Moderator: Community Team
Make this quick:
"After all, if you win 6-0 in dice, it doesn't matter what tactics you are using"
? ? ?
Of course it matters what tactics you use. If you invade the 1 stack with your 4 stack before attacking the 3 stack, you won't get 6-0 with the dice period. The whole point is to attack the 3 stack while you still have a potential assault to do so with it being a 3 vs 2 die roll. If you assault the 1, then you are left with 3 vs 3. You won't get 6 - 0 odds, when its a 2 vs 2 dice roll... You lose any chance of getting 6-0, if you invade, because you lose the assault on the other territory. Who after invading decides to make an assault 3 vs 3. If you want 6-0 you assault territory b, then C. After you invade b first, C can not be attacked with 3 vs 2 dice.
? ? ?
That and in general your points still don't really make sense in your post. My post was clearly not surrounding universal play, especially optimal. I make numerous points of warning. And I gave context to mine, you just stated general nothings. Risky aggression is clearly there.
For instance, if I have nearby support, I definitely want the extra attack to lower the 3 troop stack. For instance, what if I have a nearby 9 stack to help me clean up? I gain more by using the assault to lower the 3 stack, then finish off the 1 stack.
so... what do you mean?
random21 wrote:My suggestion isn't about the mathematical odds being in your favour. When will it ever be in your favour to hope for dice that go 6 kills zero losses?
OK, I was mainly answering to someone asking me to expand on this subject and only indirectly to you
In any case, the scenarios in my own experience are 90% deploying four stacks to capture 2-4(+) bonuses on drop. This is not a strategy for maps where your initial troop income is 3. I.e. classic map. This is for maps where you are in Hive, Eurasia, or receiving larger numbers, and have higher ability to inflict damage, gain bonuses, and push your advantage.
On big maps like the ones described, I totaly agree that anything less than deploying all n troops in n different regions is a mistake, I have also played a few...thousands hives and yes, I almost always deploy 12 4s in first round. In fact, I usualy deploy only 4s in most maps anyway....
If I have initial 10 troops in Eurasia for example, or 12 in Hive, and have bonuses with 3 - 4 territories, where I have either 50% control 2/4, 66% control 2/3, or 75% control 3/4, in not just one bonus, but many. Splitting my forces between territories within the bonuses, or adjacent territories connected to opponents territory within the bonus gives me greater number of attacks and greater odds.
Of course, this is correct as well.
Also, depending on reinforcements. I like unlimited, so in the end, I will gather nearby forces to fortify the territories I take.
Playing those maps with unlimited reinforcements is out of my league. I never tried even once, first players advantage should be irreversible
Back to bonuses though...
Because I have so many four stacks in so many bonuses while the odds don't always give me all bonuses, Some of the 10 - 12 four stacks I create will have terrible dice rolls, others will have great dice rolls. And because of game settings that all you to recuperate after taking territories like unlimited, its worth going for 3/1 attacks. In hive, not so much for territory drop, as you can't lower initial troops, but for a number of other reasons it is good.
For example, in unlimited reinforcements, if taking these territories with 3 vs 1 increases your connection and ability to mobilize.
OK, but now, you are reversing the discussion, adding a completely different element. You create a new situation (huge map, multiple small bonuses, unlimited reinforcements) that where absent to the dicussion, where winning the 4 vs 3,1 means a lot fo things. Of course, if you are playing hive and you get a cell if you win such an attack, while at the same time opening the rout to 40 troops to come and defend the bonus...ehhh...then OK, you have my permission to make the 4 vs 3,3,3 as well if you like. I do not play Hive unlimited, but in my chained game, when faced with a 4 vs 3,1 situation, I almost always take the 1, split 2-2, thus optimizing defence and leave the conquer of the cell for next round. And in Hive, you should not act in a cell where you have 1 region and opponent 2 regions (as you have already stated), so the 4 vs 3,1 case should not be very common anyway. Eurasia has some 4-5 sized bonus indeed. I still think I would kill 1s and fortify myself with 2s though if such a case occurs
I'm wondering slightly if we are talking passed each other... my point has never been mathematical odds for doing this. It's simply if you are going to go for it, don't invade 4 vs 1, because an assault of 3 vs 3 is unwise. Whereas with the suggestion made, you need good dice, but it does happen on occasion. Not so much the end result. But cases of reducing both territories to one's I can tell you from personal experience... happens quite often. You don't necessarily get the invasion, but I generally have nearby support, i.e. another 4 stack within the bonus area to clean up.
1. Of course if I HAVE to go for it, I will attack the 3 first, that is obvious. The matter is how often such a forced need exists and my point is that it should not occur too often as your texts imply.
2. Again you add a new element, having another 4 from the other side. That is completely new situation and as far as I remember, I did not occur in previous posts as well. And again, I doubt such a case will lead to you making the 4 vs 3,1 attack. If the 4 contacts the 1, you obviously have to attack the 1 first and see what happens. If the 4 contacts the 3, you obviously have to make that attack and again see what happens. OK, if the new 4 contacts both the 1 and the 3 then well...that is a new case, it is not 4 vs 3,1 anymore, it is 4,4 vs 3,1 and has nothing to do with our discussion
In any case, I'm not so committed to the argument either way as it is progressing in the thread. This isn't about day to day strategy that you develop to become better.
It's precisely about those moments of either necessity, or bold aggression to seek an edge, willingly taking the risk.
Of course, if their is a necessity, there are much much worst things we all have done than dare attack 4 vs 3,1.
So I'm not so sure if your replies acknowledge my side already admitting to your side and agreeing... mathematically it isn't best to go for this, it won't always leave you well.
You can get two kills, then lose 2 men going for the other three and be far worse off. If you are talking, then, about the frequency to which you should use this... it varies. Again, with unlimited, first turn on the drop etc, many initial troops creating multiple 4 stacks etc, it just works to go for the bonuses, using 3 v 1 to gain better connections etc.
betiko wrote:I mostly use this when I'm desperate and it's kind of a do or die. Otherwise I'm not a big fan of 4v3 I try to avoid them, because if you don't have a perfect first roll you are done. I mean if you're feeling lucky going 4vs3 everywhere on the map can give you the best results possible; but some players make me laugh cause they do that then complain about dice cause they miss their spoil. a 4vs3 is way riskier than what lots of people think.
I completely agree if your goal is to take a territory, and lower opponents territory adding to your own. But sometimes reducing counter play is also good. Imagine he is receiving 4. If you lower is 3 to a 1, he will have a 5 stack. If you just leave as is, and take the 1, he will have a 7 vs 3.
And because of game settings that all you to recuperate after taking territories like unlimited, its worth going for 3/1 attacks.
Well that just depends on your goal. If you want to take territories, go for the 1. If you want to eliminate his counter play, attack his 3.
It's simply if you are going to go for it, don't invade 4 vs 1, because an assault of 3 vs 3 is unwise.
Users browsing this forum: riskllama