Moderator: Tournament Directors
I also answered this in PM, but I'll add a table here to note the niceness of lots of armies in defense.Haggis_McMutton wrote:I've got a few questions.
If i choose to defend a terit that has only one army on it, the attacker has to win 2 out of three games to take my terit?
And if i choose to defend from a terit with 2 or 3 armies on it, the attacker also has to win two out of three games?
So basically larger stacks of armies are only useful for attacking purposes?
Thanks
Thanks for explaining.TaCktiX wrote:I also answered this in PM, but I'll add a table here to note the niceness of lots of armies in defense.Haggis_McMutton wrote:I've got a few questions.
If i choose to defend a terit that has only one army on it, the attacker has to win 2 out of three games to take my terit?
And if i choose to defend from a terit with 2 or 3 armies on it, the attacker also has to win two out of three games?
So basically larger stacks of armies are only useful for attacking purposes?
Thanks
Armies in Defense -- Games Played -- Games Attacker must win to take over
1 -- 1 -- 1
2 -- 3 -- 2
3 -- 5 -- 3
4 -- 7 -- 4
And so on. Additional attacking armies merely give the attacker a chance to redo matches he lost in the original series, and if the defender did well enough in the initial series, he's lost all those extra armies.
Thought it applied in general rather than in the scenario you had specified(everyone having 2 armies). But it makes a lot more sense this way.Defend: Any player attacking the territory must win a best-of-3 series (2 victories) to conquer the territory.