Best Odds?

[Forefall]

Say you have 10 armies and 3 territories linked together. What presents a better defensive scenario?

1) 8 on one territory, 1 on each of the others
2) 6 on one territory, 2 on each of the others
3) evenly split, with 4, 3, and 3 on the territories


Also, does it matter in which order they are placed? Is there an advantage to placing your largest army last or first?

This is not a strategical question, simply a mathematical one.

[flashleg8]

Say you have 10 armies and 3 territories linked together. What presents a better defensive scenario?

1) 8 on one territory, 1 on each of the others
2) 6 on one territory, 2 on each of the others
3) evenly split, with 4, 3, and 3 on the territories


Also, does it matter in which order they are placed? Is there an advantage to placing your largest army last or first?

This is not a strategical question, simply a mathematical one.

There are better mathematicians on this site that I'm sure will help you, but it was proved to me before that 4 was the optimum amount of defenders, anything over that has diminishing laws of return. Therefore the best scenario would be 4 -4 - 2. with the 4 at the front facing the enemy.

This of course needs to be linked to what you are defending. But if it was a straight question on how likely it is to kill you that would be the optimum defense placement. As you said, there are strategic reasons for other placement - this would be a pure mathematical one.

I'll try to find the stats to prove my case. I could be wrong though.

[gethine]

1-8-1 would be a pretty decent strategy at times as well. although mathematically not as robust, you will find that a lot of players would not attack the first one in fear of retaliation from your 8.

[alster]

Say you have 10 armies and 3 territories linked together. What presents a better defensive scenario?

1) 8 on one territory, 1 on each of the others
2) 6 on one territory, 2 on each of the others
3) evenly split, with 4, 3, and 3 on the territories


Also, does it matter in which order they are placed? Is there an advantage to placing your largest army last or first?

This is not a strategical question, simply a mathematical one.

There are better mathematicians on this site that I'm sure will help you, but it was proved to me before that 4 was the optimum amount of defenders, anything over that has diminishing laws of return. Therefore the best scenario would be 4 -4 - 2. with the 4 at the front facing the enemy.

This of course needs to be linked to what you are defending. But if it was a straight question on how likely it is to kill you that would be the optimum defense placement. As you said, there are strategic reasons for other placement - this would be a pure mathematical one.

I'll try to find the stats to prove my case. I could be wrong though.

Going from 1 to 2 defending armies is armies well spent. Putting anything above 2 on a territory gives a diminishing returns as you put it since you can only defend with two dices.


AND to the creator of the thread. Really, do NOT double post a thread. It's enough that you post it in one forum, don' post it in two different ones.

[chessplaya]

Say you have 10 armies and 3 territories linked together. What presents a better defensive scenario?

1) 8 on one territory, 1 on each of the others
2) 6 on one territory, 2 on each of the others
3) evenly split, with 4, 3, and 3 on the territories


Also, does it matter in which order they are placed? Is there an advantage to placing your largest army last or first?

This is not a strategical question, simply a mathematical one.

There are better mathematicians on this site that I'm sure will help you, but it was proved to me before that 4 was the optimum amount of defenders, anything over that has diminishing laws of return. Therefore the best scenario would be 4 -4 - 2. with the 4 at the front facing the enemy.

This of course needs to be linked to what you are defending. But if it was a straight question on how likely it is to kill you that would be the optimum defense placement. As you said, there are strategic reasons for other placement - this would be a pure mathematical one.

I'll try to find the stats to prove my case. I could be wrong though.

Going from 1 to 2 defending armies is armies well spent. Putting anything above 2 on a territory gives a diminishing returns as you put it since you can only defend with two dices.


AND to the creator of the thread. Really, do NOT double post a thread. It's enough that you post it in one forum, don' post it in two different ones.

I have to agree