take this scenario as an example:



Assume fog and that neither of us knows the others position.

After running the calculations, a long time ago I came to the conclusion correct strategy here was to either:

1. attack with 4+ armies one of my first orders.
2. if i can't afford 1, delay as much as possible and attack with 3.

The reason is:

If I attack with 3, that will leave 2, which he will capture if he attacks with 3+. If he already attacked with 3, I'll take it from him. Clearly when attacking with 3, you want to delay.

If I attack with 4, that will leave 3, so he has to attack with 5+ to capture it. BUT if he has already captured it, I will only win if he attacked with 3. If he attacked with 4+ he will hold. This means if I attack with 4, I want to be the one to attack the neutral first = early order.

If I attack with 5, that will leave 4, so he has to attack with 6+ to capture. If he has already attacked, I'll win if he attacked with 4 but lose if he attacked with 5+. So again, with 5 it's better to go first.

Same is true as you keep going higher.

I can understand people who haven't worked this out delaying their 5's and 6's etc, but I see some really good players doing it. Are they making a mistake or am I missing something?

Right, that's what I thought too. But I often see people violating it who know a lot more than the basics.

^They know it too. Just being lazy I presume.

Also, No I do not think that one of thosse two option is the "correct" strategy (either of those two options.) In many dist. it is often easy to guesstimate enemy picks. Hence hitting Cuba full may indeed be the best option. Among several other options ofc.

That's not always true. If the other player attacks with 3, it's still better to have attacked with 4 after he attacks, since he'll kill the neutrals, not you. If you assume the other player will attack with the same amount that you attack with, then your analysis is correct. Sometimes you know (or suspect) they won't attack with many, and so you'd rather delay.

Why is this not strategy forum? :P

he'll kill the neutrals, not you

He attacks with 3, leaving 2. Then you attack with 4, leaving 3.

vs.

You attack with 4, leaving 3. Then he attacks with 3, leaving you with 1.

Ahhh. You gain two armies that way. Ok. Ok. Ok. Thank you. That explains why people delay then attack with 4. I'll run the numbers on the other scenarios and that probably changes some things in some/all of those too.

Edited 9/10/2016 00:23:43

Lol and that has been top 15 in ladder ? did you know that sending 7 was killing the same as sending 6 ? Yeah the same ! Try it too.

Lol and that has been top 15 in ladder ? did you know that sending 7 was killing the same as sending 6 ? Yeah the same ! Try it too.

i suspect you don't understand what i was asking about but yes i'm good at this game because i am always learning and trying to improve and willing to admit when i don't know something. contrast to people like you who will always be mediocre because you think learning is a sign of weakness.

Edited 9/10/2016 02:55:03

After a stack size of 14, it's better to always attack first, cause the 13 attacker kill as many as the 12 defender in case you got first move (both times 8), but if you attack first you obviously get the territory

This doesn't take attacks of small stacks in account. If the opponent can only attack with very few armies and you know it, attacking late is better again

Edited 9/10/2016 12:47:19

@Wally Balls

When it comes to the move order when attacking a neutral, I see 3 factors to influence your decision:

1) Your armies loss versus the opponent armies loss, if both attack there.
2) Who gets the territory, if both attack the neutral.
3) Which intel you are revealing or gaining.

As for 1) and 2), you have to distinguish between 0% straight round and 0% weighted random. With weighted random, the player attacking later with a 4v2 has an about 56% chance to win against the 4v2 of his opponent (was over a year ago, that I calculated this, hopefully I remember correctly).

As for 3) it's better to attack earlier. Attacking after the opponents last order might hide the cycle, however chances are that he already knows for some reason and it probably won't matter to hyde the cycle for 1 turn. Also when I see an opponent moving after me, I'm more alarmed that I might not be capable to outdelay him. When moving first. When moving first, you might hide the cycle and you might see from which direction your oppoent is coming while hiding the direction from which you are coming.

Edited 9/10/2016 14:33:59

Hmmm, I learnt this from Norman's strategy guide. However, although the guide is brilliant (thanks Norman!), I am often too lazy to apply everything in it, and I usually click 'skip to end', and my winrate shows the result.

I often make move order mistakes not because I don't understand the game well enough, but because I simply do not give many turns as much time or focus as they deserve and do not bother going over whether my orders would be better if they were to be reordered.

I would imagine the same is true for most other good players.

ie. I will often literally deploy and make attacks in the order than I decide to do them. As in, literally in the order that they come to mind and look appealing to me, rather than in an order that is rationally best.

I think most high level games I can spot minor errors in though if I look closely at them.

"Lol and that has been top 15 in ladder ? did you know that sending 7 was killing the same as sending 6 ? Yeah the same ! Try it too."

Wally is far from the best player on the site like he has claimed to be in the past, but he's still far better than you, so you might want to stop with the patronizing tone and spend a bit more time on trying to be less shit ingame and less on being a little shit on the forums.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=11960085

i would have always gone with the 6 first order. after he attacked with 3, i would have had 3. this way i had 5.

i like it.

now the hard part: figuring out when to do it.

That's the hard part with all strategies :)

Fissel what is the best strategy for marrying children?



Do you think the prophet muhammad, peace be upon him, had a good strategy?

dv'd spammy comment by Fissel.

Lol and that has been top 15 in ladder ? did you know that sending 7 was killing the same as sending 6 ? Yeah the same ! Try it too.

It is not the same because 7 leaves 6 defenders and 6 leaves only 5. While this difference is small and has the same defensive killrate (4 each), 6 defenders (from 7 attackers) would defend against an attack of 8 which 5 does not.
Now, suppose you have 8 income or 10 income. Would you rather have 6 armies ready at the border or 5 for the next turn? After all, they killed the same, right?

I've seen great players attack with 14 or 22 for example, simply because the extra army didn't matter at all in the offense (couldn't be killed) but simply because it potentially killed an extra army on defense or has an extra army in place the next turn. The game doesn't end after that single turn (most of the time), thinking ahead may actually improve your win chances. Try it too.

Edited 9/19/2016 10:00:24