Ok. I'm open to posts on this, so please comment if you agree/disagree with me, or have thoughts on this. Recently I discovered that when you attack someone, you make more money than they lose. If this is true, you could attack a friend until they run out of money, then they attack you until you run out of money, and you both make a lot of gold. Please post any thoughts, thanks.
Yes, kaw economics typically allows that more money can be gained than lost in battles (assuming the defender limits what they have out as losses cap at .02% of total $ - if you have 100b out you can lose 200m per hit). Theoretically this allows infinite $ generation over time. The limiting factor in this is troop loss. Regen rates only allow 24/hits per hour (without crystalling
And the person getting attacked will give up around 20-22 hits per hour unless the are an OSF (but then you have the constraint around refilling). So while this approach does get you around farming actives, it does not allow max revenue for both parties involved ... someone has to give up revenue to play the target.
Lol yes. This is the main point of the game lmao. Attack players to make gold. Adding to that, more money invest into allies is more money per attack. At least you didn't say "hey if people hire me a lot will I get more gold" lol :mrgreen:
Your also missing that the defender loses troops in this equation, even if minimal compared to the attacker.
lol - I think u missed the point. If person #1 hits person #2 until out of troops, then person #2 won't be able to hit person #1. You'll get "defender too weak" (dtw). Waiting for the regen b4 person #2 hits means 1/2 revenue loss. Better to just have a farm.
Best combo for this is one all troop build and one all spy build. Trade off attacks for steals and everyone wins.