PDA

View Full Version : Question



piperman_GR
8th March 2005, 09:52 PM
Similar to the "Attack Force" topic, if someone has 500 attack specialists, with 10 blackpowder missiles, its better from someone who has 500 attack specialists with 460 hammers of thor?

*(10 missiles do about the same ammount as the 460 hammers)*

PanthersRule
8th March 2005, 11:32 PM
i think that would be right because trained soilders do damage but traind soliders holding weapons do more damage so i think that wat u r saying is right

Tekano
9th March 2005, 01:58 AM
in this situation it's better to have the 10 bpm's, they don't get sabotaged that easily and when they get damaged it costs less to repair cuz you only have a few.

Valheru_Prince
9th March 2005, 03:31 AM
Go for the BPM's they are cheaper than the hamnmers.

beebob2uk
9th March 2005, 05:13 AM
i agree with IWRY and valheru,
that the BPM's are cheaper to buy and easier to maintain, however
i think the point being made is the damage done by the hammers of thor will be more than the bpm's despite giving the same Strike action,
i think its likely that they will do a similar amount of damage,
however the black powder missiles have more potential to be unstable as there is so few of them,
i would still go for the BPM's because of price and maintaince costs, plus they just sound better >_<
in the long run if you continued buying hammers it would cost you FAR too much to maintain them, and cost you more to buy them to, so you would probably have to sell the ones you already had, to buy BPM's instead,
this would cost you 25% of the price of the weapons in the first place, and youd end up even further behind,
i think safest bet is always to go for the highest priced weapons that you can afford,
theyre more expensive for a reason :) (better :D)

~bee

piperman_GR
9th March 2005, 05:39 AM
I just wanted to know about the damage, for the price the missiles are far better :)

kaka duck
9th March 2005, 10:20 AM
assuming they are equal, the cost differential is much too great.. that is, the cost of HOT x 460 = $23,000,000; whereas, the cost of BPM x 10 = $7,500,000. so why spend more for the same..?

Antioch
9th March 2005, 01:50 PM
True but it would take forever to sabb the 640 weapons. The 10 BPM's could be sabbed by one person in a single day. It happened to me. Lost 8 all at once. My recommenation is to go with the weapon just under the bpm. Still quite cost effective but you can get more of them thus making it harder to sabb.

beebob2uk
10th March 2005, 04:26 AM
True but it would take forever to sabb the 640 weapons. The 10 BPM's could be sabbed by one person in a single day. It happened to me. Lost 8 all at once. My recommenation is to go with the weapon just under the bpm. Still quite cost effective but you can get more of them thus making it harder to sabb.

BPM's and IS's are by far the hardest weapons to sabotage, thats one of the reasons for upgrading to them away from the smaller weapons, most can only get one BPM in a turn and can and will get dozens of the other weapons,
some people even look for players with a surplus of lower strength weapons, just so they can sabotage 20 in one go, that way you could end up losing like 80 or 100 in one sitting,
and the cost to replace them would be absolutely ridiculous compared to the cost to replace the BPM's,
so if you want weapons that are better defended against sabotage always go for the highest strength weapons, not lots of little ones.

~bee

Jayson
10th March 2005, 04:36 AM
Hammer of Thor = 640
BPM = 10,000

Therefore sabotaging 15 hot's is equivalent to sabbing 1 bpm.

Therefore it truly isn't that much harder to sabb...

eg. While I could sabotage 10 bpm's in 10 sabb missions I could also sabotage 150 hot's in 10 missions.

Therfore there is no real advantage.