Perfect Defence xD

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 02.04.2020 at 14:35

Come on, I mean in a proper match up of your conditions. If it were a rank 5, you'd have to expect to beat him basically due the skill level difference. Besides, you'd have to expect your opponent to think the same way you do, they'd want to play with what they believe to be optimum.

And PD gives you more amount of infantry, with more defense and more range... so what? All you need to do is play around its strength... PD infantry would cost 50 meanwhile elite units cost 220.

What kind of maths are you applying into something with so many variables, including luck? You have no way to anticipate everything.

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 02.04.2020 at 14:38

I was simply trying to follow Lao's argument, don't take it out of context man... I am aware of all the possible variables in a game, exactly why there's no real way to balance strategies.

I mentioned the other variables to highlight the rng nature of this game because youre talking about killing kaska with a sub optimal strat.

Do i need to remind you that you used you beating someone on ancient with pd as an argument to how strong pd is?

I'm not sure what youre finding difficult to follow. If you go onto ancient world, +2 hp to all units is better than a def boost to inf and militia. That's the only math you need concern yourself with. Picking any other strat reduces your % chance of winning.

Ironfist is optimal there in 100% of situations. In teamgames, everything. Its just too strong.

Alternatively if you go onto europe+ you will find optimal uses for every strat bar hw. Thats the real reason people play this map. I suspect it being the home continent of half the playerbase is a factor too but thats another issue. Your pd complaint is only partially true of west europe in 1v1s. Everything else you said is nonsense.

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 02.04.2020 at 15:05

GW is one of the strongest late game. However, it struggles sometimes to make it through the early game, specially in 1v1, sadly. I used to love playing GW in ancient world games.

Lol.... an ironfist infantry is stronger on offence than a gw militia is on defence. Let that sink in and rethink what you just said.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 02.04.2020 at 15:09

I mentioned the other variables to highlight the rng nature of this game because youre talking about killing kaska with a sub optimal strat.

Do i need to remind you that you used you beating someone on ancient with pd as an argument to how strong pd is?

I'm not sure what youre finding difficult to follow. If you go onto ancient world, +2 hp to all units is better than a def boost to inf and militia. That's the only math you need concern yourself with. Picking any other strat reduces your % chance of winning.

Ironfist is optimal there in 100% of situations. In teamgames, everything. Its just too strong.

Alternatively if you go onto europe+ you will find optimal uses for every strat bar hw. Thats the real reason people play this map. I suspect it being the home continent of half the playerbase is a factor too but thats another issue. Your pd complaint is only partially true of west europe in 1v1s. Everything else you said is nonsense.

I mentioned my example as an answer to your sentence: "There is literally 0 reasons a player who wants to maximise their chances of winning on ancient would ever pick a strategy other than ironfist." Meaning that me, as a player who wants to win, is perfectly capable of understanding that PD in no way limited my chances of winning against a standard IF player. It might be suboptimal for you, it ain't for me all of the times.

It has its weaknesses in comparison to IF, I know, but also its strength. I can understand there are plenty of variables that affect the game beyond your strategy too. However, those +2 HP are not everything. You can outplay that with your higher range, with the lower price, more defense and even the crit chance from militias. It makes PD a bit more versatile than IF in ancient.

From my perspective, even if not optimal, PD is very much viable as any initial country meanwhile certain strategies might not be viable in half of the picks. Thus PD stands out and could be considered too strong.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 02.04.2020 at 15:14

Lol.... an ironfist infantry is stronger on offence than a gw militia is on defence. Let that sink in and rethink what you just said.

You've just considered one of the many stats of a single unit of a strategy. Congratz. Besides, that's wrong. GW militias have 5 deff and IF infantries have 4 att.

What about considering militias cost 30 while IF inf costs 70? What about considering have 7 attack while only costing 80? 10 more than an infantry. Doesn't that add up in your balancing calculator?

Dude....

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 02.04.2020 at 15:26

I mentioned my example as an answer to your sentence: "There is literally 0 reasons a player who wants to maximise their chances of winning on ancient would ever pick a strategy other than ironfist." Meaning that me, as a player who wants to win, is perfectly capable of understanding that PD in no way limited my chances of winning against a standard IF player. It might be suboptimal for you, it ain't for me all of the times.

It has its weaknesses in comparison to IF, I know, but also its strength. I can understand there are plenty of variables that affect the game beyond your strategy too. However, those +2 HP are not everything. You can outplay that with your higher range, with the lower price, more defense and even the crit chance from militias. It makes PD a bit more versatile than IF in ancient.

From my perspective, even if not optimal, PD is very much viable as any initial country meanwhile certain strategies might not be viable in half of the picks. Thus PD stands out and could be considered too strong.

Sorry this isnt a matter of opinion or something that can be argued. The math speaks for itself. Picking anything other than ironfist on ancient reduces your chances of winning. This is a fact. Facts don't care about uninformed opinions.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 02.04.2020 at 15:33

Sorry this isnt a matter of opinion or something that can be argued. The math speaks for itself. Picking anything other than ironfist on ancient reduces your chances of winning. This is a fact. Facts don't care about uninformed opinions.

I'm sorry, I didnt know you were a maths god. Ok, since facts can be proven mathematically, go ahead and enlighten me. Show me your maths, a real equation that solves this riddle.

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 02.04.2020 at 15:33

What about considering militias cost 30 while IF inf costs 70? What about considering have 7 attack while only costing 80? 10 more than an infantry. Doesn't that add up in your balancing calculator?

Dude....

Well done. Good thing ancient world is a high income setting. Next you'll be telling me we should play imp on ancient to save money.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 02.04.2020 at 15:35

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 02.04.2020 at 15:33

What about considering militias cost 30 while IF inf costs 70? What about considering have 7 attack while only costing 80? 10 more than an infantry. Doesn't that add up in your balancing calculator?

Dude....

Well done. Good thing ancient world is a high income setting. Next you'll be telling me we should play imp on ancient to save money.

Really, and you're a strategy master? Can't you simply spam GW marines (80) while your opponent spams IF infantries (70)? Marines are in fact a bit more expensive that's why early game is a bit more difficult since you rely mainly on militias and a couple marines you can pay.

Lao, this quarantine situation is messing you really bad... let's get a beer shall we?

Also, why did you delete the part where I was showing you wrong on your comparisong between IF inf and GW militias in my post?

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 02.04.2020 at 15:39

Really, and you're a strategy master? Can't you simply spam GW marines (80) while your opponent spams IF infantries (70)? Marines are in fact a bit more expensive that's why early game is a bit more difficult since you rely mainly on militias and a couple marines you can pay.

Lao, this quarantine situation is messing you really bad... let's get a beer shall we?

Also, why did you delete the part where I was showing you wrong on your comparisong between IF inf and GW militias in my post?

It's interesting that you can be so woefully wrong and still maintain an air of cockiness. I see now how you got into epic clan.

the inf are stronger offensively and defensively than the marines too.

Not that any competent ironfist player on ancient is going to play defensively and build only infantry.

Its so sad to see a high rank making posts like this. Some people just have no understanding of the game at all. I mean you're actually telling ppl to go gw on a map with 8 rein countries that have 600+ income.

Oh and i haven't deleted any posts.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 02.04.2020 at 16:04

It's interesting that you can be so woefully wrong and still maintain an air of cockiness. I see now how you got into epic clan.

the inf are stronger offensively and defensively than the marines too.

Not that any competent ironfist player on ancient is going to play defensively and build only infantry.

Its so sad to see a high rank making posts like this. Some people just have no understanding of the game at all. I mean you're actually telling ppl to go gw on a map with 8 rein countries that have 600+ income.

Oh and i haven't deleted any posts.

I got into EC cause... cause why not? Not sure what does that have to be with me as a person in any way but if you prefer I can try having fun in any other clan

Infs are stronger offensively in what sense? Correct me if I'm wrong:
- IF infantries: 4 att and +2 HP (70) // 6 def +2HP // range 4
- GW marines: 7 att (80) // 3 (+1 def vs inf) // range 6

I know they aint gonna build only infantries, they'll also build elites, for which stats are kinda similar regardless of the strategy. IF get +2HP, LB get +10% critc change... it helps but it's not decisive.

Aha, just a couple cities have 600 income. Seems like you generalize too much.

You deleted a part of my post when quoting

Kirjoittanut Froyer, 05.04.2020 at 03:26

IF Hp buff in big stack(you know why in big stack if u did maths in high school) is like giving +1,5 in atk and defence, and since ancient has a lot of reinfs, you only have big stack.
If Infantries: 5,5 atk and 7,5 def + gen if u have one 6,5 and 8,5. And we don't count op elites.
Lb infs are actually not that good when u see IF infs, because in big stack lb infs have +0,7 atk and def.

Mind doing the maths while you're at it? Pls & ty.

For all I know, the defence value is the damage you do when defending and the attack value is the damage you do when attacking. HP are the points that you lose when the attack/defence of a unit hits you. Beyond that, I haven't done the average conversion of having +2HP into attack/defence value and am not sure how would that be done considering as well that units have crit chance. Altogether, sounds as too much work, do it for me pls.

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 05.04.2020 at 08:42

Mind doing the maths while you're at it? Pls & ty.

For all I know, the defence value is the damage you do when defending and the attack value is the damage you do when attacking. HP are the points that you lose when the attack/defence of a unit hits you. Beyond that, I haven't done the average conversion of having +2HP into attack/defence value and am not sure how would that be done considering as well that units have crit chance. Altogether, sounds as too much work, do it for me pls.

You don't need to do the maths. You just need to understand this. Take 10 old 9 att ra tanks vs gc tanks.

The 10 ra tanks have 90 att 70 hp. the gc tanks have 80 att 80 hp. It might seem the same but the gc tanks are better. Hp is a more reliable buff as even though the tanks have 9 att, the rolls system means theyll roll 1-9.

The base hp of units in the game is 7. For units with att /values >=7 a hp buff is better than the equivalent att/def buff. For units with att values <= 7, an att/def buff is is better than the equivalent hp buff. This is true up to att values of up to 16. After 16 units roll half their max damage as a minimum roll. For example a 16 att/def unit will roll 8-16. 20 40 will rolls 20-40.

This is why if on ancient is so strong. The specials benefit hugely from it. The income and city density supports the production of tanks and specials. And then there's the militia base range buff.

The math is quite complicated given how all these values interact. Clovis could probably reproduce it. You can ask him but as long as youve a rough idea of how the values interact(like froyer aand myself) and what kind of unit power youre working with, its enough.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 05.04.2020 at 09:18

You don't need to do the maths. You just need to understand this. Take 10 old 9 att ra tanks vs gc tanks.

The 10 ra tanks have 90 att 70 hp. the gc tanks have 80 att 80 hp. It might seem the same but the gc tanks are better. Hp is a more reliable buff as even though the tanks have 9 att, the rolls system means theyll roll 1-9.

The base hp of units in the game is 7. For units with att /values >=7 a hp buff is better than the equivalent att/def buff. For units with att values <= 7, an att/def buff is is better than the equivalent hp buff. This is true up to att values of up to 16. After 16 units roll half their max damage as a minimum roll. For example a 16 att/def unit will roll 8-16. 20 40 will rolls 20-40.

This is why if on ancient is so strong. The specials benefit hugely from it. The income and city density supports the production of tanks and specials. And then there's the militia base range buff.

The math is quite complicated given how all these values interact. Clovis could probably reproduce it. You can ask him but as long as youve a rough idea of how the values interact(like froyer aand myself) and what kind of unit power youre working with, its enough.

Ofc you need to do the maths, or else we'll keep talking about something we can't prove.

My doubt would be if anyone has done the actual maths with some of those interactions, not sure if Clovis could right now. I am not interested in taking all the time it could take to develop such an application, however taking into account if crits and rolls, random features, are better than tangible HP would depend on... luck? Chance? HP gives you more chance of survival, therefor you could probably attack/defend one more time if you're lucky enough with your rolls. However, higher attack/defence values could kill your opponent in a single blow if you're lucky enough with your rolls/crits. In the end, it all comes to who gets better rolls...

To me, it's too hard to compare so many variables by blind guess. Let's hire a mathematician, maybe there's one around AW.

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 05.04.2020 at 12:59

Ofc you need to do the maths, or else we'll keep talking about something we can't prove.

My doubt would be if anyone has done the actual maths with some of those interactions, not sure if Clovis could right now. I am not interested in taking all the time it could take to develop such an application, however taking into account if crits and rolls, random features, are better than tangible HP would depend on... luck? Chance? HP gives you more chance of survival, therefor you could probably attack/defend one more time if you're lucky enough with your rolls. However, higher attack/defence values could kill your opponent in a single blow if you're lucky enough with your rolls/crits. In the end, it all comes to who gets better rolls...

To me, it's too hard to compare so many variables by blind guess. Let's hire a mathematician, maybe there's one around AW.

What do you mean not prove XD. Some people just fundamentally don't understand atwar.

If you as a r10+ look at a map like ancient and can't understand why ironfist is optimal, then nothing I say, no mathematician and no equation is going change that. I mean it's overhwelmingly obvious. It's like asking for an astronomer to prove the sun exists.

Kirjoittanut Permamuted, 05.04.2020 at 13:45

What do you mean not prove XD. Some people just fundamentally don't understand atwar.

If you as a r10+ look at a map like ancient and can't understand why ironfist is optimal, then nothing I say, no mathematician and no equation is going change that. I mean it's overhwelmingly obvious. It's like asking for an astronomer to prove the sun exists.

As I've said so many times, yeah, IF IS STRONG IN ANCIENT. What is the matter with saying we need to calculate things before jumping into conclusions tho? Ffs, I'm a scientist, I need the calculation before my eyes before I can know something. It might be obvious to you, but I can deduce you have no calculation done from what you've said, and I quote: "The math is quite complicated given how all these values interact. Clovis could probably reproduce it." Ofc I can have an idea, but that's not enough for me to asume and affirm anything. Why did you have to answer all of the sudden in such way? What did I say that was so wrong to you?

What you say is no mathematical equation, it's just words. Understanding AW and doing calculations is very different: you may understand but you can't put accurate numbers to it, just as what happens with tbs. I sincerely don't understand where's the problem in me wanting to know the maths behind it all, is that so much to ask? Agh... this is so frustating

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ stop fighting i don't even want to read it

Kirjoittanut Palmitas, 05.04.2020 at 17:27

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ stop fighting i don't even want to read it

i didn't, ignore the flamewar

Kirjoittanut SuperiorCacaocow, 06.04.2020 at 06:01

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 05.04.2020 at 17:14

Ffs, I'm a scientist, I need the calculation before my eyes before I can know something.

Some complex systems can only be understood empirically by interacting with and developing an intuition for them. You won't be able to derive a statement like 'IF is stronger on such and such a map' from an equation because there are too many interacting variables, especially the human factors as to what decision is made at which point. You couldn't even do the simulations like for chess or Go because AW is too complex in the freedom of movement it allows.
Wanting to understand the underlying game mechanics mathematically, sure, I'm with you. I also want to understand those and see how Amok&Ivan actually implemented them. But they won't necessarily help you to understand higher level truths about the game like why IF is better in high income densely populated settings. That's learned intuition.

You're right, but I would simply require the interaction between those strategies in a simple fight, where one would be attacking and the other would be defending. Everything else would be related to human habilities and not inherent to the strategy's strength, right?

If no admin has ever shared with us the actual calculations that happen below our screens, it's probable they won't help us in getting the real numbers ever. All we can do is sense our own approximations, which isn't enough to asure anything.... If I tried to affirm anything based on intuition at work, I wouldn't probably last more than a day, intuition is not precise enough to know it's correct.

IF is strong in this particular situation, but so can be other strats as well. Confirming which is stronger should be based on calculations, not intuition alone.

I won't read it all, but for the record Raul u won thanks to a lucky tb as well, 2 2nd move tbing 20 1st move, gg atwar, no matter the strat when u have luck on your side

Kirjoittanut Kaska, 06.04.2020 at 07:14

I won't read it all, but for the record Raul u won thanks to a lucky tb as well, 2 2nd move tbing 20 1st move, gg atwar, no matter the strat when u have luck on your side

I should play even more LB it seems anyway, beyond tbs, I still want to see the maths and you're not the only one I've beaten with PD, among others I need to convince clovis to make another calculator, a real one... would someone help me press him? I would greatly appreciate and award a hug to each one of you!

Anyway, my initial purpose was to defend that PD was too strong, even out of its niche... why did we have to end up talking about everything else?

PS: win your match vs froyer so we can have the rematch!

Nerf TBing please

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 06.04.2020 at 12:38

Nerf TBing please

Nerf good players, buff noobs

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 06.04.2020 at 13:01

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 06.04.2020 at 12:38

Nerf TBing please

Nerf good players, buff noobs

best idea ever

TENGRI
Favorite strategies: Lucky Bastard, Perfect Defense, Imperialist

This aged like fine wine

Kirjoittanut Xenomega, 12.06.2020 at 22:32

TENGRI
Favorite strategies: Lucky Bastard, Perfect Defense, Imperialist

This aged like fine wine

Don't blame him I always forced him to play PD

Kirjoittanut Xenomega, 12.06.2020 at 22:32

TENGRI
Favorite strategies: Lucky Bastard, Perfect Defense, Imperialist

This aged like fine wine

i never played PD after this post. i think its troll clovis who changed my fav strat

Kirjoittanut Legendary Hero, 28.05.2014 at 15:43

Imperialist: Beast strategy

Well RA got a buff

Kirjoittanut sirivann, 06.04.2020 at 12:38

Nerf TBing please

yes please