The test was to compare whether it was indeed a stat advantage alone or whether in a fair fight the defender can defend against a rogue army.
Goode had suggested that the only way the defense would win is because its stats were much higher (which is also in nostalgic terms quite possible, because back in the day defenders have always been able to stack watchfires, but attackers were limited to GBs for the longest time). (Wyldon's original suggestion being for people who do like to try to defend, not a general recommendation for an optimum way to play).
*IF* you wanted to defend against attacks (nevermind that we've all agreed it's not worthwhile to bother), because that's what's fun to you, do you need to completely dwarf the attacker's stats? Or just have comparable stats and to guess the right army for what they're attacking with. Click to expand.The question was one of interest to theory moreso than practical value.
0 kommentar(er)
