trebuchet or battering rams against the dark fortresss

[gabzpiano]

which is more worth it for attacking the dark fortress, trebuchet or battering rams?

EDIT: seems like nobody knows the answer so i will have to test it myself. i don't have trebuchets yet though so i will start by comparing rams to catapults, soon i will have trebuchet. i'm pretty sure there is some variability in dark fortress attacks because they are like siege attacks which have an RNG factor of when your army runs due to low morale so i will do it a lot of times and compare the averages.

[Angela]

Hello, gabzpiano. Trebuchets inflict more damages, their attack is bigger than the attack of battering rams. However, in the attacks against the Dark fortress, the number of the siege machines which will inflict damages on the fortress is not limited . If you already have trebuchets and battering rams, sending the rams along with the trebuchets will inflict more damages than attack in which only trebuchets are sent.

[gabzpiano]

i think you misunderstood. i'm trying to figure out which is more efficient in terms of cost to build and upkeep cost to damage to dark fortress. so for example 1 trebuchet costs 4 times as much a ram to make and upkeep, so the question would be: does 1 trebuchet deal as much dmg to the dark fortress as 4 battering rams?
so far i only tested rams compared to catapults and catapults are quite a bit worse than rams. meaning, 2 rams did noticeably more damage than 1 catapult. even though catapults costs x2 to make and upkeep as the ram does

actually the best answer to which unit is the best to make a lot of for dark fortress AND the skull of wonders, which i didnt consider before might be phalanx, they deal very similar damage to rams when comparing efficiency and taking into account their bonuses in numbers. they also have carrying capacity for skull of wonders. and they're useful in a real battle.