Shouldn't that be vice versa?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Why attackers take fewer losses than defenders?
Shouldn't that be vice versa?
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
No?
why?
They don't.
attacker rolls 3 die and defender 2, no?
But the most a side can lose in a single roll is 2, and defender wins ties. To win as an attacker you need a numbers advantage over the defender, strictly because you will lose more in the long run.
Factually incorrect see attached graph for the actual odds.
Ok foureyes? What is the reasoning in English?
zerg OP
The odds favour attacker if the size of the attacker is over 5, 25 attackers are favored worth about 28 defenders.
Literally cpoy pasting lines from the article, not even the paper. you don't understand the math, you're just a zoomie loser with nothing better to do.
Then it is shitty game, realistically modern military doctrine dictates attackers need to outnumber the defenders 3:1 in order to make steady progress. Which is a reason Greater Russians couldn't conquer Little Russia.
It would actually just mean that it would be a bad simulation, not a bad game.
Games aren't always intended to be simulations. Actually, they rarely are, because a good game places fun game mechanics over simulation of reality. The latter most of the time is just theming anyways.
It's not supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to be fun. Giving the attacker advantage makes the game more dynamic, prevents stalemates and encourages aggressive play, thus making it more fun.
I'm not saying that it isn't a shitty game, but that's not one of the reasons.
>it's supposed to be fun
it fails at that too
This is 100% result of the rule losing one attacker stops the attack from a region, where as defending doesn't stop from losses. That math is B A D as frick simce it doesn't take aacount that important variable.
It's better for the game experience otherwise you could just camp Australia and never lose. If you're playing with like 6 people the game is going to take at least an hour anyways
Depends on format and skill levels. I have rolled 5 players on turn 3 or 4 quite a few times.
Assuming the attacker rolls three dice and the defender two, either side can defeat two armies, or they can split.
I guess it makes sense in some ways.
Attacker is in a position of initiative and gets to pick his fights. He sends small detachments on hit-and-run missions, penetrates defenses at their weakest section, pushes deep into enemy territory, forces defenders into pockets, lays siege to isolated bastions and pelts them with assorted ordnance, inflicts heavy casualties and takes even more surrendering forces prisoner, etc.
5hq5w 5h3 ieiq jsrji eer tj rsad
The attacker already has the massive advantage of deciding when and where a battle happens.
Schisos poster calm down I didn't copy paste anything from that article but the graph, it's ok you don't understand probability but at least pick up some 5 dice and simulate 100 vs 100 for yourself you can even use a dice program to do all rolls at once, if this was on the proper board /tg/ we could do that in this thread. I did the math when I was 10 and bored you could at least pretend to care about risk.
Not true, also I'm the unluckiest player here.
t. bonus broken b***h