Raiding worth it?

[R_m]

I think I'm done with this part of the game. I lost an a10 (24k) & a heavy gunner (38k). He lost a light gunner (600 I think). My reward was 26k and a couple of valor! This sort of thing happens a majority of the time do the payoff just isn't there.

A3700 / D4600
His = A2200 / D2600

[Aidan]

If u want to raid, only raid high payout buildings though am nt sure at ur lvl, the rivals hv these sort of buildings.
On the casualty rates, if u hv money, buy crates like 100 of them n go low allies strat like 20-50 allies. Tadaa, u will no longer worried bout losing units. Every raids u made u will make profits.

If u cnt afford to spend real money, start scaling down on ur attck units. Dnt buy high priced units for attck. Preferably hv ur attck made of valors unit n sniper or warthog if u hv good economy. Ur attck points wont be great but u wont suffer much on the replacing cost.

[R_m]

So buy weak units? I have a bunch (100+) of a few weak units. So I guess I should buy more. However at one point I stopped bc those units were no longer adding to my stats

[Aidan]

If u r talking bout ranger or scout thn no. Buy sniper. If u dnt even bring sniper into attck thn most likely u will suffer high replacing cost. Btw, this is for full ally approach. If u r playing a low ally tactics thn it's preferably u get the best attck unit as with this tactics, u'll hv almost zero casualties if u attck much weaker rival. So having high attck stat will benefit u more.

[R_m]

I have a bunch of snipers now but still losing high dollar units where my much weaker opponent loses none. And i don't see where I would get to choose to have units be fodder like some people have mentioned. Every time I attack or raid I spend more getting back what I lost. It still seems to me like this part of the game is futile.

[Mcdoc]

The real strategy here is to rotate out your lower units with higher units. So - I used to buy warthogs because they were required for missions, but as they fell away, I replaced them with Harriers. Then As those fell away, I moved up to Ospreys. As you grow In The game, supposedly your economy grows and you get better at raiding high dollar buildings - so yes you will lose units, but replacing them shouldn't be so painful over time.

Long run, it's the whole point of the game. I think those that played CC first got spoiled that you don't lose units. I used to play Command & Conquer back in the early 90's - the 1st really awesome War stategy game with decent graphics - it is the basis of which this game is derived with the need to expand your territory before you can build in it and certain buildings gave you better units - but even in that game - you would lose some units in battle - but you just build more and move on - kinda like real warfare :)

[R_m]

Yeah I'm cool with the gamemanship of it and losing units. It makes sense. It seems that what is gained and lost by both in the attack is not intuitive, Attacking a lower opponent who loses nothing...?

[youj]

Defenders have lower causality rate than attackers. Thats why you will always lose more units when attacking.

It is implemented this way to prevent stronger players from bullying weak players.

[Shawshank]

I find raiding results in the highest amount of casualties for the lowest payout.

[Tim @ MW]

The higher you go, the more payout you need from each raid. For me, I need to hit at least level 7 stockpile. For me each battle costs 50k on average.