Conquer Club

I've often wondered how the majority of people feel and how they play when it comes to defending a border. For the simplest example, on the Classic Map, if you hold Oceania, do your put your defending army in Indonesia, or do you take and hold Siam? For South America, do you hold Brazil, or North Africa? Venezuela or Central America? Do you defend Greenland, or do you take Iceland and defend from there?

i reckon it depends on how strong a force you can place on the country. If its weak fortify your own. If your strong fortify the neighbouring country. I'm not great though so this poll could help me to.

kingarthur wrote:i reckon it depends on how strong a force you can place on the country. If its weak fortify your own. If your strong fortify the neighbouring country.

true

It depends with me. If theres a large army nearby I defend my own countries. Or if someone has a something like europe and they have even a 3 man army within 2 countries of my cont I will fort my own.


If it makes me to weak however I will just put my armies on a neighbouring country and make my borders go from 4 to 3.

well, the option you don't have is the one i would do.....both, ie if you own Oceania and you could afford to own Siam also, I would use both, a 2 on Indo and the rest on the front line.....2 on Brazil and N. Africa is the front line, 2 on Ven. Central America is the front line....so forth and so on, it's just the way i do it

typically speaking, most people would defend on a neighbouring country so that if someone does try to break through, u can hope that ur outside army can widdle their army down enough so that they are not able to break ur bonus. i tend to do that, but if i was completely sure that i can hold back a large assualt then i would ddefend the neighboruing country and also my own.

im still a newbie so im not sure when its best to put a large defending army outside ur borders and when to keep ur army within ur own borders or when to do both.

The issues at hand have more to do with what positional advantage that extra country gives you. In Middle Earth, for example, if you own Mordor, Holding South Gondor allows you to protect the same border that you'd have to otherwise fortify two countries to secure. There are many maps with this element.

Of times, early on in a game there's reason to adopt a "live and let live" approach in which you just hold your own borders, not those outside. If someone is looking to take that adjoining country, they may be content to just take it and not waste the armies going after you. This allows you to get your bonus and perhaps use those guys to bust them up or perhaps form a temporary cease fire on the border.

It depends on the territories around your continent. Taking the example of Siam: If there is a large force in both China and India it is better to sit mostly back in Indonesia so that they have to fight through eachother to get to you. eg: you have 5 armies stationed on Siam, red player has 5 armies on both China and India - if you sit back in Indonesia you need only face one of these stacks as one will block out the other. It is not quite so effective for two different players on China and India but it does help. However, if China and India are weak I would step almost everything into Siam.

However, I always have a policy of leaving a few armies behind in the actual continent as a staggered defence is more effective than blocks. Sometimes you cannot afford to do this but it is beneficial. Example of Siam again: you have 4 armies over Siam and Indonesia - it is much more effective to put 2 on each as that means you roll two dice each time, as opposed to the worst case scenario of 2, then 1 and then 1 again. Your odds improve.

Then there is the Sully defence if you are weak - place most of the armies on one central territory, eg Northern Europe (strange example as Europe would be a rare place to start from but...) gives you the opportunity to attack Ukraine, Southern Europe and Western Europe if they are taken. Many players will feel it safer to allow you to keep your bonus as long as they are not exposed to a devastating counter attack from Northern Europe.

RobinJ wrote:Then there is the Sully defence if you are weak - place most of the armies on one central territory, eg Northern Europe (strange example as Europe would be a rare place to start from but...) gives you the opportunity to attack Ukraine, Southern Europe and Western Europe if they are taken. Many players will feel it safer to allow you to keep your bonus as long as they are not exposed to a devastating counter attack from Northern Europe.

I like that ploy. It often works pretty well, even better if that army you are burying is very large. Sort of a "don't mess with me and I won't mess with you approach.

Ishiro wrote:I've often wondered how the majority of people feel and how they play when it comes to defending a border. For the simplest example, on the Classic Map, if you hold Oceania, do your put your defending army in Indonesia, or do you take and hold Siam?

For this case, there are many reasons to choose Siam. Circumstances of a particular game not withstanding, Siam is preferable:

A) You increase the number of territories subject to your big defensive stack. Defend from Indonesia and they only have to build on Siam, whereas defend from Siam and they must build up China and India. Getting bottled up can be frustrating - when they split their defense it's that much easier to rampage when ready.

B) You are holding an extra territory, possibly bumping you up an army and/or depriving the enemy.

C) You keep someone from taking Asia. Having the big stack there makes it tough to conquer, both probabilistically and psychologically

D) When someone does break your big stack, there is still one more to go before breaking your bonus. If I can, I like to leave 2 in Indonesia, for best defensive odds.

Sparqs wrote:

Ishiro wrote:I've often wondered how the majority of people feel and how they play when it comes to defending a border. For the simplest example, on the Classic Map, if you hold Oceania, do your put your defending army in Indonesia, or do you take and hold Siam?

For this case, there are many reasons to choose Siam. Circumstances of a particular game not withstanding, Siam is preferable:

A) You increase the number of territories subject to your big defensive stack. Defend from Indonesia and they only have to build on Siam, whereas defend from Siam and they must build up China and India. Getting bottled up can be frustrating - when they split their defense it's that much easier to rampage when ready.

B) You are holding an extra territory, possibly bumping you up an army and/or depriving the enemy.

C) You keep someone from taking Asia. Having the big stack there makes it tough to conquer, both probabilistically and psychologically

D) When someone does break your big stack, there is still one more to go before breaking your bonus. If I can, I like to leave 2 in Indonesia, for best defensive odds.

Your points are very good but there some flaws:

A) While having Siam does make it easier to break out of Oceania, it can also expose you to more armies sometimes - player A holds China with 10 and player B holds India with 10, you hold Siam with 10 -> you are pretty likely to get broken if they co-ordinate their attacks. By contrast if Player A holds Siam with 10 it will be 10 versus your ten on Indonesia. Player B with 10 armies on India or China must fight through player A to reach you.

B) Fair enough argument, as long as it doesn't compromise you elsewhere

C) The problem here is that the only person likely to be taking Asia is you, in Oceania, because it is the only area to expand into and no-one else will want to take Asia because it would mean too many borders and I think any strong foreign presence around the Oceanic region, be it Siam or Indonesia, is enough to deter any other player from taking Asia. If they are taking Asia then you have probably lost the game anyway.

D) your best argument - the staggered defence is very effective I must agree

i think it really depends on the situation. it depends on how many people are around your borders, how likely they are to attack. obviously, you try to fortify your border in such a way that it defends your continent, but uses the least possible number of countries. i agree with the staggered defense though, putting all your men on the front line, and 2 behind it.

I just thought of another good reason to fort your own in these situations.

Like sully's strat if you keep your armies behind your buffer territory the other player doesnt feel threatened. Therefore less chance of them attacking you.

I tend to use this most of the time and just get my borders strong enough in my opinion then for the most part suicide my bonus armies for breaking them or weakening them down. What happens after youve done this ? Nothing because you still have 10 guarding whatever it is.

RobinJ wrote:Your points are very good but there some flaws:

A) While having Siam does make it easier to break out of Oceania, it can also expose you to more armies sometimes - player A holds China with 10 and player B holds India with 10, you hold Siam with 10 -> you are pretty likely to get broken if they co-ordinate their attacks. By contrast if Player A holds Siam with 10 it will be 10 versus your ten on Indonesia. Player B with 10 armies on India or China must fight through player A to reach you.

This is true. Of course, everything is more dependent on specific situations than these generalities address, but I think there are additional mitigating factors. If the enemy is truly coordinating, Player A could plink at you from Siam, then fortify the remains out of the way to give Player B a shot. Also, I think that they are more likely to have the two 10-stacks there in the case of defending from Siam. That's both good and bad for you - more likely to be hit by coordinated attacks, but it also means you've drawn their forces from elsewhere.

C) The problem here is that the only person likely to be taking Asia is you, in Oceania, because it is the only area to expand into and no-one else will want to take Asia because it would mean too many borders and I think any strong foreign presence around the Oceanic region, be it Siam or Indonesia, is enough to deter any other player from taking Asia. If they are taking Asia then you have probably lost the game anyway.

A valid critique. However, it seems not too infrequent that someone gets a chance to take Oceania early while their main force is concentrated elsewhere. I've certainly seen cases where the Siam/Indonesia decision had a strong impact on enemy ownership of Asia.

In the end, it's making exactly this kind of decision that makes this game fun to play. :)

detlef wrote:The issues at hand have more to do with what positional advantage that extra country gives you. In Middle Earth, for example, if you own Mordor, Holding South Gondor allows you to protect the same border that you'd have to otherwise fortify two countries to secure. There are many maps with this element.

Of times, early on in a game there's reason to adopt a "live and let live" approach in which you just hold your own borders, not those outside. If someone is looking to take that adjoining country, they may be content to just take it and not waste the armies going after you. This allows you to get your bonus and perhaps use those guys to bust them up or perhaps form a temporary cease fire on the border.

I agree with this entire post. An example of the first part in Classic would be holding Middle East and Ukraine to protect Asia as opposed to Ural, Afgan, and Middle East.

And all you guys talking about Siam, you mean to tell me that Siam isn't apart of Australia?

The best defensive strategy is to make your stand on your own territory. However, if you can do so, holding on from their territory can have the greater advantage. You do have an extra avenue from which you can be attacked, but you now have a buffer, and an assurance that the encroached continent cannot be held by one player so long as you hold that one territory. In the case of Oceania, Siam is a strong foothold in Asia. Holding Asia is much more complex, hence more armies, but as stated before Ukraine is far more desirable than Ural and Afghanistan because you can have twice as many armies essentially defending either route into Asia.

Sparqs wrote:D) When someone does break your big stack, there is still one more to go before breaking your bonus. If I can, I like to leave 2 in Indonesia, for best defensive odds.

2 armies is not better defensive odds than one army.

Defenders winning both odds: 29%

Single army defender winning odds: 34%

What I would rather do is take Siam and pull back in indo so that they have to attack Siam, firstly crating a bottleneck so that another player can't attack me as well, and secondly wearing down the attacker:

Code: Select all

If
           Defender.Army = 1 Then
           SetMode = "Rambo"
            End If

Disclaimer: It's been years since I wrote real If Then functions in VB

The1exile wrote:

Sparqs wrote:D) When someone does break your big stack, there is still one more to go before breaking your bonus. If I can, I like to leave 2 in Indonesia, for best defensive odds.

2 armies is not better defensive odds than one army.

Defenders winning both odds: 29%

Single army defender winning odds: 34%

What I would rather do is take Siam and pull back in indo so that they have to attack Siam, firstly crating a bottleneck so that another player can't attack me as well, and secondly wearing down the attacker:

Code: Select all

If
           Defender.Army = 1 Then
           SetMode = "Rambo"
            End If

Disclaimer: It's been years since I wrote real If Then functions in VB

No it does improve the odds. Eg: 3 on Siam, 1 on Indonesia: attacker rolls 3 dice to your two. If he wins he then, presumably, rolls 3 dice to your remaning 1 on Siam and another 3 against your 1 on Indonesia.

If you have 2 on Siam, the attacker rolls 3 dice to your 2. If he wins he must face another 2 dice for Indonesia

RobinJ wrote:If you have 2 on Siam, the attacker rolls 3 dice to your 2. If he wins he must face another 2 dice for Indonesia

So?

That doesn't improve your odds, as I already proved.

If you're defneding with 2 armies, you'll win 29% of the time with bot.

With a single army, you'll win 24% of the time with no loss.

Therefore, it's better to have as many single armies in between you and the defender.

(yes, you can lose 1 to them losing 1, but that's irrelevant in this case, as you would have the army back defending with multiple armies in Siam in this instance)

The1exile wrote:

RobinJ wrote:If you have 2 on Siam, the attacker rolls 3 dice to your 2. If he wins he must face another 2 dice for Indonesia

So?

That doesn't improve your odds, as I already proved.

If you're defneding with 2 armies, you'll win 29% of the time with bot.

With a single army, you'll win 24% of the time with no loss.

Therefore, it's better to have as many single armies in between you and the defender.

(yes, you can lose 1 to them losing 1, but that's irrelevant in this case, as you would have the army back defending with multiple armies in Siam in this instance)

Where in your numbers are you considering the 1 win/1 loss result of 2 defenders?

read last line.

In general I would hold my continents with an "iron curtain" around them (just to add a bit of history). Though if it involves holding more territories with fewer troops its best just to hold your continent and no more.

The1exile wrote:read last line.

I did...

You say with 2 armies you will win with both 29% of the time, with a single army you will win 24% of the time. But you didn't include the percentage for a 1 win/1 loss result. What are they? If you are going to use math, you can't just say "its irrelevant", you have to show it.

Both win one 32% of the time.

However, that is irrelevant because both winning one and losing one would have the same odds wherever you had your armies so you could have all the armies back on indo with those odds. i am merely assessing the best tactic of wearing the enemy down, which is to have single armies (losing 1 for 1 isn't wearing them down).

i used to allways defend in the other continent unless it increased my borders, but now i am trying a different tactic.

what i do is try to make sure i am bordering them with my large armies but they are bordering me with small armies. essentially it works with a 1 army buffer inbetween, i try to make sure they own the 1 army buffer because it limits the armies they can attack me with but i can attack with my large defensive army. this gives me flexibility to attack when i want and helps defend because they either have to suprise attack me with the armies they get that turn (normally not enough) or redeploy to the 1 army territory a whole round before they want to attack which gives me the chance to attack rather than defend as the attacker has better odds.