Please, rookie, stop making a fool out of yourself, and actually
read what I wrote, unless you want to continue making yourself look stupid.
They are useless.
You forgot calculate cost of 20 000 archers:
2 000 000
600 000
1 200 000
time to build:
64 d 19 h 33 m 20 s
10 000 spears + 10 000 swords:
1 600 000
1 200 000
1 600 000
time to build:
45 d 8 h 53 m 20 s
As you can see spears and swords costs less 400 000 resources and time to build 10ksp/10ksw is 30% less than 20k archers :lol::lol::lol:
Losses for 10k/10k, from single Nuke.
Losses for 20k archers from Single Nuke.
So what, overall, you're losing only an extra 40k of resources, yet you're saving 5000 troops/farm spaces. Now try and come up with a convincing argument that it's not worth the extra cost. Especially at later stages where you can afford to have troops queued 24/7, no matter what they are.
Yes, I know Archers take longer to build. Firstly, if you'd actually learned to
read (which evidently you haven't) I said that while they may not be great to build during times of war, during peace time when your troops are sitting around for a long time doing nothing, there is absolutely no reason not to build Archers. And since you lose less troops anyway, then your secondary rebuild time is much less, since you actually have troops left over.
Secondly, the 20k of Archers was an
example; simply to prove that Archers do not have worse stats. I would never use Archers by themslves (simply because of the players, who unlike you, are actually clever enough to realise the usefulness of having MA), I'd use them in conjunction with other troops. If you'd read the previous conversation (again, you seem to be lacking in the paying attention department) you would have realised we were talking about the Scenario of fighting someone who does not use Mounted Archers. You have failed to come up with any convincing argument for why archers are not valuable in that situation.
Please do not post more these simulations which have nothing relevant to the game.
Um, what?
Actually you do not know anything about battle system.
Nobody knows exactly how it works but game experience
Ahh, I forgot that I'd had no game experience. My bad.
+ rally poit simulations shows us that the best versatile defence is 10 000 swords + 10 000 archers and the best nuke is 4700 LC + 300 rams. But such defence and such nuke are unreal to build in every village!
I never said anything about just building 20,000 archers. Again, that was an example to prove they had better stats then Sw/Sp. :icon_rolleyes:
I still can not realize do you guys kidding or do you really ask questions?
I'l just pretend that made sense.
Ripfin is right. And Spleen Mage is right.
Well your both right. But wrong. The best defense is always also the most versatile. Technically if the offense is cav heavy, a sword/archer defense is bad. If the offense is axe heavy, a sword/archer defense is key. If the offense is MA heavy, a 10ksp/sw is good. The best defense has to be versatile and cover all edges.
Exactly! My post may not have been clear, but I wasn't trying to advocate simply building 20k of archers; rather, keeping an "all rounder" kind of defense. I was just trying to prove Archers do not have worthless stats, and if people (like Ripfin) refuse to use MA, then they are undoubtably worth including in your army.
