Delaying tactic question

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Delaying tactic question

      Recently I had a stack of unprotected artillery overrun by enemy line troops... which, of course, I fully deserved, for being so foolish...

      I have a question regarding a hypothetical delaying tactic, and I'm hoping to get some comments from the more experienced players.

      If I find myself in a similar situation, in which I have an unprotected valuable asset that has no chance of resisting enemy line troops, BUT I have two A/C between the asset and the approaching enemy troops, which tactic would cause more delay to the enemy troops, to give my asset a chance to escape or for reinforcements to arrive in time to protect it?...

      Option One: Send both A/C to a defensive position and block the advancing enemy troops, or

      Option Two: Send one A/C to a defensive position to block the advancing enemy, and send the other A/C to a defensive position behind the first (assuming both A/C are on similar terrain - that is, no terrain advantage to one or the other)?

      Or, put another way, is it better to pile delaying troops together, or spread them out, in order to cause the most delay to the enemy?

      (All this is subject to the +/-20% random variation in combat damage, of course, but let's ignore that for now.)

      Thank you.
    • It will always or almost always take an attacker as long or longer to kill a stack of 2 defending ACs than it will take to kill two stacks of 1 AC. I played around trying to make a more extreme situation where attacker almost kills 1 AC is first round, but still has to wait 30 minutes to finish it off. Even with that bias in favor of the two stacks of 1 AC, the one stack of 2 ACs still took 3 rounds. Which means they would cause an equal delay. Two rounds takes 30 minutes. 30 * 2 = 60. Three rounds takes 60 minutes.

      In cases where the attacker can one shot a single AC but not 2 ACs then one stack of 2 is obviously better.

      In the third scenario where attacker doesn't do so much damage in one round to a single AC it becomes more likely that it will take longer to kill one stack of 2 ACs than 2 stacks of 1 AC.

      In summary, one stack of 2 ACs will cause an equal or longer delay.
    • If the enemy stack has the capability of dealing enough damage to destroy one (but not two) of your ACs, keep them together. If an enemy stack can destroy your unit in one iteration, it won’t slow them down at all.

      If the enemy stack can destroy both ACs in one iteration, you’re screwed.

      If the enemy stack can not deal enough damage to destroy one of the ACs in one iteration (but can damage an AC more than 50%), separate your stack. What could have taken the enemy 3 iterations to destroy if the ACs were together, will now take them 4.
      “A battle fought without determination is a battle lost.” - Josip Broz Tito
    • Brando Dilla wrote:

      If the enemy stack can not deal enough damage to destroy one of the ACs in one iteration (but can damage an AC more than 50%), separate your stack. What could have taken the enemy 3 iterations to destroy if the ACs were together, will now take them 4.
      I tried to explain this above, but splitting like this doesn't cause more of a delay. Your 4 here is two battles 2 rounds each. Two rounds requires a 30 minutes wait, so a total of 60 minutes. Three rounds also requires 60 minutes, so in this scenario they are equal. I couldn't find a scenario where splitting into two stacks caused a longer delay. One may exist, but it's not obvious to me. To be safe just use a single stack.
    • I know that ranged units only have to wait for 60 seconds to attack again after destroying a stack. Is the same true for land units? I don't think I've ever tested that.

      If so, then the split wouldn't slow them down because they can attack the second unit nearly immediately after destroying the first, but if not, they'll have to wait again before the second battle begins.

      That all being said, if we're talking about a situation in which it'll take two hits to kill a single armored car, I'm guessing the armored car's defense value will actually matter. I think I'd still rather stack them together to get more efficient defensive damage.
    • jubjub bird wrote:

      I know that ranged units only have to wait for 60 seconds to attack again after destroying a stack. Is the same true for land units? I don't think I've ever tested that.
      I think you are responding to something I added in an edit about spacing 6 km apart. I removed that before I saw your post because I realized that they attacker wouldn't actually have to wait 30 minutes as you point out.


      jubjub bird wrote:

      That all being said, if we're talking about a situation in which it'll take two hits to kill a single armored car, I'm guessing the armored car's defense value will actually matter.
      I'm not following what you mean here.
    • I just mean that if the attacking stack needs two hits to kill an AC, it can't be that strong. Depending on the makeup of the attacking stack, the AC may do decent defensive damage against it, so I'd rather stack both ACs together to maximize the efficiency of that defensive damage. Who knows, maybe it's enough to turn a 4-hit kill into a 5-hit kill, slowing the attacker down by an extra 30 minutes.
    • 1101Pathfinder wrote:

      Another option would be to combine your AC with your artillery (2 stacks 1 Ac in each) the AC will allow your Artillery to attack at Maximum range don't get engaged in close combat Retreat your first stack behind the second which would be ready to attack repeat until reinforcements arrive.
      Don't get the arty engaged in melee combat! In this scenario you should have the ACs lock the enemy unit in melee while the artillery unit(s) are bombarding.
      “A battle fought without determination is a battle lost.” - Josip Broz Tito
    • jubjub bird wrote:

      I know that ranged units only have to wait for 60 seconds to attack again after destroying a stack. Is the same true for land units? I don't think I've ever tested that.
      I don't think they do (just like planes don't get a second hit after a kill either), and it is largely hypothetical anyway. It would require a layout where the two defending units are so close together that you can attack the second unit within moving 60s from the (defeated) first, but far enough away not to engage both stacks at once in the first place. That would be quite hard to stage, I think.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • Yea to be more clear I was thinking of the 60s delay vs the 30min delay before next attack, not that you could have an instant attack. My instinct is that land units always have to wait 30 minutes, I just haven't ever tested it specifically intending to find out. I'll try to pay more attention to see if I can confirm.
    • I've assumed melee units could attack after 60 seconds of finishing battle. I have a vague memory of seeing it but could be false memory. If anything, I'd think ranged units being able to do it is more OP than melee being able to so I don't see why they wouldn't have done that with melee also. Anyway, I look forward to your results :)
    • By "more OP than melee" I meant that ranged units are more likely to be able to take advantage of this than melee since they are more likely to have other targets within 30 minutes of their current position. So melee having this ability would be less of a "big deal" than ranged units having it.