Strategic question: should I attack or defend?

[Evan]

I attached an image but not sure if it worked. I don't like our attachment manager.

Let's assume that Green is making a play for Asia (which he is). Let's also assume that I cannot/will not deploy to Japan and attack him (which I won't). Let's also assume his next move will be to attack Japan (which will be the case here imo).

Ok so here is my question. My poor 3 Japanese brethren are gonna get killed one way another. Will they fare better in a kamakazi attack? Or should they just stand pat and wait for the attack to come?

EDIT: btw I'm blue

EDIT: Is it bad online risk etiquette to ask strategic questions about a game/turn in progress?

 

[Evan]

And I already began my turn, so if you could answer in the next 40 minutes or so I'd appreciate it, thanks!

 

[zspBANNED]

Asia is impossible to hold. He's got 2 4 stacks where he will be rolling 3 dice and then one 3..regardless, you're going down. I'd say use those troops wisely elsewhere at possibly making a play for a bonus in either Oceania or S. America if you can.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Evan]

Asia is impossible to hold. He's got 2 4 stacks where he will be rolling 3 dice and then one 3..regardless, you're going down. I'd say use those troops wisely elsewhere at possibly making a play for a bonus in either Oceania or S. America if you can.

That's just my opinion.

I dont think you read my question

Thats exactly what I am saying. regardless I am going down.

So here is my question, regarding SPECIFICALLY my 3 troops in japan:
What will yield more damage to the opponent, since my troops are going to die anyways: attack or defend?

EDIT: I cannot use the Japanese troops elsewhere, obviously. They are dying in Japan. How shall they die?

 

[SevenEightNine]

ID say defend

 

[stonebergftw]

I'd put 1 more in japan, attack his 3 stack from Japan, hope I get 2 great dice rolls, and then fortify my Southern Asian country.

 

[Evan]

Thanks guys. I took my turn before I read this... I chose to defend like 789 says.

But Stoneberg, I actually like your approach quite a bit. Bolster my bid for oceania and avoid certain death all-in-one... nice. My dice rolls are rarely that good, but I still like the idea.

EDIT: Of course Stonebergs suggestion completely ignores what I stated in the original post: that I would not being attacking from Japan. I had to use my deployment elsewhere.

 

[Kjell]

I'd definitely defend. I always lose when attacking a 3 or higher with another three. Seriously, I don't think I've ever even taken out a troop that way in all my games.

Maybe put 1 troop there to defend, should make it harder for him atleast.

 

[stonebergftw]

Thanks guys. I took my turn before I read this... I chose to defend like 789 says.

But Stoneberg, I actually like your approach quite a bit. Bolster my bid for oceania and avoid certain death all-in-one... nice. My dice rolls are rarely that good, but I still like the idea.

EDIT: Of course Stonebergs suggestion completely ignores what I stated in the original post: that I would not being attacking from Japan. I had to use my deployment elsewhere.

My strategy in games of any kind is that when I am making a plan, to assume I will perform flawlessly, and adapt as I go, if not. Aim high, and be willing to fold a lost hand early.

Of course I didn't read your post correctly, so :embarassed:

 

[zspBANNED]

I just don't know why you were even worried about those troops..I'd say don't waste any troops on that stack...just let them die in vain...

 

[Evan]

I just don't know why you were even worried about those troops..I'd say don't waste any troops on that stack...just let them die in vain...

I just dont know why you cant understand what Im saying. Its literally like youre not reading what I am writing. I am not worried about those troops one bit. I know they are going to die. What I am trying to do is affect the enemy as much as possible. Is it seriously that complicated?

 

[zspBANNED]

"Its literally like youre not reading what I am writing"

...


True. lol


So upon further review, yeah, I see that you explicitly stated that you "cannot/will not deploy troops there"

...but sorry if I thought it was all-too-obvious not to attack from there and just assumed you were smart enough to figure that bit of strategy out for yourself. I assumed that it was obvious that you wouldn't do anything with them, so I went on to assume without reading everything that you were asking if you should deploy there or not

Sorry for overestimating you

 

[Evan]

Just because something seems obvious doesn't make it correct. For example, right now it is obvious to me that you're simply not smart enough to understand what I'm trying to ask. But maybe you're in fact very smart and you are just messing with me.

I guarantee there is a statistic or an odd that tells me that if I attack a 3v3 compared to if I defend a Nv3 (where N is 4 or more) I am more or less likely to cause more or less damage to the opponent. Like in one case I might be x% likely to kill at least one of his troops. whereas in the other case it might be y% likely that I will get at least one kill. I'm just saying, I want to make the choice that gives me the highest statistical chance of causing the most damage to my opponent.

I still don't know that the smartest choice is to not attack. Its the choice I made. It seems to be the most popular choice. But you say it like it is just totally obvious. I don't understand why. Maybe attacking give me a 1% greater chance of netting a kill. If so, I will attack. My troops are gonna die anyways. But if I can take 1 or 2 of his with me, then that is what I want to do. My question is very simple, and it isn't stupid of me to ask it. It is stupid of you to try to act like my question is stupid. I am not good at risk. But I dare say that my intelligence level is at least slightly above stupid.

My question is: between attacking and defending, what gives me the highest likelihood of causing the most damage to my opponent (for that single isolated battle, which is going to occur regardless, ONLY)

Thank you to those of you who have offered me help.

Zsp, I've often been on your side in cases of disagreement, but currently I am understanding some folks perception of you as a silly character. I'm not sure what you have contributed to this thread or why you bothered to post in it. I have never asked a strategic question here before. I reached out for a little bit of help on what will amount to a few percentage points difference in chances of causing damage because I am trying to be as good as I possibly can. Your reply is just, I don't know how to describe it: it's "energy sucking". It just makes me feel a little less good than I did before I read your post.

I'm not a moderator, nor one to flex my awesome capabilities/authority with regard to what I can do here. And I am not going to start now. In fact someone may need to moderate me, for telling you, that you're being a donkey. If you don't have something useful to offer to the thread, I suggest you go elsewhere. I'm fairly certain this is the most emotional response you'll ever receive from me. Enjoy it.

 

[Evan]

More on my thought process since its apparently under scrutiny:
I'm supposing because tie goes to defender, that defending is better choice. But also he will be attacking with more troops than I am defending with. And the moreso after he kills 1 or 2 of mine. I also considered that if I attack I am definitely going to become a 1. Does that impact anything. Am I becoming a "1" faster than I would the other way. See, you have to be smart to understand what Im asking I guess. Like, is there a higher percentage that I will become a "1" in less rolls than I would the other way. So that he will ultimately have n% more resistance.

I dont know. maybe Im retarded. I just dont know. Thats kinda the reason I was asking.

EDIT: btw I can read deleted posts.

 

[WidowMakers]

I would let them defend. 3v3 is not best for you to attack.
Deploy elsewhere and let them die.

However if you would like to attack, I would deploy 1 and attack China and maybe fort (as others have said)
I know this goes against your original post but that is what i would do if you wanted to attack.

 

[zspBANNED]

Dude.

LOL.

You are taking my posts far too seriously. Clearly I'm joking with you, and as I've come to learn, adding a retarded smiley face at the end of sentences demonstrates that.

If anything, you came hard at me for misunderstanding what you asked, and as you "kindly" pointed out, it was like I was totally not reading what you were writing at all.

...but to actually contribute something to this thread.

You have 3 troops there. So when attacking, you're only rolling 2 dice. The odds are against you in attacking anything that is 3 or greater. If you're attacking a 3 stack from your 3 stack, you will more-than-likely lose b/c ties in the dice go to the defender. If you attacked at all, you'll just lose, and whoever owns all of those areas will easily just attack your 1 and have a much easier play at asia now that they don't have to attack your 3.

If you take offense to me telling you that was obvious, than I am truly sorry (but I was just joking).

Seems as if my posts are disrupting the delicate balance of cheeriness in majcom fairly land....and from now on, you'll just see straight point blank posts from me in the forums (if there is an "on").

I'm not questioning or doubting your intelligence at all, to do the things you do here requires quite a bit of intelligence.

 

[Evan]

all good thanks.

 

[Robinette]

if you do a single attack with your 3 troops, you have a 23% chance of killing 2
a 32% chance that you will each lose 1
and a 45% chance you will lose 2

if you wait to defend,
the 1st attack has a 29% chance of 2 dead attackers,
a 34% chance that you will each lose 1,
and a 37% chance that you will lose 2


The odds are against you either way, but defending provides you a greater advantage.
If you ran this same scenario 100 times, you would have 14 more men by defending than by attacking.

 

[Evan]

if you do a single attack with your 3 troops, you have a 23% chance of killing 2
a 32% chance that you will each lose 1
and a 45% chance you will lose 2

if you wait to defend,
the 1st attack has a 29% chance of 2 dead attackers,
a 34% chance that you will each lose 1,
and a 37% chance that you will lose 2


the odds are against you either way, but defending provides you a greater advantage.
If you ran this same scenario 100 times, you would have 14 more men by defending than by attacking.

thank you robinette!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Robinette]

Attack and Defend odds

In another thread (which is now closed) Evan asked an excellent strategy question regarding the statistical advantage/disadvantage to attacking vs defending in a specific situation...

I am interested to know what others have to say after I posted the %'s...
I find these discussions to be very helpful to understand what others are thinking.
figuring out the best math answer is one thing, but figuring out people--- well i'm not always so good at that.
_________________________________________________________________________

In a nutshell, the question was what will yield more damage to your opponent in the following situation:
You have 3 isolated troops being targeted by an enemy and you have decided not to commit any resources there: so to hurt your opponent the most, should you attack with the 3 troops, or defend.

I replied with the following:

if you do a single attack with your 3 troops, you have a 23% chance of killing 2
a 32% chance that you will each lose 1
and a 45% chance you will lose 2

if you wait to defend,
the 1st attack has a 29% chance of 2 dead attackers,
a 34% chance that you will each lose 1,
and a 37% chance that you will lose 2


The odds are against you either way, but defending provides you a greater advantage.
If you ran this same scenario 100 times, you would have 14 more men by defending than by attacking.
_________________________________________________________________________

I would love to see a continued discussion on the broader subject of Attack and Defend Odds... Thoughts?