Okay, here's another one. I had assumed, up until now, that when you looked at the combat results, the relative strengths of either the warriors or the weapons was based on a mathematical formula involving the number of units and the attacking or defending power of each individual unit. However, I had a fight earlier today that just did not look right, so I totaled everything up and saw an anomaly. Please note that I am taking into account each unit's attack power on my side and each unit's defense power on the other guy's side. On my side (with attack power listed): 7,430 Warriors 1 Trickster Faerie (29) 2 Shapeshifter Assassins (28) 323 Battle Elfs (28) 7,104 Balder Proteges (28) Total: 208,041 On his side (with defense power listed): 11,510 Warriors 2 Bladeslingers (?) 1 Hero (32) 5 Sorcerer Elfs (30) 3 Darkwoads (?) 11 Rock Giants (28) 9 Shapeshifter Assassins (28) 482 Utgard Guards (28) 10 Ice Dwarfs (27) 1 Elder Frost Giant (27) 10,986 Balder Proteges (26) Total: 300,171 Note that since I don't have the stats for the Bladesinger or the Darkwoad, I didn't include them, but the total combat fact is still a huge advantage for him (over 44%). The system very clearly noted I was "stronger," however. Am I missing something here?
Here's yet another one, by the way: 10,760 Warriors 1 Dwarf Pack 1 Santa Viking 25 Sorcerer Elfs 107 Rock Giants 96 Utgard Guards 72 Ice Dwarfs 9,000 Balder Proteges 63 Frost Giants 6 Ledhrblaka Warriors 55 Battle Etins 1,334 Vidar Berserkers The numbers add up to 275,955, yet my 208,041 points worth of warriors is "stronger" than this group as well.
I'd wager your attack number is higher than his (or her) defense number, probably by a comfortable margin. No way of knowing for sure since your opponent's attack/defense numbers aren't revealed in the battle details, but that would be my guess
I just went and did a few battles and looked at the details and realized I probably did NOT answer your question. You weren't talking about OVERALL battle strength (I presume now) but the individual breakdown of warriors which says you are stronger or weaker than your opponent's warriors, correct? If so, I really don't know the answer! There must be some other number factored in other than the raw total of all your warrior's attack numbers vs. the raw total of all your opponent's warrior's defense numbers (assuming your math is right ). What about berzerk boosts or elite chieftain boosts?
Remember that each of you can only use 10x your level of warriors and 5x your level of weapons! So, even if the page lists 11,510 Warriors for the other guy he may in fact be using a lot less than that if he is not at least level 1151 with at least 151 hired chieftains.
Waldo you are in my clan and I can see you are level 771. If the other guy is close to that - lets for the argument just say he is the same the numbers for him should look like this: 11,510 Warriors in STOCK 2 Bladeslingers (?) 1 Hero (32) 5 Sorcerer Elfs (30) 3 Darkwoads (?) 11 Rock Giants (28) 9 Shapeshifter Assassins (28) 482 Utgard Guards (28) 10 Ice Dwarfs (27) 1 Elder Frost Giant (27) 10,986 Balder Proteges (26) BUT ONLY USING 7186 OF THOSE Total: a lot less than 300,171 ;-)
Good question. 600+ days ago when I started playing some guys studied this and found that adding more than those 10x worriers and/or 5x weapons did not make you stronger.
Thanks for the answers, guys. However, please note; the numbers listed aren't the totals in stock. For my part, I probably have about 20-30% more warriors and likely about 50-70% more weapons than are listed in the original post. In both battles, I had 743 chieftains at the time, and therefore brought 7,430 warriors and 3,715 weapons to the fight (10 warriors and 5 weapons per chieftain). This is because I'm adding chieftains as quickly as I can, so I generally buy around 250-500 more warriors and 100-300 more weapons than I need at any given time. On the other side of the equation, the defender actually does bring the numbers listed to the battle as well. The first guy had 1,151 chieftains and the second guy had 1,076. In each case, my warrior section should have been listed as "weaker," yet it wasn't.
Oh, crud... the lightbulb just went on. Thanks Skjold... From what I remember from reading through the forum, I could have sworn that I remembered someone mentioning that everyone was limited to only being able to use a number of chieftains equal to 10 times their level. This didn't seem to make a lot of sense, and when I looked at my earliest battle reports, this didn't seem to jive. I think I must have mis-read that earlier post, and didn't look closely enough at the battle reports. So (for the benefit of anyone else as dense as me), regardless of what the battle report says, the only warriors and weapons being used are those that you have enough levels for. In my case, 766 chieftains are all being used (at level 773), but someone else at level 773 with 1300 chieftains is only using 773 of them, and thus even if the report shows 13,000 warriors and 6,500 weapons used, he/she is actually only using 7,730 warriors and 3865 weapons. The other 527 chieftains are completely worthless (at least until he gains more levels). I don't know why it took so long for me to figure that out. Thanks again, Skjold!
And no - he was about my level (773). So yeah, that explains a heck of a lot. Kinda interesting... it's like he brought this much bigger army to the fight, and he could have completely destroyed me, but the rest of his army was sitting on the sidelines watching me kill him.
i have checked this theory of 10x and 5 x and it is true ,im a lvl 878 i have 1400 chieftains ,14000 worriers ,so i went and attacked a person and got a 720 my damage 780 there damage ,then i went and sold 5220 worriers ,then went back and attacked the same person and got a 720 my damage to 780 damage for them ,the same ,im thinking im going to save a lot of money now by selling all not in use
