attacking question

[GooseLover]

say i have enough supers to hold every weapon, would buying mercs make less supers die per attack? I know overall casualties would be higher, but idc about mercs.

[GooseLover]

so no one knows..

[dark force]

yes if u buy mercs you will loose a lot less supers even without weapons for them but its best to buy weapons for the mercs

[Iƒrit]

you dont need weapons for the mercs, they are best to have IMO cause they cut losses.

[GooseLover]

Thanks guys.

[urogard]

wrong both of you

if you have 1 mil armed supers and 1 mil mercs (500k armed and 500k unarmed)
then you will loose the same amount of supers than if you have 1 mil supers and 500k mercs

[Iƒrit]

im not wrong....supers have more power there for you can hit bigger defenses, I personally dont think arming mercs is worth the weapons but the cost for 50-60% less Super casualties

[urogard]

im not wrong....supers have more power there for you can hit bigger defenses, I personally dont think arming mercs is worth the weapons but the cost for 50-60% less Super casualties

you dont need weapons for the mercs, they are best to have IMO cause they cut losses.

To arm 1 super you need to pay 1.356 mil
To arm 2 mercs you need to pay 1.117 mil

I guess which one is cheaper
And anyways having unarmed mercs doesn't cut your losses, it only does if you arm them.

[Iƒrit]

im not wrong....supers have more power there for you can hit bigger defenses, I personally dont think arming mercs is worth the weapons but the cost for 50-60% less Super casualties

you dont need weapons for the mercs, they are best to have IMO cause they cut losses.

To arm 1 super you need to pay 1.356 mil
To arm 2 mercs you need to pay 1.117 mil

I guess which one is cheaper
And anyways having unarmed mercs doesn't cut your losses, it only does if you arm them.

im pretty sure losse are taken from total army sent, armed and unarmed. Since mercs add very little power, I personaly do not arm all of them, and hopefully we are buying the best weapons avaliable. Another reason I dont arm all of mercs with my supers is it cuts the cost of repairs that would come with having more weapons.

[urogard]

im pretty sure losse are taken from total army sent, armed and unarmed.

Yup 1.5% of ALL attack supers and 3% of ALL attack mercs.
Therefore increasing the amount of unarmed mercs won't cut your super losses

Another reason I dont arm all of mercs with my supers is it cuts the cost of repairs that would come with having more weapons.

Arming mercs increases your repairs by around 600 per weapon per hit but cuts down your total losses and therefore your super losses

Since mercs add very little power

Mercs add more power per naquadah spent than supers actually

[teesdale]

im pretty sure losse are taken from total army sent, armed and unarmed.

Yup 1.5% of ALL attack supers and 3% of ALL attack mercs.
Therefore increasing the amount of unarmed mercs won't cut your super losses

so here u say they dont cut losses....

Another reason I dont arm all of mercs with my supers is it cuts the cost of repairs that would come with having more weapons.

Arming mercs increases your repairs by around 600 per weapon per hit but cuts down your total losses and therefore your super losses

now ur saying they do cut losses

[pc]

Your Failures
Attacking Mercenaries Lost 305,058,434
Super Soldier Lost 158,756,011

Defending Mercenaries Lost 34,080,078
Super Guards Lost 22,923,486

Its my guess Mercs cut losses

[urogard]

Yup 1.5% of ALL attack supers and 3% of ALL attack mercs.
Therefore increasing the amount of unarmed mercs won't cut your super losses

so here u say they dont cut losses....

Arming mercs increases your repairs by around 600 per weapon per hit but cuts down your total losses and therefore your super losses

now ur saying they do cut losses

I congratulate you on your ownage reading skillz