Moderator: Global Moderators
Attacker: one die; Defender: one die:
Attacker wins 15 out of 36 (41.67 %)
Defender wins 21 out of 36 (58.33 %)
Attacker: two dice; Defender: one die:
Attacker wins 125 out of 216 (57.87 %)
Defender wins 91 out of 216 (42.13 %)
Attacker: three dice; Defender: one die:
Attacker wins 855 out of 1296 (65.97 %)
Defender wins 441 out of 1296 (34.03 %)
Attacker: one die; Defender: two dice:
Attacker wins 55 out of 216 (25.46 %)
Defender wins 161 out of 216 (74.54 %)
Attacker: two dice; Defender: two dice:
Attacker wins both: 295 out of 1296 (22.76 %)
Defender wins both: 581 out of 1296 (44.83 %)
Both win one: 420 out of 1296 (32.41 %)
Attacker: three dice; Defender: two dice:
Attacker wins both: 2890 out of 7776 (37.17 %)
Defender wins both: 2275 out of 7776 (29.26 %)
Both win one: 2611 out of 7776 (33.58 %)
AyeTrain wrote:But if you are attacking a fortified position and must win it, you should wait for 2x or something close to that.
Jippd wrote:AyeTrain wrote:But if you are attacking a fortified position and must win it, you should wait for 2x or something close to that.
If you MUST win the assault I don't get why you would wait for 2x the troops? IE if your up and have a 25 v 20 to take out a player with 5 cards would you not try that assault? If you don't odds are likely the player following you could cash and kill that player resulting in you losing the game.
I would say 2x the troops is warranted maybe 10-20% of the time if that.
luigidelhaytero wrote:anyone got a good strategy for myself, i regularly lose rolls, guaranteed to lose when its an even number each side, and pretty much always when i even have 9 and the one i'm attacking has 2, useless dice, i know there's no strategy against luck. just fancied moaning.
corrupteddrake wrote:I was just reading further about this online, after reading this post.
According to a number of places the best stat for invading is 1.5 * number of armys + number of territory.
I don't know if this is true, but lots of place seem to agree.
Ghost0204 wrote:Too much luck involved in CC - seen several examples already today where I had a 13v3 and lost 10 and stopped, whereas they go 5v8 and win without losing one. Then there's the great 9v1 I lost earlier today as well. Generators are never unbiased.
nàme wrote:luigidelhaytero wrote:anyone got a good strategy for myself, i regularly lose rolls, guaranteed to lose when its an even number each side, and pretty much always when i even have 9 and the one i'm attacking has 2, useless dice, i know there's no strategy against luck. just fancied moaning.
I read somewhere that on an 11vs11 battle is the last time the defender has the odds when each army attacking is at an equal size (meaning the attacker has 12 on that territory). So you are more likely to lose if attacking from a five territory to a four territory, let alone a four to a four which is what I'm reading.
waltero wrote:It is not always about how many units you must allocate to a forthcoming battle in order to get the best odds.
For sure, I will generally go ahead and Attack if I have 3 units sitting next to 2 units.
I do win at least 50 % (In fact it is much higher) of the time on a 3vs1
Many a time I will only put 1 unit on a 2er knowing that I have a good (better than a 4 to 1 being that it has been my experience that I lose more than 50% percent of the time when I go 4 to 1) ) chance of winning that battle.
I will stay away from 4vs1. I need to put one more unit on my 4 units to give 'me' a better chance of winning the battle.
Anyway, the best case scenario is not always going to favor the odds. (I am not sure what the hell that means)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users