Yeah it depends on what you fight, just try to calculate whether it's gonna be a useful upgrade. In musks vs musks war, upgrading attack or hp is the same, it means 1 more/less hit to be killed/to kill.
But overall, if you got high attack, upgrading it won't make you need less hits to kill the enemy unit. Example : an abus gun, with 40 ranged attack, will anyway need 2-4 shots to kill most infantry. If it has 46 (+15% attack), I guess it won't change anything against enemy infantry. But if you upgrade its hp, it will gain 19-20 hp so most likely tank 1-2 more enemy infantry shots. Same for the uhlans : their attack is so high that they will most often kill infantry in 3-6 hits, and upgrading attack won't change much overall.
If you got high hp tho, it's often a good deal to upgrade it because you will tank several extra hits. While upgrading strelets hp will most often change nothing to how many hits they tank, upgrading mams hp means way more tanking.
So try to upgrade small attacks and big hp.
hp card vs attack card
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
hp card vs attack card
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
hp card vs attack card
The is the best rule of thumb.paul wrote:melee hp ranged attack
hp card vs attack card
I prefer to send hp first because with all of the ranged units and player's poking at each others armies I find it pays off more in the long run. Some units though, such as uhlan, I send the attack upgrade first because they are already paper thin (hp-wise) and their best attribute is their high attack.
"He's just got more stuff, and sometimes just having more stuff, despite the fact you have better positioning or better micro just doesn't matter because sometimes when you just got more stuff you just win the game." - ZutaZuta
hp card vs attack card
You may be the master of reverse logic!einfein wrote:I prefer to send hp first because with all of the ranged units and player''s poking at each others armies I find it pays off more in the long run. Some units though, such as uhlan, I send the attack upgrade first because they are already paper thin (hp-wise) and their best attribute is their high attack.
hp card vs attack card
The last few times I played Japan I put the wonder on hitpoints rather than attack and it seemed to work better for me. I think, though, that it depends on how you play (or, in my case, how I'm able to play). I'm at least one generation removed from most of the players here and my APM is abysmal. Therefore. I need tanky units that will survive until I can get around to microing their attack. For those with high APMs boosting attack might be better.
With armies there has always been an arms race between arms and armor. The Spanish conquistador's cuirass was impenetrable to an Aztec warrior's flint blade. However, as firearms became better personal armor was abandoned or relegated to soldiers who didn't have to move around much (e.g., WWII flak jackets). It's only been relatively recently that armor technology has caught back up to where it can actually stop small-arms fire.
With armies there has always been an arms race between arms and armor. The Spanish conquistador's cuirass was impenetrable to an Aztec warrior's flint blade. However, as firearms became better personal armor was abandoned or relegated to soldiers who didn't have to move around much (e.g., WWII flak jackets). It's only been relatively recently that armor technology has caught back up to where it can actually stop small-arms fire.
- DerMaxinator
- Dragoon
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Apr 1, 2015
- ESO: DerMax
- Location: Dresden
hp card vs attack card
I like to send my attack cards for Musk/Cav first, as that makes raiding more easy, and I also tend to have both cards in my deck.
Ain't no skills in makin' vills
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests