"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2412367" wrote:
"BubbaFett;c-2412363" wrote:
"el_mago;c-2412362" wrote:
"Ghost666;c-2412338" wrote:
"BubbaFett;c-2412229" wrote:
"yolkywareagle;c-2412209" wrote:
"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2411964" wrote:
"yolkywareagle;c-2411961" wrote:
"Notthatguyfrombefore;c-2411661" wrote:
Yeah. Fleets only defence won’t work if you cant clear their fleets.
I believe it would if I used undersized squads. i only used wampacron on the last battle, and that gave me a few more.
How exactly? Your opponent got 59 for every squad you didn't place. How are you outperforming that with Wampa? ... you aren't
Correct me if i’m wrong, but they get banners from full health full protection first round and stuff, but not undersized squad banners
They get undersize as well... The full load I believe, which makes sense since they beat it with nothing
Just to be sure...playing with no defense gives the opponent a score that cannot be matched even if you win all attacks with only one attacker...?
If you don't set a defense, your opponent will get the maximum banners for every squad where you do not place a defense.
It is my understanding that you can match that if you also beat a squad for max banners. You would do that by winning with one character and having full protection and health.
As an aside, you win the "I set no character defense" strategy by setting an unbeatable ship defense; but you, yourself, must also be able to clear their ships.
Exactly which, in my opinion, makes it less of a strategy and more of a lazy gamble :)
Unless you have deliberately invested in your own fleets to put yourself in a position to make it work without it being a ‘gamble’.
Except there is a better strategy if you want to do that: put the weakest characters in your roster on those defense slots. They can’t do worse than no team at all and will very likely do better.
That’s why it’s not inappropriate to call this strategy ‘lazy’, because with a little more effort it will be similar but more effective.
Capital Games Team
