Perfect Defense vs. Iron First (Poll)

Alright, I've seen a lot of people using IF instead of PD in certain situations. I was also told that IF is very good and even better than PD, so I tried my luck with IF. IF is pretty good but the short range is annoying, so you vote here, which one is better. Say why and which you vote IF you wish.

P.S; I've been using PD and I believe it's one of the best strategies, that's why I made this poll because I want to know others' opinions on this, the main question is; to you, is IF really better than PD and if yes, then why?

I know that there are not awesome strategies, it all depends on the player and as you said where you're starting, etcetera.
The question was if you believe that IF is better than PD (as some people say it's better even in defense), if you use one of them more than the other and why do you use it.
I just made this for people to discuss, it's not a kind of topic that's like "Which strategy is better to use startegy X or strategy X?".
Maybe I gave a wrong idea with the things I wrote above, I just wrote it quickly and I don't know if I made my point clear.

PD. IF has no range, I only use it to rush.
IF is actually better at defending than PD, by a little. But not against tanks since PD gets another +1 bonus against tanks.
IF is really op in battles, more than what people usually think. +2HP is about the same as +2 att and def.

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 08:00

PD. IF has no range, I only use it to rush.
IF is actually better at defending than PD, by a little. But not against tanks since PD gets another +1 bonus against tanks.
IF is really op in battles, more than what people usually think. +2HP is about the same as +2 att and def.

So IF inf get about 2+ atk and 2+ def? Holy shit.

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 08:43

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 08:00

PD. IF has no range, I only use it to rush.
IF is actually better at defending than PD, by a little. But not against tanks since PD gets another +1 bonus against tanks.
IF is really op in battles, more than what people usually think. +2HP is about the same as +2 att and def.

So IF inf get about 2+ atk and 2+ def? Holy shit.

Yeah, it kinda depends on some stuff but yes. I could say, 1 IF inf + gen is like an imp/pd tank or gw marine.

IF by far. With PD you still get -1 inf range. This means that IF just has -1 range compared to PD, it is stronger in defence, and much stronger in attack.

PD inf in cities has 9 defence, IF has 8...
PD mil in cities 6 defence, IF 5...
So i would say that PD is better in defence and IF in offence...

Napisano przez Knez, 04.03.2014 at 11:02

PD inf in cities has 9 defence, IF has 8...
PD mil in cities 6 defence, IF 5...
So i would say that PD is better in defence and IF in offence...

No wtf.

PD has 9/10
IF has 7/8
IF has +2HP though, which in this case is better than +2 def because of their high damage.
I did calcs, 10 attack vs 8 def + 2 HP.
About 50% of times, Defenders won. 35% times, draw. 15% times, attackers won.

Remember that the effect of HP is reduced with militia, because of their low stats.

IF militia defence = 4*(8/7)^2
= ~5.2

PD militia defence =6

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 04.03.2014 at 11:18

Remember that the effect of HP is reduced with militia, because of their low stats.

IF militia defence = (4*8/7)^2
= ~5.2

PD militia defence =6

This is true but what formula is that? :S

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 11:36

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 04.03.2014 at 11:18

Remember that the effect of HP is reduced with militia, because of their low stats.

IF militia defence = 4*(8/7)^2
= ~5.2

PD militia defence =6

This is true but what formula is that? :S

I already calculated that the effect of adding 1 hp is roughly equivalent to increasing the attack/defence by 1/7.

base defence = 4
multiply by 8/7 (adding 1/7) to the defence)
it is squared because there is 2 hp being added (squaring multiplies by 1/7 twice, shorter than writing it all out again)

As I didn't say my opinion on this when I first made the topic, I'll say it now.

After testing both of the strategies, I found out that Iron First is overpowered in small maps and therefore, it can easily win PD. (Keep in mind that I'm not talking about players, but the strategies in general. It's a fact that a "pro" PD player would win an Iron First player who isn't that experienced in using that strategy.) On the other hand, when playing IF in a big map then IF is most likely to lose. Why? It's really hard to move your army into the battlefield quickly and other players can easily defeat you, I don't know if it's just my fault as I'm not a so experienced Iron First player, maybe a more experienced Iron First player would be able to reinforce the main battle fronts better than me in a large map.

Now, about PD in big maps, I can say that it's pretty good. There are other strategies that I would use instead of PD when playing in a big map, perhaps MoS, GW or Blitz. Though, PD is a strategy that you're able to win a big map with (if you're a good player, ofcourse).
Moreover, if you're using PD, after you've created your "empire", you've maken a shitload of infantries and still have money to create other type of units, such as stealth units which are very useful, then you'll probably win. Well, nothing is unbeatable, though.
The good thing in PD is that you can play it in low starting funds games and have the best economy because of your cheap, powerful infantry. After you have a lot of money then you can start using marines, that's what I do most of the times, anyway. Lol.
Also, for people who say that PD can't cross oceans; that's a big lie. PD can easily cross an ocean, you just send big stacks of infantry in transports, protected by cruisers or bombers. Perhaps, invading with marines prior to invading with your infantry would help, this way, you do a suprise attack on the enemy, take his cities and then you can defend the cities you took by putting your infantry stacks in them.

So, in my honest opinion, Iron First is better in little maps and Perfect Defense in bigger maps. Using PD in world scenarios has worked good for me, it depends on which country I pick and what scenario I'm playing on, though.

P.S; Europe world war scenarios with Iron First, too OP. xD

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 04.03.2014 at 12:35

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 11:36

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 04.03.2014 at 11:18

Remember that the effect of HP is reduced with militia, because of their low stats.

IF militia defence = 4*(8/7)^2
= ~5.2

PD militia defence =6

This is true but what formula is that? :S

I already calculated that the effect of adding 1 hp is roughly equivalent to increasing the attack/defence by 1/7.

base defence = 4
multiply by 8/7 (adding 1/7) to the defence)
it is squared because there is 2 hp being added (squaring multiplies by 1/7 twice, shorter than writing it all out again)

Yeah, well +1HP is not 1/7. Like you said on another topic, +1HP would do more damage (1/7) since they resist more. Probably it doesn't work like that because of rolls being higher than 1.

I'll give an example.

5 units with 8HP 4 att, attacks 5 units with 7HP 5 def.

This time, I'll take damage average instead of max damage.
Average for 4 is 2.5 (1+2+3+4=10/4=2.5)
Average for 5 is 3 (1+2+3+4+5=15/5=3)

Left is attacker, right defender. The number between () is remaining HP.

5(5) 5(4,5)
5(2) 5(2)
4(7) 4(6,5)
4(4) 4(4)
4(1) 4(1,5)
3(6) 3(6)
3(3) 3(3,5)
2(8) 3(1)
2(5) 2(5,5)
2(2) 2(3)
1(7) 2(0,5)
1(4) 1(5)
1(1) 1(2,5)
0(0) 0(0)

Draw = They were the same.

But eventually, group 2 (damage boost isntead of HP) managed to deal more damage (+1,5) but that was a 14 rolls battle. That's why I say HP is almost the same as +1 damage.

Napisano przez Nitmaros, 04.03.2014 at 12:53

As I didn't say my opinion on this when I first made the topic, I'll say it now.

After testing both of the strategies, I found out that Iron First is overpowered in small maps and therefore, it can easily win PD. (Keep in mind that I'm not talking about players, but the strategies in general. It's a fact that a "pro" PD player would win an Iron First player who isn't that experienced in using that strategy.) On the other hand, when playing IF in a big map then IF is most likely to lose. Why? It's really hard to move your army into the battlefield quickly and other players can easily defeat you, I don't know if it's just my fault as I'm not a so experienced Iron First player, maybe a more experienced Iron First player would be able to reinforce the main battle fronts better than me in a large map.

Now, about PD in big maps, I can say that it's pretty good. There are other strategies that I would use instead of PD when playing in a big map, perhaps MoS, GW or Blitz. Though, PD is a strategy that you're able to win a big map with (if you're a good player, ofcourse).
Moreover, if you're using PD, after you've created your "empire", you've maken a shitload of infantries and still have money to create other type of units, such as stealth units which are very useful, then you'll probably win. Well, nothing is unbeatable, though.
The good thing in PD is that you can play it in low starting funds games and have the best economy because of your cheap, powerful infantry. After you have a lot of money then you can start using marines, that's what I do most of the times, anyway. Lol.
Also, for people who say that PD can't cross oceans; that's a big lie. PD can easily cross an ocean, you just send big stacks of infantry in transports, protected by cruisers or bombers. Perhaps, invading with marines prior to invading with your infantry would help, this way, you do a suprise attack on the enemy, take his cities and then you can defend the cities you took by putting your infantry stacks in them.

So, in my honest opinion, Iron First is better in little maps and Perfect Defense in bigger maps. Using PD in world scenarios has worked good for me, it depends on which country I pick and what scenario I'm playing on, though.

P.S; Europe world war scenarios with Iron First, too OP. xD

IF cannot reach/move properly. For example, you have Austria, poland and hungary, someone has a big stack near your cap and you must defend. You have your general at austria and a few units too. Now you get raped because you can't reach, unless you make an AT, or merge. Merge is dangerous though, and depends if you have enough units near (poland city fe)

IF is much stronger, PD inf and militia are cheaper and have more range. Depends on your country selection/map and personal preference.


EDIT: iluvIF

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 13:42

Yeah, well +1HP is not 1/7. Like you said on another topic, +1HP would do more damage (1/7) since they resist more.

Nothing you said disproves that hp is a multiplier of around 1/7

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 13:42

5 units with 8HP 4 att, attacks 5 units with 7HP 5 def.

But eventually, group 2 (damage boost isntead of HP) managed to deal more damage (+1,5) but that was a 14 rolls battle. That's why I say HP is almost the same as +1 damage.

This is in accordance with the theory. In this case adding 1/7 to the 2.5 attack gives ~2.9, just less than the 3 of the damage boost, which is in accordance with both your predictions and my calculations, as you show the one with the damage boost would eventually have the advantage, because 2.9 is just less than 3.

HP is normally similar to damage boost because something with 7 max damage overall gets a change almost identical to the addition of a +1 damage boost, if a +1 HP boost was added.

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 04.03.2014 at 14:21

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 13:42

Yeah, well +1HP is not 1/7. Like you said on another topic, +1HP would do more damage (1/7) since they resist more.

Nothing you said disproves that hp is a multiplier of around 1/7

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 13:42

5 units with 8HP 4 att, attacks 5 units with 7HP 5 def.

But eventually, group 2 (damage boost isntead of HP) managed to deal more damage (+1,5) but that was a 14 rolls battle. That's why I say HP is almost the same as +1 damage.

This is in accordance with the theory. In this case adding 1/7 to the 2.5 attack gives ~2.9, just less than the 3 of the damage boost, which is in accordance with both your predictions and my calculations, as you show the one with the damage boost would eventually have the advantage, because 2.9 is just less than 3.

HP is normally similar to damage boost because something with 7 max damage overall gets a change almost identical to the addition of a +1 damage boost, if a +1 HP boost was added.

Hmm, I guess that's right.

PD.

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 13:42

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 04.03.2014 at 12:35

Napisano przez Guest, 04.03.2014 at 11:36

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 04.03.2014 at 11:18

Remember that the effect of HP is reduced with militia, because of their low stats.

IF militia defence = 4*(8/7)^2
= ~5.2

PD militia defence =6

wow uve got a lot of free time but i still dont give a fuck pd ftw!
This is true but what formula is that? :S

I already calculated that the effect of adding 1 hp is roughly equivalent to increasing the attack/defence by 1/7.

base defence = 4
multiply by 8/7 (adding 1/7) to the defence)
it is squared because there is 2 hp being added (squaring multiplies by 1/7 twice, shorter than writing it all out again)

Yeah, well +1HP is not 1/7. Like you said on another topic, +1HP would do more damage (1/7) since they resist more. Probably it doesn't work like that because of rolls being higher than 1.

I'll give an example.

5 units with 8HP 4 att, attacks 5 units with 7HP 5 def.

This time, I'll take damage average instead of max damage.
Average for 4 is 2.5 (1+2+3+4=10/4=2.5)
Average for 5 is 3 (1+2+3+4+5=15/5=3)

Left is attacker, right defender. The number between () is remaining HP.

5(5) 5(4,5)
5(2) 5(2)
4(7) 4(6,5)
4(4) 4(4)
4(1) 4(1,5)
3(6) 3(6)
3(3) 3(3,5)
2(8) 3(1)
2(5) 2(5,5)
2(2) 2(3)
1(7) 2(0,5)
1(4) 1(5)
1(1) 1(2,5)
0(0) 0(0)

Draw = They were the same.

But eventually, group 2 (damage boost isntead of HP) managed to deal more damage (+1,5) but that was a 14 rolls battle. That's why I say HP is almost the same as +1 damage.

Knez, what have you just done :l

$5000 = 100 PD INF
UPKEEP = 500
RANGE = 6

$6000 = 100 IF INF
UPKEEP = 600
RANGE = 5

Conclusion: PD has better expansion for a better cost. Considering most cities have militia/ nothing for players. You don't need units with strong attack, you just need a lot of units to take a lot of cities at once, bonus to hold, fast. You guys talk about attack/ defense without considering other factors. But most of the time, PD wins, because better expansion and is best strategy for defending.

IF has a terrible nerf, no militia walls = extra units spent to make walls, = cost more. Less walls = faster death.

I use IF in the ancient map scenario the militia have 4 range but has a 2 range with IF. Therefore i can wall. Plus the carriage unit can help me with range.

Napisano przez Htin, 04.03.2014 at 17:46

I use IF in the ancient map scenario the militia have 4 range but has a 2 range with IF. Therefore i can wall. Plus the carriage unit can help me with range.

Mang please take away a REALLY unbalanced map made a long time ago with several mistakes, from this topic. Ty

Warning, bad metaphors about to be used. My example is based of one of my favorite gameboy games fire emblem.
IF is like using an axe
PD is like using a spear
GC is like using a sword

All are deadly weapons, but all are good in different types of brawling.

IF is for that brawl where all the neutrals are taken, and the fighting is rather all in. I call this late game style. IF is all about killing their troop counts.

PD is for that brawl where you want to slow the enemy down, and eventually slow them down so much they cant attack or defend your massive stacks. It's much more mobile then IF, but trades with enemies and nuetrals are meh at best. It's role is to take the enemies' cash more than their troop count. This is why people always say PD is the counter to SM.

GC is the rich prissy version of brawling.

It's the the good, the bad, and the ugly of both IF and PD
It expands pretty decent, about as well as pd. but the stack trades about as well as IF with more range.
However, it comes at some SERIOUS costs. You get NO militia buff, AND all your troops cost lots of money. So it's incredibly situational. You have to have money, troop count, and be late game before you can make a serious effect with GC. GC says fuck it to money, and purely compares your troop counts with theirs.

As always, shoot me down with your opinions, i'll be back!
-Freeland

Napisano przez Freeland, 04.03.2014 at 18:13

GC is like using a sword
-Freeland

Looks like the sword lost its sharpness
Seriously, GC isn't so 'competitive', or at least it was until it got nerfed.

Swords outdated.
-freeland

PD is more like spartan shield

Does anyone still use IF anyways?

Napisano przez KYBL, 06.03.2014 at 08:23

Does anyone still use IF anyways?

Some, including me. IF defends better than PD, attacks better than PD, but is slower and slightly more expensive.

Napisano przez KYBL, 06.03.2014 at 08:23

Does anyone still use IF anyways?

Me. IF UK strong in 3v3s.