So what percentage economic advantage do you think is necessary?
22% wins in spite of all the things you mentioned. By the way, you continue to add things to the defender for which he does NOT have resources. Ie 5 layers of walls. He sold all his spare stone to pay for his 22% weaker force. Whatever he spends on walls reduces his ability to afford gold units. The castle fire is baked in. Try it in the scenario if you dont believe me. 49 Paladins mops 40 with 3 castles firing at the 49. Its not close.
Oh, you can have all my 40 paladins!
If I know you are relying on an all-in push, the only thing I have to do is stop your first push. Because after that you have no gold and I have trade.
So I might as well just fight your paladins with heavy camels, take down your SO's with my castles and make a similar amount of BBC, since we're assuming zero micro anyway.
And that's assuming you will make it past my 5 layer wall, which I can easily afford with the aforementioned composition.
And that's also assuming you can force me to take fight. Which, again, in a map like BF you probably won't be able to.
Have you heard of Fatslob? I think watching some of his games might change your perception on how ridiculously easy it is to stall a game of BF. And he is a very noobish player, now imagine a skilled player defending on BF...
I even remember a 1vs1 BF game between Stark and Viper. I think it was Aztecs vs Celts.
Stark did literally nothing else than mass walls plus SO behind those walls. Viper kept trying to break in but he couldn't do it. Eventually Viper resigned because he was so frustrated. And Viper is a much better player than Stark. That's defenders advantage for you right there!
Last edited: