Better to attack or defend

[Keps]

Is it mathematically better to attack or defend?
Attack has the benefit of the extra dice, but defence has the benefit if dice are even.
Can anyone answer this (and preferably show the maths to do it).
Thanks

[BigBallinStalin]

Attack always. Here's my math (it is lengthy):

Spoiler

[owenshooter]

you should check out the strategy forum...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=58

the black jesus has done his good deed for the day.. the black jesus has spoken..-el Jesus negro

[premio53]

Is it mathematically better to attack or defend?
Attack has the benefit of the extra dice, but defence has the benefit if dice are even.
Can anyone answer this (and preferably show the maths to do it).
Thanks

From my personal experience when playing manual mode the attacker almost always has the advantage when going first.

[Mr Changsha]

Attack always. Here's my math (it is lengthy):

Spoiler

Nice..

[loutil]

Stack of 20 attacking a stack of 19 (only 19 can move from the attacking stack) has a 63% probability of success. That is all you need to know ...

[Fruitcake]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_%28ga ... babilities

Not that this has much bearing on the cc dice program

[benga]

Most people think wrong when making odds about attacking or defending,
no matter how ood you roll or how good your odds are, this is first and foremost a strategy game,
you need to evalute what does your attack or defence bring you in short and long term,
what attacks are must and wich aren't, no matter how odds are small of success,
there is always a way back into game, just do what is needed not what the odds give you.

[JBlombier]

Most people think wrong when making odds about attacking or defending,
no matter how ood you roll or how good your odds are, this is first and foremost a strategy game,
you need to evalute what does your attack or defence bring you in short and long term,
what attacks are must and wich aren't, no matter how odds are small of success,
there is always a way back into game, just do what is needed not what the odds give you.

Someone will bash you for this, so I'm here in advance to support your theory.

It can't be long until someone will start hating on how this game is all about luck. Let's give the little kids their precious rants and please move on.

[Lord Arioch]

Hindsight says its allways better to defend:) But i will choose attack anyday of the week! got to be better!

[laughingcavalier]

Most people think wrong when making odds about attacking or defending,
no matter how ood you roll or how good your odds are, this is first and foremost a strategy game,
you need to evalute what does your attack or defence bring you in short and long term,
what attacks are must and wich aren't, no matter how odds are small of success,
there is always a way back into game, just do what is needed not what the odds give you.

Someone will bash you for this, so I'm here in advance to support your theory.

It can't be long until someone will start hating on how this game is all about luck. Let's give the little kids their precious rants and please move on.

Here I come to say this is bonkers.
The attacker has a significant advantage in the long run so the biggest single determinant of success in this game is putting in more attacks than your opponents. This should be a major component of your strategy whatever else is going on. In multiplayer games you have to be canny about not wasting troops on inessential opponents, but in 1on1s and team games, where all your force is directed at a single opponent, you don’t even have to be clever about it, just attack. Anecdotally, but without the maths to support it, I would say, that this effect is amplified by the random nature of the dice. Because the dice are random it is very likely that if you attack to the max on every turn, on at least one of these turns you will have a successful enough dice run to turn the course of the game.
I have not done the following but I bet it is true. Take a random sample of players from the top of the scoreboard and another sample from a low page on the scoreboard (maybe not the bottom page, heaven knows how they behave down there). Look at the battle outcomes of the two groups and work out the ratio of attacking rolls to defending rolls. I will bet good money (saxibucks) that the higher ranked players have done more attacking relative to defending than the lower-ranked players.

[benga]

Most people think wrong when making odds about attacking or defending,
no matter how ood you roll or how good your odds are, this is first and foremost a strategy game,
you need to evalute what does your attack or defence bring you in short and long term,
what attacks are must and wich aren't, no matter how odds are small of success,
there is always a way back into game, just do what is needed not what the odds give you.

Someone will bash you for this, so I'm here in advance to support your theory.

It can't be long until someone will start hating on how this game is all about luck. Let's give the little kids their precious rants and please move on.

Here I come to say this is bonkers.
The attacker has a significant advantage in the long run so the biggest single determinant of success in this game is putting in more attacks than your opponents. This should be a major component of your strategy whatever else is going on. In multiplayer games you have to be canny about not wasting troops on inessential opponents, but in 1on1s and team games, where all your force is directed at a single opponent, you don’t even have to be clever about it, just attack. Anecdotally, but without the maths to support it, I would say, that this effect is amplified by the random nature of the dice. Because the dice are random it is very likely that if you attack to the max on every turn, on at least one of these turns you will have a successful enough dice run to turn the course of the game.
I have not done the following but I bet it is true. Take a random sample of players from the top of the scoreboard and another sample from a low page on the scoreboard (maybe not the bottom page, heaven knows how they behave down there). Look at the battle outcomes of the two groups and work out the ratio of attacking rolls to defending rolls. I will bet good money (saxibucks) that the higher ranked players have done more attacking relative to defending than the lower-ranked players.

I would be very keen to test your logic, let's play series of poly games in which you use attack whenever you can and I will attack when I see that my attack will bring me advantage, you up for it?

Also in last 25 battles att-def is 2.68 and your is 2.5.

In general attacking is always better then defending, but atacking just beacuse you have 5 troops here and 6 troops there is foolish.

[BigBallinStalin]

End your hand waving about imagined odds.

Download Assault Odds.

[Mr Changsha]

Most people think wrong when making odds about attacking or defending,
no matter how ood you roll or how good your odds are, this is first and foremost a strategy game,
you need to evalute what does your attack or defence bring you in short and long term,
what attacks are must and wich aren't, no matter how odds are small of success,
there is always a way back into game, just do what is needed not what the odds give you.

Someone will bash you for this, so I'm here in advance to support your theory.

It can't be long until someone will start hating on how this game is all about luck. Let's give the little kids their precious rants and please move on.

Here I come to say this is bonkers.
The attacker has a significant advantage in the long run so the biggest single determinant of success in this game is putting in more attacks than your opponents. This should be a major component of your strategy whatever else is going on. In multiplayer games you have to be canny about not wasting troops on inessential opponents, but in 1on1s and team games, where all your force is directed at a single opponent, you don’t even have to be clever about it, just attack. Anecdotally, but without the maths to support it, I would say, that this effect is amplified by the random nature of the dice. Because the dice are random it is very likely that if you attack to the max on every turn, on at least one of these turns you will have a successful enough dice run to turn the course of the game.
I have not done the following but I bet it is true. Take a random sample of players from the top of the scoreboard and another sample from a low page on the scoreboard (maybe not the bottom page, heaven knows how they behave down there). Look at the battle outcomes of the two groups and work out the ratio of attacking rolls to defending rolls. I will bet good money (saxibucks) that the higher ranked players have done more attacking relative to defending than the lower-ranked players.

In my experience of team games, weak teams tend to fall down on these three key areas:

1. Coordination (throughout the whole game most particuarly during the opening).
2. Strategic understanding of either the map or the settings.
3. A lack of knowledge of the tactical weapons at a player's disposal.

I take your point that it is important to gain the initiative, exploit turn order, stay on the offensive etc. However, I would suggest to you that it is a team's weakness in the three areas highlighted above that tends to result in them throwing less attacking dice, rather than for some inexplicable reason weak teams aren't throwing offensively. There is a reason, and that is that a stronger team will, more often than not, gain the initiative over a weaker team and that is why they throw more offensively.

[Armandolas]

I believe in attackers advantage, but like benga said it does not mean u should allways try to use that advantage.
Ex. u hold oceania and have a 4 at jakarta. your enemy has a 1 at bangkok and a 3 at mumbai, u dont want to use that attack and risk to be weaker with a failed attack or risk exposing that 3 at mumbai and be used against u
That is just a small example within many many others , where u should decide the better option on weather to attack or not

[prismsaber]

Generally speaking, if you're not attacking more than your opponent, you're losing. I can't tell you how many times I see people complaining about dice when they have given their opponent attacker's advantage. They spend their CC careers thinking they have been terribly unlucky, without realizing their tactics were the problem (even good players with potential can do this).

Like another poster said, if you are ramming your stack into your opponent each turn, you will typically have game changing dice at some point. And when you do, your opponent will scream in caps lock, "WHO DID YOU BLOW FOR DICE LIKE THAT?" You can just pat yourself on the back knowing your superior tactics inevitably came through.

Above all, Keps (OP), if you want to get better I'd recommend watching strong players play and imitating them.