Question on squad composition.
I am only using heavy units and 100% weapon effectiveness as an example as it should relate back to all aspects of units and weapon effectiveness.

Most people who ask about squad composition get the response of a 7/3 combination of Range/Armour.
What I would like to know, is why we don't use a 6/8 Damage/Armour combo (I know it isn't one squad!) which costs the same amount of metal and less oil. There is a higher worker count, but if the 7/3 combo was against the 6/8 combo... The 6/8 combo wins with 5 damage tanks leftover, which means less oil, metal and workers are lost.

To get the ratios correct with a completely full sqauds you need 7 squads, 3 full of damage 4 full of armour, and although this could be a nuisance, it is fine if being used as an army in a war to attack colonies.

SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY EVERYBODY FOLLOWS THE RANEG COMBO OVER THIS!? (I have up until now where I am testing the damage theory on one of the worlds..)

if you face smaler armys who got ur composition u might lose nothing becayuse range get 1 shot before ur dmg and 2 before ur armor.
also it cost less oil/energy to move less units, and for those whith low worker count (90% of top players) can't afford those extra workers it cost

The reason why is because EVERY time you attack someone that has ranged you lose twice as many units than if you had range.
If both people have range (assuming one army is bigger) than you will only lose a few armor units, lets say 20. But if you had damage you would lose 40.

90-95% of big battles are one round and one army is much bigger and better,
so in other words range is better 95% of the time and damage is for those other 5% of battles.

So the perfect squad composition is based on the fact a battle is going to be unfair from the start....?
I thought this would be the reply I'd get after reading other forums, but I thought larger scale wars would've had more even grounds.
I've been in wars and I usually take out a few of the weaker colonies so that's why I usually use the range combo, But aren't Battles for Relics etc. Usually more evened out??

see, in big wars u don't risk your army if you don't know u will totally crush the other alliance sacrefising ur army. if not you will always attack with like 30% bigger army

Ok thanks
I do all of the things you say, but I wasn't aware all the top players followed the same rules, I thought they were bigger risk-takers

I did do a few runs through the Bcalc, and the damage combo works better on defence than the range.
If you're attack by someone who uses Twice as much resources as you and uses the 7/3 range composition, you do more kill more units when defending using the Damage combo rather than range combo, (If that makes sense)

So perhaps it's better used for weak players escaping from being conquered?
Or maybe if there's a player out there who you need to take down quickly but he has the same amount of units?


(Could be useful to have a person in your alliance who follows the damage combo for emergency outnumbered defence?)

EDIT: Ran some more tests, and for the range combo to win, MORE than 25% more resources must be used.

what kind of test are you running if the enemy has numbers on his side and range and all you have is damage then the battle will be over first round so you cant attack

More resources are used for range, but it is worth it because range is so much worth than making damage. Big battles in top alliances, battle reports, you'll usually see tons of range units and armors protecting them, the damage is just a little added extra usually just hoping they die (at least for me)

I don't think you read the whole post
It's a Damage/Armour combo (6/8) and costs the same amount of metal as the traditional Range/Armour Combo (7/3).
The damage/armour combo wins if the same amount of metal is used for each type of composition.
E.G if 6/8 Dmg/Arm. vs. 7/3 Rng/Arm. Each cost 5100 metal, but the Dmg/Arm wins quite considerably.
However if you spend 25% more metal on the Rng/Arm. Combo The Dmg/Arm will ONLY JUST WIN..
E.G - 35/15 Rng/Arm. (25500 Metal, 10500 Oil, 150 men)
VS 24/32 Dmg/Arm. (20400 Metal, 3600 Oil, 168 men)

If you use any more than 25% more metal on the range combo, it beats the damage combo.
THEREFORE the Damage combo is more efficient in even battles, however the range combo begins to dominate the more Unfair the battle is (In terms of resources spent to create the units).
And from this, Damage combo should be recommended for things such as defence or attacking players who have around the same amount of units as yourself. If you are planning on attacking someone much weaker than yourself, Range is DEFINITELY the way to go.

Also Bork, if you don't understand how it gets to the second/third rounds, its because the Armour provides enough defence to cover the damage units so they may attack the range in later rounds.

And another Edit... If anyone wants to be pedantic and talk about over '25%' using 35/*16* Rng/Arm. will still lose to the 24/32 Dmg/Arm. but 35/17 will win

yes but damage units need 4 rounds to do more damage than range