Ok so before I get spammed and initiated with messages let me clarify this is just a test Im pretty sure I am right but hell who knows ok so here it goes...

First of in this test we are simply using infantry as our chassis and conclusive as our weapon type.

PLAYER A has 999 INFANTRY PLAYER B has 999 INFANTRY
RANGED DAMAGE

Excluding all nukes, spies etc. damage
will lose
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now lets add 999 armor infantry to BOTH sides..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
999 RANGED + 999 DEFENSIVE VS 999 DAMAGE + 999 DEFENSIVE

SHOCKING! The result is that ranged lost why is it that the pro build lost??? Why is that? That cannot be!!!!
Clearly it is a glitch right? WRONG!


RANGED is great and if its raw range versus raw damage I will take range everyday but if we add some armor soakers into the equation then I will defiantly not take range.


If the numbers are EXACTLY the same meaning we have
NOTE! ^ is to the power 10^10 is 10 to the 10th power.
R for RANGE DM for DAMGE and D for defense

R(10^10-1) + D(10^10-1) VS DM(10^10-1) +D(10^10-1)
In a controlled environment damage will usually win but it has to be as close to exact as possible.
The main reason why damage does not work for lower alliances is because the 'big dogs' typically number 1 allaince to number 4 allaince use nukes to ensure the opponent loses. If damage has the same exact number of defense units as the ranged side and it is using a dom weapon type (dom means does 100% to its own chassis beam vech explosive mech etc.) Usually ranged will win.

The problem is when a army of damage is hit with nukes unlike range which will fire then become obliterated damage will be obliterated without the chance of even firing. So unless you have plently of resources and you're in a hive were it is hard for nukes to reach you (typically you want to stay away from a 360 nuke-fest such as the middle of the map) range is better to use.


Because lets now take that 999 D + 999 R VS 999 D + 999 DM and set them to one hp.

Range literally does not lose a SINGLE unit not even ONE single unit. Because range is easily powerful enough to killoff infantry because the range is a dom and it uses conclusive therefore range doesnt have the chance to fire.


Yet despite all of this proof how damage does have some major flaws I still use it before range.

WHY?!?!

First off damage has a much lower cost than range sure not by a milestone but definitely but a decent amount.

And when you include overhead just ouch really ouch. On top of that range can not effectively combat any army without some defense to back it up and if you do not have any X-factors like nukes you better hope that your opponent isnt using damage because if he has the same amount of defense as you even if you win you with be wounded.

Lets take 800 defense and 800 range versus 800 defense and 400 range.

Range wins but loses 7/8's of its defensive army 7/8s divides into .875 then .875(100) is 87.5 while DM was handicapped 1/2 less of its normal army.

Now lets handicap range

800 defense for BOTH sides just like before

Then 400 RANGE and 800 DAMAGE.

Range loses and damage loses 62/80 of its defensive army which is .775 then .775(100) is 77.5

It lost exactly TEN percent less than range did PLUS it was cheaper to recruit then range.


If both armies are DOM's and both have the EXACT same defensive army...

When range is handicapped it will lose 87.5 percent of its defensive army and 0 percent of its ranged.

When damage is handicapped it will lose 77.5 percent (10 less) of its defensive army and 0 percent of its ranged.

Now let us include overhead (major factor) and on top of that lets point out that if NO.1 alliance is using ranged and NO.2 is using damaged..

They are the closest to being worthy opponents (unless they are relic wh0res I mean alliances with an actual army)

NO.2 will spend much less in training the 999 damage than the 999 range and I am sorry pro-builders (pro lmfao) but range has its flaws to. Most people can not recruit 999 of a unit type its a obvious why.

Lets say both sides have 100 infantry (DOM's same chase and weapon type as before conclusive) and damage (being cheaper in a realistic situation) has lets pull a random number out of my butt 20 more damage units than ranged. If ranged has 100 units then its going to look something likes this..

NUMBERWISE
DM=R-2/10 or DM+2/10 of ranged same thing.
BATTLEWISE

100 defense + 100 damage (+2/10's of range which is +20) VS 100 defense + 100 range
Range will lose..
In fact get rid of that extra 2/10s (20%) of damage and range will lose yet again because they have the same statistical odds of defense and since there DOM's if range wins it gets 10% less of causalities as range.

Again I stated a realities situation so there is nukes and spies.
And if nukes are included range will most likely win especially if spies are included as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You thought I was done but wait THERE IS MOR (<-- got to play earth 2 to get the joke) no really its quick.
Another biggie is why I use mechs over infantry and vechs is because mechs have enough hitpoints to actually take a round of damage (being if they are damage and easily can take it if defense) and literally kill off infantry.

Vechs are ok but they are kinda put in a place were infantry does 25% extra and if infantry are using beam (not a dom because DOM is same chassis and same weapon type to combat itself) than infantry can kill it and if mechs are using beam or even for that matter conclusive they can kill it for they have a lot of damage.

If I had to choose itd go like MECH>INF>VECH>MECH Rarely the last one because there are not many anti-mech compostions.

If you are using damage armies make SURE to stay clear of nukes and have slightly more damage than range

In order to use damage armeis and win you should have a
* Location in the conner of the map as far as you can go to minimize nuke exposure
* Allies because if you find someone with LOTS more defense and range than you you're going to need help
* Spies because range is already the weakest in hitpoints so if you can do 1/2H or H-99 out of 100 HP (One half for MECH and VECH and 1 hp for infantry) you will do good.

If you are using range armies make sure to stay clear of nukes but damage has to worry much more for they dont have the first hit in the fight.

Make sure to centralize your hive but in the middle of the map is still a bad idea but you want to see action favorably when the targets are soft around tick 200-300 while they have damage + defense you can overwhelm them with range (so in the neutral zone not in the conner of the map not in the middle)
Use spies because they will aid you so much in a fight againist damage.

Please correct any false statements and gl for upcoming eras.

I don't have much time to read all of that and respond to every single point you made, but I can get that the first argument you pointed out was "999 troops pro-built against 999 damage - armor troops and damage-armor won". Yes, it's not a glitch and it is supposed to be that way. However:

1. In actual battle, you don't send the same amount of troops against the enemy. You don't send a message to them, asking how many they have so that you will send the same amount. In order to minimize the loss, you will need to outnumber the enemy as much as possible. So it's not always 10 squads vs 10 squads, it will be 15 vs 10, 50 vs 20, 100 vs 50, 180 vs 100. And if you make a battle simulation with that kind of amount, I'm pretty sure damage - armor build will lose.

2. Damage will take 3 turns to deal the same damage as range. So they will need to survive the battle till at least turn 4 in order to deal more damage than range units. And at turn 4, the loss will be too big the battle should best be avoided if possible. It is preferable to keep the battle short, 2 turns at most, 3 turns is already unfavorable. So in a favorable battle, damage will contribute very little into the outcome of the battle.

3. Is damage units useless? No, they are quite useful if used the right way. You can use a damage tank along with an armor tank for an anti-spam squad. Damage is pretty useful in the beginning of the game where range units are still scarce as well. And keeping damage units in case of an unavoidable close battle is a valid tactic.

I can give you a more detailed research report, but I don't have time now. So if the above points didn't convince you, tell me and I will try to search for it.

your arguments are fine when you argue in the way you have. In exact equal amounts, yes, damage comes out on top when there is sufficient armor to force a battle to round 3.

I am a firm believer that damage has become a much greater threat than it was in the past. However, I see a major flaw in your argument. You made a mistake on the pro-build. You made it 999 range and armor vs. 999 damage and armor.

This makes the ratio 50-50 for both the range and the damage. This is wrong. Pro-build is 30-70. Because sims won't let you do over 999 of a specific unit, I'm going to simply downsize things to 300.

So, you got 300 armor and 300 damage. This is a standard damage build of 50-50 using 600 infantry total.

Now, to change this, we need 30% of this to be armor which is 180. Then we take the rest for range (420 range). If you put these numbers in, the winner is the range. Why? Because the range does less damage, but simply put, there's more. That's why a pro-build is considered better. Because you have to get the ratio correct to make up for the lack of power (which is 30-70).

Now if you changed up the damage build to a 40-60, then sure, damage will win because of the exact same scenario (you are maximizing the damage output. You could even do the same 30-70 and come out on top with damage. The issue with damage builds is, you TAKE a lot of damage (which most do not believe is worth the cost).

As everyone always argues, the difference is that you DON'T want to force an even match up with a pro-build. You always want to outmatch your opponent to minimize damage. The BIGGEST way of doing this is spies and nukes. The difference with a damage build is that even with a nuke, you still incur nearly 75% damage against a standard (and evenly matched) build.
Spy hits pro-build (30-70) and takes them down to 1hp.
Damage build hits probuild which is at 1hp.
1st round, damage build does nothing while 1hp pro-build hits and still kills 210 armor inf of the damage build. Then, an additional 250 units are lost on the next round when Damage hits, BUT damage kills off everything in a single round.

Now if it was pro-build vs. pro-build with a spy involved on 1 side, there'd be a total of 240 losses, for the 1 pro build.

Much better than the 460 losses the standard damage build takes.

As you very clearly stated, the damage build is NOT useless. But the pro-build is not meant to take on exactly even battles. It never was meant to. Damage comes out on top when it's evenly matched as they can maximize their damage and give you some more kills (even if you lose). The point of damage is to dish out more damage in exchange for more losses. They are cheaper to build as well, making it a much more viable option for those who are not boosting. But the standard damage build is not a build meant for winning. It's a build meant for killing.

Early game damage will wreck through smaller numbers. However, when all of the contender's armies are in the 500+ army size (soldier count, not unit count), then damage is seldom going to come out on top with great results. They may win, but if it's indeed an even battle, then it'll be at great cost which will force you to have to recover for a while as you'll have to rebuild damage AND armor units most likely.

Damage is by no means useless. But, they are also by no means efficient. It comes down to "do I want to win" or "do I want to kill"

Without getting into this massive wall of text, I don't think many good players can argue damage is "useless".


When you're starting the era and every unit counts - who do you reckon wins an early war and expands faster, the guy building (cheaper and more effective) damage, or the guy building expensive range and waiting for the structure and so on?


I know where I put my money.


As for late game - damage has specific uses, it depends on how you play. Maybe it fits your playstyle, maybe it doesn't.

Personally I aim to use it the first couple of days, and switch to range prior to tick 250 at latest. Usually however I make the switch before tick 100.