Quote Originally Posted by kassikas View Post
Sorry, but without any battle reports at all, one must believe you are just BSing.

Facts are simple, and your story has changed. First you argued that you knocked down 400k archers and 50k ballista and only lost 100k troops. Now you are saying it took hundreds of battles.

Hundreds of battles with an average loss of less then 500 troops, against armies far larger then the one that killed 50k troops? Thats required for the claim of <100k lost troops.

Additionally, how did you manage not to kill any of the horse in hundreds of attacks? I would really like to know, because my horse always finds a way to die.

Occom's razor weighs in simple here. You are BSing. You picked the bones of someone who had quit, and tried to pass it off as a victory over hundreds of thousands of troops.

Show one battle report, the first one where you hit hundreds of thousands of archers without taking tens of thousands of losses, and you might get some faith. Until then, the claims just stink.
Sorry, Kassikas, I never meant for anyone to think I struck the city with 400k archers inside and took them out all at once with one single-handed attack. This guy was active, and actively attacking players with wave after wave of 80k archers + 20k swords at a time. That was what started the action in the first place.

What I DID say, however, was that strategy defeated a player with larger defenses than those shown in the OP, archers, defenses, and all.

But even that wasn't my point in responding to this thread at all... I only used that particular skirmish as an example to show that defeating someone with 170k archers and thousands of archer towers is not impossible.... which I thought was the original concern of this thread?