Beerhog The Legendary
New Member
Players attacking army has attack stat and defense stat, Which one is more important? Is it best to keep them as even as possible or do we need to keep one higher than the other?
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Attacking Army attack vs defense stats
- Thread starter Beerhog The Legendary
- Start date
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
There are some long and involved treatises on this issue. You would need to search for them. And for more than that odd comment....
The general notion of those treatises is around 3 Attack to 2 attack army defense.
There is at least one small group (with no verification I can findand is the theory of just a few players) that an exact ratio of 72.5%is ideal (for least loss of a troops in fighting.) So approximately 4 attack to 3 attack army Defense.
And lots of players ignoring all the discussions sticking to 1:1
One point about all the 'less defense' (old) theories is they all were created long before much attack army defense was available! So t was really hard to get 1:1 ratio at all. and (IMO) naturally theories would focus on what was reasonably easy to attain.
Bit in the past 18 months a ton of attack army defense has become available. and the 1:1 crowd is gaining in support. In fact it is easy to get more defense than attack at this point. Where a few years ago that would have seemed impossible.
My personal take is no one really knows what might actually be best. there are so many variables, and with each Era different,(with differences in each troop, and landscape of battle, plus GbG attrition problems, that a comprehensive rigorous study could never be done. (no one has the time or money to actually do it) (My one notion for in particular Space Era and "Keen Eye" is a lot of attack Defense can help. this also depends on "who goes first" where attack matters more. Like i wrote it is amazingly complex)
So IMO sticking to one to one ratio is probably the safe bet.
And I would say for Fighters, any attack boost you can add in, attack or attack army defense is a great thing to have. and pack them in no matter if it moves your ratio off some other players notion of ideal. The more the better. Period.
And one not asked about but critical point: Every move up another Era lowers your apparent attack ability. So moving up Era, to stay in the same range of success in battle you need more attack. though you do gain a bit on GbG attrition doing so.
The general notion of those treatises is around 3 Attack to 2 attack army defense.
There is at least one small group (with no verification I can findand is the theory of just a few players) that an exact ratio of 72.5%is ideal (for least loss of a troops in fighting.) So approximately 4 attack to 3 attack army Defense.
And lots of players ignoring all the discussions sticking to 1:1
One point about all the 'less defense' (old) theories is they all were created long before much attack army defense was available! So t was really hard to get 1:1 ratio at all. and (IMO) naturally theories would focus on what was reasonably easy to attain.
Bit in the past 18 months a ton of attack army defense has become available. and the 1:1 crowd is gaining in support. In fact it is easy to get more defense than attack at this point. Where a few years ago that would have seemed impossible.
My personal take is no one really knows what might actually be best. there are so many variables, and with each Era different,(with differences in each troop, and landscape of battle, plus GbG attrition problems, that a comprehensive rigorous study could never be done. (no one has the time or money to actually do it) (My one notion for in particular Space Era and "Keen Eye" is a lot of attack Defense can help. this also depends on "who goes first" where attack matters more. Like i wrote it is amazingly complex)
So IMO sticking to one to one ratio is probably the safe bet.
And I would say for Fighters, any attack boost you can add in, attack or attack army defense is a great thing to have. and pack them in no matter if it moves your ratio off some other players notion of ideal. The more the better. Period.
And one not asked about but critical point: Every move up another Era lowers your apparent attack ability. So moving up Era, to stay in the same range of success in battle you need more attack. though you do gain a bit on GbG attrition doing so.
Last edited:
Kranyar the Mysterious
Well-Known Member
I do 3:2, but mostly because that has been fairly easy to maintain, since attack is easier to acquire. I'd probably do 1:1 if I could get enough Sentinel Outposts to do it.
Trobb de Grobb
New Member
I concur with the 3:2. Somewhere between 1:1 and 3:2.
Your attacking army needs enough defense to be able to survive the battle and, with 2 battle encounters, it needs to have enough units survive the first battle to win the second. Remember, the game opponents have their bonus equally split between attack and defense. If your attack and defense % have too big of split you can find yourself regularly loosing fights even when you vastly outpower the computer.
Let me give you an example to illustrate the point. (note: unit abilities, terrain, etc make the matter much more complex but I'll ignore them for this example). Let's say you decide to go all attack and have 3,000% attack and 300% defense. Lets say the computer opponent has 1,000% attack and 1,000% defense. You have a total combat bonus of 3,300% and your opponent has a total of 2,000%...you clearly have the more powerful army. Each unit does a range of damage from min to max. The game compares your attack% (3,000%) to your opponent's defense% (1,000%)...congrats! you have 3x as much and the distribution of damage between min and max will reflect that 3x advantage. Your opponent has an attack of 1,000% and you had a defense of 300%...so congrats to him ! he has a 3.3x advantage. His distribution of damage with a 3.3x advantage will be greater than your 3x ...you better hope your unit mix, terrain advantages and pure luck are on your side or you will loose even though you have a much stronger army !!!
Granted, the preceding paragraph is an extreme example. But, it illustrates the problem you can have if you let your defense lag too much. I agree that attack is more important than defense. You want a higher chance to do max damage, and when combined with the crit chance of an AO, you can get one shot kills. Dead enemy units can't hit back. So my advice, like the previous posters, is to keep it between 1:1 and 3:2.
Your attacking army needs enough defense to be able to survive the battle and, with 2 battle encounters, it needs to have enough units survive the first battle to win the second. Remember, the game opponents have their bonus equally split between attack and defense. If your attack and defense % have too big of split you can find yourself regularly loosing fights even when you vastly outpower the computer.
Let me give you an example to illustrate the point. (note: unit abilities, terrain, etc make the matter much more complex but I'll ignore them for this example). Let's say you decide to go all attack and have 3,000% attack and 300% defense. Lets say the computer opponent has 1,000% attack and 1,000% defense. You have a total combat bonus of 3,300% and your opponent has a total of 2,000%...you clearly have the more powerful army. Each unit does a range of damage from min to max. The game compares your attack% (3,000%) to your opponent's defense% (1,000%)...congrats! you have 3x as much and the distribution of damage between min and max will reflect that 3x advantage. Your opponent has an attack of 1,000% and you had a defense of 300%...so congrats to him ! he has a 3.3x advantage. His distribution of damage with a 3.3x advantage will be greater than your 3x ...you better hope your unit mix, terrain advantages and pure luck are on your side or you will loose even though you have a much stronger army !!!
Granted, the preceding paragraph is an extreme example. But, it illustrates the problem you can have if you let your defense lag too much. I agree that attack is more important than defense. You want a higher chance to do max damage, and when combined with the crit chance of an AO, you can get one shot kills. Dead enemy units can't hit back. So my advice, like the previous posters, is to keep it between 1:1 and 3:2.
Last edited:
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
One area missed in Trobb's discussion is "who goes first" Going first is a big advantage. (particularly at lower Attrition in GbG. at high attrition it becomes less important!) ((From experience. I have no 'theory' to explain why))
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
Mine is 1801/1108, almost exactly 3:2, but that's a reflection of the relative ease of acquiring attack versus defense and not planning on my part. I agree with @Ebeondi Asi, who goes first is a big deal. I'm in SAM and autobattle with 8 Sentinels backed up by a L100 AO. After the opening attack the defenders are whittled down to 4, at most.