Thanks for the link. That is a very good tutorial, however, I am way past most of the stuff there. I have a space optimized LMA city with level 9/10 CdM, CoA, Zeus plus a level 6 Arc, Obs, ToR and LOA. I have almost 1000 FP banked plus about 8,000 goods. I am currently working on getting a Truce Tower which I expect to get by the end of the week. My current attacking boosts are 165% / 176%. I generally go to about 30 attrition every day.
So, this kind of brings me back to my original question. My guild leaders said I will fight better against lower age units, so their stated reason for me staying back is that they seem to think I will generate more advances in GBG if I stay in LMA versus age up to Colonial. Currently I do about 700-800 advances per GBG.
I am trying to understand exactly what the drawbacks and advantages of aging up are, especially with regards to fighting. For example, if the enemy units in Colonial are so strong that I would drop down to 400 advances and attrit out at 15 or something, then that would be a big problem. But if go Colonial and am still making 750 advances per run, I guess I don't see the advantage to staying back. What I lack is the knowledge and experience to know the real effects of aging up.
One thing that might help me understand better is to know exactly what the additional boosts the enemy units have in Colonial versus LMA. When I fight them at 0 attrition or the campaign map I don't see any boosts (+%) on the units at all, so I am not sure why people are saying the higher age units have higher boosts. What is the math here?