TGs vs. Forts

[Ethan]

A statically optimized TG/Forts split lets you start with a higher offense. (2-4% higher, to be precise, assuming around 30% split between them.)

Against that is the dynamic consideration of... what? I'm *STILL* waiting for that part of this argument. So far, I've gotten "is useless", "is important", "don't remember", "not all thieves do max damage", and my own point of "overpop a tiny bit easier". So... which ones are real concerns, and can anymore put even a *ballpark* number on it to compare? We know the ballpark improvement, but no way to judge if it is worth it if we only know half the equation.

As to "getting a clue" - I'm listening. I put down 3% extra offense. What do you offer that outweighs that?


Edit:
Speaking of clues...

Zauper, as *fixed* by myself - "TGs are good when they're good, and they're not when they're not. Generally speaking, if the TGs don't make me safe (or pevent DTs/TTs), I'd rather have GS."

What, exactly, is it about the fact that forts are an *OFFENSIVE MOD* is so blindingly hard for people to understand?
[JfCoaS]

[Danrelle]

wow Ethan, good job!
Now they'll think we're the same account. =p

[Ethan]

er - I was making a subtle joke about you being gay earlier in some other thread. (Kind-heartedly, I hope, as I am aware I don't know a thing about your personal life, nor do I intend it to be an insult to anyone.)

I'll "fess up" to saying I'm not quite so self-confident as to call myself gay to a bunch of people that don't know me, though. So ya, I think we can prove I'm not you.

Also, I'm fairly sure you've never claimed to have played faery/sage attacker (A/t/m) for the past 2 ages.


Seriously though, it is nice that at least some people seem to get what the real questions are.

[DDodge]

cute :)

[Zauper]

Zauper, as *fixed* by myself - "TGs are good when they're good, and they're not when they're not. Generally speaking, if the TGs don't make me safe (or pevent DTs/TTs), I'd rather have GS."

What, exactly, is it about the fact that forts are an *OFFENSIVE MOD* is so blindingly hard for people to understand?
[JfCoaS]

Forts are not an offensive building. TGs aren't a defensive building. I'm sorry you're not actually capable of understanding that. When I'm leaving 20 DPA, how much do you think forts are worth to me? When I'm leaving 110 DPA, they're worth a little more.

You've thrown out numbers with no backing. "Hey guys, forts are totally worth 3% offense!!!" is not an argument. That isn't actually providing numbers. The closest you've come to providing real numbers is the formula you posted on the first page, which doesn't have any real numbers. It's a mathematical construct you're looking at, which is separated from the actual gameplay and any actual number that comes from the game. Plug in some real numbers and we can talk.

Let me see if I can explain this better:
Why are you setting the defense constant when you're trying to determine what provides more offense? By setting the defense constant, you're putting yourself into that scenario I posited: trying to remain safe. Based on a quick look over your formula, you're just picking troops until you hit that defense level (probably using all dspecs instead of a more logical mix of dspecs/elites, assuming a turtling capable race), and then putting everything else into elites.

[hydroxon]

Premises:
1. Military size is limited.
2. Buildings are limited.

Now, imagine you are an Orc running 30% TG, 0% Forts, with a 2/1 mod_offence/mod_defence ratio. Then, see what happens when you start decreasing TG% and increasing Forts%:

1. Convert 1% TG into Forts --> Offence_ME drops, Defence_ME rises
2. Because of (1), to get back the same offence/defence ratio, you must convert some d-specs into elites.
3. For each d-spec you convert into an elite, you lose 5 raw defence, but gain 9 raw offence.

This shows how paradoxically, converting 1% TG into Forts looks like you are increasing defence, but if we try to keep our off/def ratio constant, this can potentially give us more offence.

Based on what I've explained so far, we can observe this interesting effect:
--> A race like Orc, with high offence elites but low defence specs, will (counter-intuitively) want more Forts than a race like Elf.


Zauper, actually a lot of what you said is absolutely right. Now you just gotta take into account the fact that increasing defence efficiency means you can convert some 5-point d-specs into 9-point elites. To me, that's the easiest way to understand why we're having so much fun playing with the Maths over here.

[Taffers]

Premises:
1. Military size is limited.
2. Buildings are limited.

Now, imagine you are an Orc running 30% TG, 0% Forts, with a 2/1 mod_offence/mod_defence ratio. Then, see what happens when you start decreasing TG% and increasing Forts%:

1. Convert 1% TG into Forts --> Offence_ME drops, Defence_ME rises
2. Because of (1), to get back the same offence/defence ratio, you must convert some d-specs into elites.
3. For each d-spec you convert into an elite, you lose 5 raw defence, but gain 9 raw offence.

This shows how paradoxically, converting 1% TG into Forts looks like you are increasing defence, but if we try to keep our off/def ratio constant, this can potentially give us more offence.

Based on what I've explained so far, we can observe this interesting effect:
--> A race like Orc, with high offence elites but low defence specs, will (counter-intuitively) want more Forts than a race like Elf.


Zauper, actually a lot of what you said is absolutely right. Now you just gotta take into account the fact that increasing defence efficiency means you can convert some 5-point d-specs into 9-point elites. To me, that's the easiest way to understand why we're having so much fun playing with the Maths over here.

You're better off modding your 9 point elite, not your 5 point d-spec. Try again.

[hydroxon]

Orc: 9-point elite, 5-point spec, military_size = 100, Forts%+TG% = 30%, Building Efficiency 80%, off/def = 2/1.

Setup 1 (spam TG):
Forts% 0
TG% 30
Forts Effect 0.0000
TG Effect 0.2520

D-Specs 52.98
Elites 47.02
Total 100

Mod Def 264.91
Mod Off 529.81
Off/Def 2/1
Total Mod Def+Off 794.72

Setup 2 (Optimal):
Forts% 14
TG% 16
Forts Effect 0.1445
TG Effect 0.1613

D-Specs 47.73
Elites 52.27
Total 100

Mod Def 273.14
Mod Off 546.28
Off/Def 2/1
Total Mod Def+Off 819.42

FINALLY
Setup_2 / Setup_1 = 819.42 / 794.72 = 1.0311
I.e., Setup_2 is 3% stronger than Setup_1


Q.E.D.

Edit: I would normally include the Minor Protection self-spell into the calculation, but deliberately excluded it so that the noobs out there can easily verify my numbers :P

[Danrelle]

It's a well known mistake to try and have a conversation with someone who's very confident in his knowledge and wouldn't give you a moment of his time.

We don't need more posts explaining and proving how to use Forts/Tgs. If anything, we need a review on the whole situation. Once a review is up, let everyone think for themselves.

[Bishop]

FINALLY
Setup_2 / Setup_1 = 819.42 / 794.72 = 1.0311
I.e., Setup_2 is 3% stronger than Setup_1

Stronger how. In numbers statically?

What happens when you get chained and have 0 defense. What happens when your first tap comes home, your offense in training arrives and you dont have 30% tgs, but 25%. Who runs 30% tgs anyway?

[hydroxon]

EDIT: Thanks Bishop, just saw your post, and I think I somewhat addressed those issues :D ... Oh, and yes, stronger in static modified numbers.


@Danrelle: Oh well, I thought we were trying to present it in ways that people can understand.

Looks like we already solved this static optimisation problem ....

The next key issue seems to be the cost of replacing lost troops (which you mentioned before). Since Elites are so expensive, this seems to shift the TG/Fort ratio significantly in favour of TG. Based on my spreadsheet, it can also be seen that shifting TG/Fort ratio nearer to optimum actually has diminishing benefits, while the costs effect is mostly constant.

Another issue is that in war, when a good% of land is barren or building-in-progress, we are effectively working with a lower combined land% in TGs and Forts, and this effect also favours having higher% TG.

Because of the above considerations, I deliberately run a TG/Fort ratio that's somewhat higher than the static optimum. There are probably other factors that can further complicate matters ... no wonder nobody really cares about all this :P

PS. For attackers that can't afford to train offence in war, and only train with def specs creds, they should obviously favour Forts a bit more :D

[John Snowstorm]

Yeah JSS, I can agree that for ppl who War min time, the initial build is even more important. So how do You decide what will be good down the line? (seeing how you'd have to assume lots of things about what will actually happen down the line and seeing how what you assume actually influences not only what you build, but also what will happen)

def is easy to remove, off is not, so your build strategy shoudl be weighted heavily towards TGs that will mod the offense you are more or less gauranteed of having and optimisation be damned.

[Danrelle]

optimisation be damned.

Spoken like a true experimentalist. ^^

Well, we developed this theory. But there was never a point in shoving it down ppl's throats. Everyone is free to experiment.

[hydroxon]

Bishop wrote: "Who runs 30% tgs anyway?"

Assuming you're concerned with the problem of diminishing building effects, then that's actually a big reason why we want to run a good amount of Forts to further boost overall military strength. Also more relevant for Avians who play without barracks.

[Realest]

Mommy used to say, have some faith in humanity. Reading all the stupid in this thread makes it hard to do so.