I recently had a Swordwrath only war with my friend, we weren't allowed to use rage, we both had the same number of Swordwraths (80 Swordwraths, before the war we sent our Miners to die so it would be totally Swordwrath only, then bought the remaining Swordwraths we needed), we both charged toward the middle, yet my friend had won. But how could he win if we had the exact same number of Swordwraths, and used no Rage whatsoever? This is why. Everyone knows the Swordwrath has two attack animations, the 1st one where he lifts his sword with both hands and then slashes it downward, and the 2nd one where we simply jabs his sword forward with one hand, a Swordwrath performs the 2nd animation faster than the 1st one, although both animations do the same damage, the faster your Swordwrath hits, the quicker the opponent will be dead, therefore the more a Swordwrath performs the 2nd animation, the more likely you are to win in Swordwrath vs Swordwrath situation, although it might end in a tie where both Swordwraths die, so in a Swordwrath battle there is no guarantee you will win, it simply depends on if your Swordwrath or Swordwraths happen to use the 2nd attack animations more often. I just wanted to say this so other could know it, thank you for reading.

But the larger the number of probabilities happening, the more even the 50/50 ratio is. But this only applies if you send 1 swordwrath at each other, and talliy how many times each side wins. However since stick empies dosnt work that way, as alive swordwraths provide a damage boost, it could start as a 79/80 then with the slight advantage it builds up into a 68/70 and keeps building up, the person with less swordwraths having less firepower, and the effect continually compounding to something like 0/6. I believe that that is called the butterfly effect.

Yes, but if one were to counter the enemy Swordwraths with Rage, and succeed in defeating the enemy Swordwraths, he could then garrison his Raged units to heal.

Ummm attack enemy swordwraths one at a time. Couldn't you have tried that? Take the chance out of it.

lol i doubt that would change a lot the ending...

it would probably be extremely ineficient to selact all 80 swordwraths and have them attack one swordwrath at a time. divide them into groups of ten, and have 10 attack a single swordwrath at a time.

i suppose...

...that you might just not be able to do that fast enough after the first 5 or so swordwrath die.

Quote from Exxmorphing

I could estimate your age when you said "this is why".
Crazyjay and brock put in different animations so they could AVOID a tie, therefore a tie is impossible.

Besides, everyone already knows about this. Thus, this thread has no point.

THE THREAD IS (OR SHOULD BE) (Click to Show)

closed

I have HAD a tie before, therefore it is NOT impossible.

Quote from Kincaid1

I have HAD a tie before, therefore it is NOT impossible.

That would mean both sword wraths started attacking on the excact same game tick and used the same number of each move... rare, but not impossible. Wheras if there was only one attacking move, it would depend on who attacked first.

Quote from jerrytt

That would mean both sword wraths started attacking on the excact same game tick and used the same number of each move... rare, but not impossible. Wheras if there was only one attacking move, it would depend on who attacked first.

If there is one Swordwrath standing still, and another charging toward it, there would not be a tie due to the standing Swordwrath already being at the point where the two Swordwrath would start attacking each other before the other Swordwrath charged toward the one standing still, but if both Swordwraths were to charge at each other at the same time, a tie would be possible like you said.

The only kind of tie I've experienced was an Archidon vs archidon.

Quote from Exxmorphing

as i said, pretty much everybody knows about the different attack animations.
thus, this thread may be kinda.... useless.

Well yes, I know that everyone knows about the animations, I even said that at the start of the thread, but the thread is not COMPLETELY useless.

*bump*