Worthy of Destruction?

triangle

This is a bit of a "personal preference" question, but I wanted to ask if any of you considered attacking RB for loot more efficient than attacking abandoned castles?
Personally, I'm not sure it would really turn out to be worth my time, but I'm getting a bit annoyed by all the times I attack a castle only to find that somebody has looted it before I arrived.

mb73992

u would get more from a inactive castle and just because it gets attacked before yours doesnt mean u dont get loot u still get some its just less of the type u wanted if they looted all of tat. Then RBs give u very little and u would lose a lot more men

cat402

The outposts of inactive castles tend to produce the most loot for me.

deathsweeper (US1)

triangle wrote: »

This is a bit of a "personal preference" question, but I wanted to ask if any of you considered attacking RB for loot more efficient than attacking abandoned castles?
Personally, I'm not sure it would really turn out to be worth my time, but I'm getting a bit annoyed by all the times I attack a castle only to find that somebody has looted it before I arrived.

depends what I want, if I need coins or rubies I attack rbs. If I need resources it better to attack inactives.

Baldrick (GB1)

I pretty much only attack RBCs, Barbarian, Desert and Cultist towers, as the rewards are multiple. I get enough wood, stone and food to cover all my needs and also receive equipment, coins and rubies.

I occasionally attack inactive castles, but usually only for quests or if I need a lot of wood and stone. This is happening now as the colossus event is running.

It all depends on your personal requirements, but if you can gain enough wood and stone from towers, it's a far better idea as the additional items are not available by hitting castles. I run all my castles in the negative, up to -2 to -3k per hour depending on my activeness and find that sustainable with only two empire sessions per day.