Which would you do?

Lets say you have FBTa lvl 7 and FBT lvl 6. You only have enough gold to upgrade one of them. Would you upgrade lvl 7 to lvl 8 or would you try to get lvl 6 up to lvl 7?

I suggest to upgrade “for levels” (homogenous), so for example upgrade every towers to lvl 2 then once you finish all tower to levels 2 start to upgrade all tower to level 3 and so on…

Now i do a silly example about the other option (upgrade a single tower at more high): if you had a single tower at max and all the others at low levels (2-3) there is no sense because it just make the base easier to destroy since you can first destroy that max tower and left at your troops to destroy the others or you the other with few efforts…

I personally upgrading towers gradually to avoid some potiental lack in certain points 'cause of low levels towers.

thx for input oPelle

3-4 max towers on enter just kill the weak king :slight_smile:


Or the king, who does not expect that the low number of trophies at the entrance can be such powerful towers and waves.It’s not silly



The funniest thing is that with a bunch of very weak towers - built track, copied from the very top players. = Zero defence, just go and kill one by one

Traps for gems is based on the maximum towers at the entrance. And one or two maximum first waves. - Especially for low-mid level kings.

To kill the king at the entrance and get to spend a revival-scrolls.


Try to defend 100% attacks is absolutely useless - there is still an enemy, who will win 100%, and steals the gold.opelle sees only the tip of the iceberg


* My advice is simple - run the most expensive of the available upgrades at each time point. As much as you are able to accumulate.

  1. Maybe some other time you will not be able to accumulate so much.2. hide gold from looting.

But the most expensive upgrade now, so that you won’t have to later.

Thank you all for your input.

oPelle is right. No tower, buildings, etc. must get left behind. Keep the level levelled.


Nonsense. You have 17 towers and 9 workers. You can easily afford to max-level 6 of them if you have the money for it.

At any time you can cheap&fast grow lower level towers.


The problem is high-level and gold for it. The earlier you start to get them high - the better.

Not to mention that your most important towers are your trap towers and your chockpoint towers. Everything else is just fodder, a distracter (designed to waste a spell on), or redirectors (Snake Towers, designed to drive the enemy towards the opposite towers). Out of the 17 towers you have, only like 11 of them even need to be past Lv.1.


You said it, “if you have the money for it.” The thing is, we don’t have money for it.

It depends, some towers spot is more important than some others spot (may slow down opponent more time?), having few higher level towers is pretty good for me as well.

Checkout this video by floathboss 

This should help you

There are 2 main aspects for upgrading your towers: 1. long-term strategy, 2. short-to-mid-term usefulness for each upgrade. 



Concerning the long-term strategy

As a matter of fact, it is a lot harder to gather e.g. 8m in one session (or “one session and 3h gold shield”) than it is to gather 4m in one session, right?


This has 3 reasons:

  1. During consecutive raids (no matter on which player(s)) your general loot amount will decrease (see other topics and videos about that, use search feature if necessary). 

  2. You have a limited amount of bread (and time) available during a single session. 

  3. The default-protection of a treasury doesn’t scale with your gold. A max lvl treasury protects 750k, so with 4m, 3.25m are unprotected, with 8m, 7.25m are unprotected, and with 1m, only 250k are unprotected. That means you can gather the first 750k-1m ahead of time, as it is always protected. 2 sessions, 2 times the option to savely “pre-raid” the first 750k. 



It is a lot easier to gather 8m in total by getting 2 times 4m (one session with 4m, and another session with 4m at a later time), than it is to gather 8m in a single raiding session. 

Obviously, without longer-lasting gold shields (e.g. 1 day), you can’t just leave the 4m from the first session around in your treasury, or it will be gone when you return later, so most likely you will spend the first 4m before logging off after your first raiding session. Then, for the 4nd session you also have 4m only. 

This means, on most occasions you can’t even gather 8m at a time, so you will rarely ever have the chance of doing an 8m upgrade at all, even if you have plenty of chances for doing a 4m upgrade. 


So, it is wise to use any and every option for actually doing a very expensive upgrade, or you will first run out of workers with doing cheap-only upgrades, and at some point end up with only very expensive upgrades being left, which is obviously not making it easier to do them all, and will most likely leave many workers unused/idle. :grinning:



Do your most expensive upgrades first whenever you have the option/choice between different upgrades with similar effect/priority. 



Concerning the short-to-mid-term usefulness

This is where the question of “is a base full of all-lvl-5 towers more useful currently, or a base with some lvl-8-towers and some lvl-2-towers” comes into play. 

(Note: On a similar thought, for waves, as the first 3-4 waves appear twice, obviously a comparably higher-lvl first wave is more useful than a comparably higher-lvl last wave.)


You can argue that a set of high lvl towers at the start can just simply kill/defeat weak/unskilled/unconcentrated attackers early on, and without knowledge of the full base they might assume the rest is probably just as strong as the beginning. Then they overestimate your total base strength and are quite likely to give up instead of trying to beat it with some scrolls/resurrects, assuming they don’t have a chance anyway. 


Moreover, keeping the attacking king and his army under constant pressure and fire from your main choke points and path overlaps for as long as possible (as that’s just the most effective part of a base, if done properly), is very effective to keep your castle gate alive/untouched, giving the attacker a heavy fail. Having some strong towers either at the very beginning or around your chokepoint area, obviously, helps. 


Also, generally, strategically placing stronger towers in places where they will be able to fire for a longer period of time, makes sense. This is e.g. where it can shoot across path overlap in general, or at best fire across a choke point, or for boosted bomb towers and firebolt towers, can be places where the tower can fire into several directions at different parts of your path.

Strong towers make sense for 2 reasons here:

  1. Stronger towers do more damage, so you get most damage over longest possible time = most overall doom and destruction to the attacking forces. If you treat damage/sec and duration as two axes, you can see the scenario “strong tower at long-duration spot, weak tower at short-duration-spot” as 2 squares of 3*3 and 1*1 = 9+1 = 10 total area, while the scenario “medium-strong towers at both spots” can be seen as two squares of each 2*2 area, giving 2*4=8 total area, and 10 8. 

  2. Stronger towers survive longer against attacking ranged troops, blizzard spells and cannons, thus a stronger tower can not only maximize the overall damage output with the given duration, but also greatly extend the duration during which it can shoot and is alive. So, strong towers are necessary at some places to “create” long-duration-spots at all, or at least drastically increase their effectiveness. More pratcically said: If your chokepoint-guard-tower gets killed by a single cannon already long before the king actually reaches the other side and can attack the tower, the chokepoint-spot is wasted. So if you want constant bombardment of the attacker’s reinforcements, the tower has to survive until the king finally reaches it, which requires a strong tower being placed there. 



Do your most expensive upgrades first whenever you have the option/choice between different upgrades with similar effect/priority. 



A third aspect

The threshold between “tower at lvl n is killable completely by a single spell from the attacker” and “tower at lvl n+1 survives a full spell” can greatly affect the practical outcome of a raid, potentially making equal tower lvls right above that threshold quite useful.

But usually, spells are upgraded first, and different attackers have different spell levels (and types), so it’s hardly possible to “employ” this threshold for strengthening your defense against varying attackers. 


Only exceptions are those cases, where a tower at lvl x can’t be killed even by a max-lvl spell in one (or two) shot(s) anymore, e.g. skull vs blizzard, boosted bomb vs sonic… but reaching there already requires very high tower levels, so these cases support the conclusions of the two main aspects. 

Not only that, but I’be done some number-crunching, and I’ve found that Firebolts scale up the same as their cost. For example, a 5mil upgrade will increase overall useful (attack x HP) by 5n, a 6mil upgrade will increase overall usefulness by 6n, etc.

Going off of what Heroe said earlier, about

“It really only matters of it can survive the first spell”


“Some positions amplify strength more than others”

What I like to do, is I’ll often put 2 Lv.1 towers in front of a Lv.6 tower. This causes the attacker to activate a spell early, this making it much weaker once it gets to the important tower. That being said, since I use a reverse L base, the first two positions are also much less useful than those above it, so the towers I sacrifice could never be any good anyway.

All in all, upgrade the expensives first.

Now I am strong. Really strong


But it is still the f*** difficult to get N millon gold!


Do you think that after year in game you can easily get many millions?