Scoutbombs are cheaper in the end.
Send 100k scouts against a rainbowed archer city and you'll only kill 10k archers.
Someone will argue that scoutbombs aren't nearly worth it because those 10k archers are cheaper and train faster than the 100k socuts. That's a terrible comparison because they're on opposing sides.
Send 100k archers against them and see what happens. You'll be lucky to kill a single archer. And that 100k archers will take a lot longer to train and cost a lot mroe than those 100k scouts who got more kills.
And then, much faster. The attacks reach quicker, allowin' you to resend more attacks without waitin' for ten attacks to slowly make their way. They train fast and relatively cheap and you can eaisly have a lot of them at hand to send off. It'll also protect your real army for when the defender is beaten down.
People who don't like scoutbombs either got bombed and are lookin' for another way to complain that life isn't fair and someone killed their archers and bring us back to the Carebear Wars, or they don't have any comprehension of the game mechanics and think that a whole bunch of archers are sufficient.
Not to generalise, and forgive me if someone else has anythin' to add, but they're the only two things I've ever seen a complaint about against scoutbombs.
@Rodri: have got that report archived away. Think I've got an example like it in the guide already, but one can never have too many of these reports; especially with the amount of PMs I get askin' me about these things. Always good to have spares handy! Cheers![]()



Bookmarks