3rd rounds

+1

so for inf this works well
10 range,10 dmg,10armour

Yes, but when you get enough exp you will have 4 range damage units so this would be a moot point.

and when u got enough exp u will have 5 range range units

ur argument is null

We have already thoroughly covered this topic. viewtopic.php?f=411&t=23030

This isn't a strategy guide or player-made guide.

you don't even follow the probuild correctly, the 'probuild' is not 2:1, if you must know it was originally 3:1 then brought into single squads as 7:3. The point was to be above 2:1, but 3:1 doesn't work out as nicely as 7:3, and 7:3 is easier to adapt to single squads.