What about minimum attrition? Please comment on this.

[Emberguard]

It's okay to daydream about things they could have done better/differently.

Here's one. One day you and Pericles will actually get along

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Duh, it's part of the game. Thanks for enlightening me. You do know that the Forum is not restricted to comments from Inno sycophants, right? It's okay to daydream about things they could have done better/differently. It's not whining to just make one comment about how I think the game could have been better. So you don't like my suggestion, just move on. No need for you to jump to Inno's defense in this case. I didn't ask for it to be changed now. I didn't say I didn't want to play it the way it is. I just said I thought it would have been better if they had done it differently. You disagree. Fine. I got no problem with you disagreeing in this case, in fact I would have been surprised if you had agreed. But making your inane comment was totally unnecessary, and strictly speaking I consider it another personal attack by you. Which happens all the time. You never simply disagree with someone, you always demean them at the same time. Just stop it. Nobody cares about your opinion except maybe one player who's always liking your attacking posts. We all know you're all in on anything Inno does to the game. We get it. Repeating your attacks on everyone who gives negative feedback on the game does nothing but bury your credibility deeper and deeper.

You have a reputation for often referring to other players' posts as "garbage", "malarkey" "rubbish", etc. I'm surprised that you find my use of the word "inane" objectionable.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

I'm surprised that you find my use of the word "inane" objectionable.

Actually, I just found it ironic that you used it in that post of yours, since it was a fit description of that very post.

 

[jaymoney23456]

See, this gets to the one thing about this game that has bugged me from the start. Getting Great Buildings (and troops) from higher ages than your current era. Makes no sense at all. Ruins the whole premise of the game, in my opinion. Working and progressing through the ages? Never mind that, get a Space Age GB in Iron Age! Or an Oceanic Future soldier in Industrial Age! Just ridiculous. Would be a much, much better game (and get rid of most camping) if you couldn't get any buildings or troops above your current age. (Goods are another thing, but really should be limited to one or two ages above your current age at most.)

So, you would favor an enormous amt of players in titan and nearly no one in earlier ages? That seems kind of lame. What does it matter to you or anyone else if someone camps in whatever age they decide to camp in. I mean personally I think its dumb to camp in Iron age for years, for example. However, it is a good strategy to camp in PE after obtaining higher age units. Also, there are other good camping ages like FE or SAAB that are great fighting ages.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

So, you would favor an enormous amt of players in titan and nearly no one in earlier ages? That seems kind of lame. What does it matter to you or anyone else if someone camps in whatever age they decide to camp in. I mean personally I think its dumb to camp in Iron age for years, for example. However, it is a good strategy to camp in PE after obtaining higher age units. Also, there are other good camping ages like FE or SAAB that are great fighting ages.

I've got nothing against camping for a while, and most of my cities will eternally camp in FE once they get there. But then again, I'm not a hyper-leveler of GBs (meaning I don't specifically prioritize hyper-leveling them, but I do gradually get them as high as I can), so I'm not the kind of camper who stays in a lower era and maximizes GBs in order to have an extreme advantage over the average players in that era. (Or gets higher era units for that same reason.) I camp in an era until I'm satisfied that I have enough goods to fund the next couple of eras and enough One Up/Reno Kits to raise sufficient event buildings to the new era to avoid the need for Build menu buildings for resources in that new era.

 

[jaymoney23456]

I've got nothing against camping for a while, and most of my cities will eternally camp in FE once they get there. But then again, I'm not a hyper-leveler of GBs (meaning I don't specifically prioritize hyper-leveling them, but I do gradually get them as high as I can), so I'm not the kind of camper who stays in a lower era and maximizes GBs in order to have an extreme advantage over the average players in that era. (Or gets higher era units for that same reason.) I camp in an era until I'm satisfied that I have enough goods to fund the next couple of eras and enough One Up/Reno Kits to raise sufficient event buildings to the new era to avoid the need for Build menu buildings for resources in that new era.

I got the higher age units and used them in Indy and PE for a good long while (mostly in PE) but I never intended to camp there forever and didn't. Now I am in SAAB on my main world and see little advantage in moving up. Everyone in Titan says that fighting there is lousy and you can take the titan gb as high as you like and it won't make up for it. If there was another good fighting age after SAAB (maybe SAV is good too but I doubt its as good as SAAB) I would keep going. Maybe I will do SAV but jupiter moon and titan just offer harder fighting and there is really nothing special about any of the space ages besides which offer good fighting as a good reason to age up (the space ages are mostly the same except for different units)

 

[matr]

Yeah every unit era beyond 1 no matter which unit outperforms same age unit with AO.

I assume by HT you mean Hover Tank which has A\D 120\120
Compared to industrial equivalent Howitzer which has A\D 35\35 that's a huge difference.

lvl 100 AO and 1K A\D stats with same age howitzer unit gives 35 x (10 x 1.3) = 455 A\D
HT (no AO effect in GbG) and same 1K A\D stats gives 120 x 10 = 1200 A\D

Therefore HT without AO outperforms lvl 100 AO and same age unit by 1200 \ 455 = 263%

This is only the A\D part without any combat taking place,
next step is to input those results into combat formula to calculate the actual damage that HT gives and takes more than howitzer vs same age units.

Example for GbG.
Combat vs same age Jaeger unit with same 1K A\D and base (A\D 28\37) (the opponent in GbG does not have AO effect therefore x10)
Jaeger A\D with same 1K stats gives 28 x 10 & 37 x 10 = A\D 280\370

In the above scenario Howitzer damage vs Jaeger is 455 \ 370 x 5 = 6 (+-1) = 4-6 damage
In the above scenario HT damage vs Jeager is 1200 \ 370 x 5 = 16 (+-1) = 15-17 = 10 damage (max is 10 damage)

In other words Howitzer will need to attack at least twice to destroy the Jaeger while HT will instantly kill it (each unit has 10 hit points).
No sure but I think HT will take damage regardless of instant kill, which is only 280 \ 1200 x 5 (+-1) = 1-2 damage (min 1)
Howitzer will instead take 280 \ 455 x 5 (+-1) = 2-4 damage

Thus vs Jaeger HT will take 2x times less damange and deal 2x more damage compared to howitzer.
Ofc. no level of AO can bet that.

But if you repeat calculation with only 1 era above then you'll see that lvl 100 AO outperforms HAU by some 4%

edit:
I completely forgot about bonus vs. light unit in this example, that would make the HT even stronger than same age unit with AO.

Hover Tanks also have stealth, most troops up to the space ages can't attack it from a distance so long as it is on the plains tile. I fought and defeated enemies with 4 to 5 times my attack/defense boost (attrition 180, my attack is around 3K, hovers vs PE troops) by hiding and using sacrificial rogues to block the attacker advance (hovers also strike back when hit directly). Had to manually fight and got tired after a few hours, could probably go higher.