"Kraken" defense challenge

[xivarmy]

One thing this little interlude reinforced for me was how much more efficient it is to build up fighting capacity/boosts rather than relying on goods production for advancement. That's the real reason I'm abandoning the challenge. Without spending Diamonds it's too much bother trying to get to HMA without having the boosts to be able to fight effectively. As far as the challenge itself, regardless of assertions, everyone who's fought much at all knows it's all about the boosts. Without them the matchups don't matter.

It really shouldn't take much to just make it to HMA. You don't actually have to do the continent map, or do GE or GBG. And PvP arena's rewards in EMA can be claimed by throwing spearfighters at it and losing

Building up rogues on the new world? yea that would be slower. Best bet there would be to win 4 hideouts in an event. That way you can retrain a full rogue army for each test you want to do and be able to do one every 2 days. Traz is probably too expensive still to be efficient comparatively.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Been there, done that. What other "real conditions" did you have in mind? It matters not. I'm staying in Dilmun, and HMA. Show up, or shut up, P...

I've tried to be helpful and polite. Stay in Dilmun and HMA. I'm not going to "show up" because your test makes no sense to me. What is the point of a controlled test where both attacker and defender have no, or very limited, boosts. The "real conditions" are simple. The attacking HMA army will have boosts, probably higher than yours, otherwise the attacker would not be attacking. The attacker will probably attack with rogues, most do, and your AI defense, no matter what it is will probably lose. Feel free to send over screen shots proving me wrong should the opportunity present itself.

 

[xivarmy]

I've tried to be helpful and polite. Stay in Dilmun and HMA. I'm not going to "show up" because your test makes no sense to me. What is the point of a controlled test where both attacker and defender have no, or very limited, boosts. The "real conditions" are simple. The attacking HMA army will have boosts, probably higher than yours, otherwise the attacker would not be attacking. The attacker will probably attack with rogues, most do, and your AI defense, no matter what it is will probably lose. Feel free to send over screen shots proving me wrong should the opportunity present itself.

The point of "no boosts" was to provide an equivalent test that wasn't going to take too long to setup. i.e. there's no denying that to defeat an 800% boosted attacker you probably need at least *close* to that boost on your defenders. But that's a lot of work to match boosts and get a fair fight.

The point of contention was whether a fair fight was even enough or if you needed to completely outclass the attacker.

No boost was simply chosen as the most straightforward venue to create an "equivalent boost" environment to test that.

 

[Jackshat]

I've tried to be helpful and polite. Stay in Dilmun and HMA. I'm not going to "show up" because your test makes no sense to me. What is the point of a controlled test where both attacker and defender have no, or very limited, boosts. The "real conditions" are simple. The attacking HMA army will have boosts, probably higher than yours, otherwise the attacker would not be attacking. The attacker will probably attack with rogues, most do, and your AI defense, no matter what it is will probably lose. Feel free to send over screen shots proving me wrong should the opportunity present itself.

Feel free to come on over to prove yourself right...since you're still essentially calling me a liar, by continuing to deny what I've already done.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Feel free to come on over to prove yourself right...since you're still essentially calling me a liar, by continuing to deny what I've already done.

You are the one making all the claims. I don't have a dog in this fight and have nothing to prove. Continue your test, or not, I could not care less. I'm not in HMA and have never been attacked by another player with an unboosted army so, even if you are correct, your "Kraken Defense" has no utility for me.

 

[Jackshat]

You are the one making all the claims. I don't have a dog in this fight and have nothing to prove. Continue your test, or not, I could not care less. I'm not in HMA and have never been attacked by another player with an unboosted army so, even if you are correct, your "Kraken Defense" has no utility for me.

I shared my experience which clearly enflamed your insensibilities. For one with no dog in the fight you sure did a lot of barking.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

The point of "no boosts" was to provide an equivalent test that wasn't going to take too long to setup. i.e. there's no denying that to defeat an 800% boosted attacker you probably need at least *close* to that boost on your defenders. But that's a lot of work to match boosts and get a fair fight.

The point of contention was whether a fair fight was even enough or if you needed to completely outclass the attacker.

No boost was simply chosen as the most straightforward venue to create an "equivalent boost" environment to test that.

I get it. However, how often have you been attacked by an army with boosts equivalent to your defending army? Except for perhaps the early days of IA it has never happened to me. That being the case, what value is there in this particular defense strategy, or any defense strategy? This entire discussion is much ado about nothing.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I shared my experience which clearly enflamed your insensibilities. For one with no dog in the fight you sure did a lot of barking.

Argumentum ad Hominem

 

[Jackshat]

I get it. However, how often have you been attacked by an army with boosts equivalent to your defending army? Except for perhaps the early days of IA it has never happened to me. That being the case, what value is there in this particular defense strategy, or any defense strategy? This entire discussion is much ado about nothing.

This entire discussion was about HMA, where steroidal armies are rare. That is the whole context. Attackers/defenders had comparable boosts where putting up an effective defense had value. That's ALL I've ever claimed...and kept it to HMA where this was experienced.

 

[Jackshat]

Argumentum ad Hominem

Narcissism.

 

[xivarmy]

I get it. However, how often have you been attacked by an army with boosts equivalent to your defending army? Except for perhaps the early days of IA it has never happened to me. That being the case, what value is there in this particular defense strategy, or any defense strategy? This entire discussion is much ado about nothing.

The question was one of interest to theory moreso than practical value.

*IF* you wanted to defend against attacks (nevermind that we've all agreed it's not worthwhile to bother), because that's what's fun to you, do you need to completely dwarf the attacker's stats? Or just have comparable stats and to guess the right army for what they're attacking with. (Wyldon's original suggestion being for people who do like to try to defend, not a general recommendation for an optimum way to play).

Goode had suggested that the only way the defense would win is because its stats were much higher (which is also in nostalgic terms quite possible, because back in the day defenders have always been able to stack watchfires, but attackers were limited to GBs for the longest time).

The test was to compare whether it was indeed a stat advantage alone or whether in a fair fight the defender can defend against a rogue army.

I'd take up the attacker's mantle out of curiousity if it weren't the fact I'm already building a city in Dilmun (and am in Progressive Era, with boost )

 

[Pericles the Lion]

This entire discussion was about HMA, where steroidal armies are rare. That is the whole context. Attackers/defenders had comparable boosts where putting up an effective defense had value. That's ALL I've ever claimed...and kept it to HMA where this was experienced.

I don't know what constitutes a "steroidal" army in HMA. I have 3 IA cities with attacking army boosts of 345/308, 303/295. and 310/312 respectively. All have defending army boosts below 50/50. The attack boosts are sufficient to autobattle GE64 taking few losses. I think that it's safe to say that any player attacking your defense with a 300/300 boost (which is hardly "steroidal") will defeat any defense that you put up. Again, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Jackshat]

The question was one of interest to theory moreso than practical value.

*IF* you wanted to defend against attacks (nevermind that we've all agreed it's not worthwhile to bother), because that's what's fun to you, do you need to completely dwarf the attacker's stats? Or just have comparable stats and to guess the right army for what they're attacking with. (Wyldon's original suggestion being for people who do like to try to defend, not a general recommendation for an optimum way to play).

Goode had suggested that the only way the defense would win is because its stats were much higher (which is also in nostalgic terms quite possible, because back in the day defenders have always been able to stack watchfires, but attackers were limited to GBs for the longest time).

The test was to compare whether it was indeed a stat advantage alone or whether in a fair fight the defender can defend against a rogue army.

I'd take up the attacker's mantle out of curiousity if it weren't the fact I'm already building a city in Dilmun (and am in Progressive Era, with boost )

I don't know what constitutes a "steroidal" army in HMA. I have 3 IA cities with attacking army boosts of 345/308, 303/295. and 310/312 respectively. All have defending army boosts below 50/50. The attack boosts are sufficient to autobattle GE64 taking few losses. I think that it's safe to say that any player attacking your defense with a 300/300 boost (which is hardly "steroidal") will defeat any defense that you put up. Again, feel free to prove me wrong.

As i said, no dog in the fight and still barkin--that's that narcissism. You know where I'm at, P. But, if you don't know how to attack when your opponent has comparable boosts, stay in your nuclear age...

 

[Jackshat]

Let me try explaining as it evolved:

Getting trounced by rogue armies. Sought a defense that might keep the rogues from hitting to give my defenders an opportunity to actually defend the city. Found 3 trebs and 5 heavies not only stopped the rogue armies, but many other combinations of attacks. So, in COMBINATION with my boosts, boosts which didn't stop rogue armies before this defense (a defense ridiculed in name by you guys), this setup did the trick.


Why is that so hard for you to believe, Pericles?

 

[Pericles the Lion]

As i said, no dog in the fight and still barkin--that's that narcissism. You know where I'm at, P. But, if you don't know how to attack when your opponent has comparable boosts, stay in your nuclear age...

Why would anyone need to know how to attack an opponent with comparable boosts? Almost never happens. Maybe early Iron Age but not afterwards.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Let me try explaining as it evolved:

Getting trounced by rogue armies. Sought a defense that might keep the rogues from hitting to give my defenders an opportunity to actually defend the city. Found 3 trebs and 5 heavies not only stopped the rogue armies, but many other combinations of attacks. So, in COMBINATION with my boosts, boosts which didn't stop rogue armies before this defense (a defense ridiculed in name by you guys), this setup did the trick.


Why is that so hard for you to believe, Pericles?

Experience, but I'll say it again, get your neighbors to attack you and share the battle results. Shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Jackshat]

Experience, but I'll say it again, get your neighbors to attack you and share the battle results. Shouldn't be difficult.

ALREADY done. You haven't accepted THOSE results, so you wouldn't accept any "new" experiences, either, I suspect. Well, you'd accept the results only when I lose. Show up...or shut up...

 

[Pericles the Lion]

ALREADY done. You haven't accepted THOSE results, so you wouldn't accept any "new" experiences, either, I suspect. Show up...or shut up...

You have described a few vague recollections but have not submitted a single image of a battle result showing a successful defense. You don't need me to "show up" in order to prove your point. Also, demanding "show up or shut up" is adolescent behavior that does not add credibility to your claims.

 

[Jackshat]

You have described a few vague recollections but have not submitted a single image of a battle result showing a successful defense. You don't need me to "show up" in order to prove your point. Also, demanding "show up or shut up" is adolescent behavior that does not add credibility to your claims.

As you have zero credibility and the narcissistic audacity to essentially call me a liar. Why are you even still here, if you're so concerned my experiences are impossible?

You jumped on my experience with no direct contrary experience--just ego that it isn't possible. Later, since you'll neither show up, nor shut up, when your arrogance threw down the gauntlet...

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Goode had suggested that the only way the defense would win is because its stats were much higher

Not exactly. I've stated elsewhere that I believe that when boosts are close, the defender has the advantage. In other words, @Wyldon's defense boost was comparable to the attacker's boost. (They probably were better, but they didn't have to be, just comparable.) His stated defense boost in HMA was 200/300ish. That's high for an HMA defense boost. With that boost in HMA you would naturally win against most attackers even with a random mix of current era troops. Especially if they blindly throw a Rogue army in on autobattle. Just clarifying, by the way.