Editing Strategy Treatise
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== General Tips == | == General Tips == | ||
− | * '''Greed is good.''' | + | * '''Greed is good.''' Always try to get more metal than you currently have (preferably by claiming mexes), and always try to spend your metal as fast as you can. This cannot be overstated: ''maximize your metal throughput.'' Make more units, claim more ground, reclaim and mex more, repeat. |
− | * '''Team games are not a few 1v1s strung together.''' | + | * '''Team games are not a few 1v1s strung together.''' You have teammates who can help you in your engagements, and whom you can help in theirs. This means you ''don't'' have to attack the guy directly in front of you; it's often more productive to attack the one in front of the ally ''next to you''. This increases your strength as per the Square Law, and can allow for combined arms tactics involving multiple unit types even if either you or your ally have been making only one or two unit types yourselves. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
== Lanchester's Square Law == | == Lanchester's Square Law == | ||
Line 18: | Line 14: | ||
According to the square law, the relative strength of two forces is given by the ratio of the ''squares'' of their relative numbers. Thus, while two Stumpies are four times as strong as one, four Stumpies are sixteen times as strong as one. Note that the Square Law does not apply to multiple weak units against a single strong unit: for a lone tank A to be able to compete with four opposing B-tanks, tank A needs to be qualitatively four times better (four times damage, four times HP) than an individual tank B. | According to the square law, the relative strength of two forces is given by the ratio of the ''squares'' of their relative numbers. Thus, while two Stumpies are four times as strong as one, four Stumpies are sixteen times as strong as one. Note that the Square Law does not apply to multiple weak units against a single strong unit: for a lone tank A to be able to compete with four opposing B-tanks, tank A needs to be qualitatively four times better (four times damage, four times HP) than an individual tank B. | ||
− | The Square Law is why ten | + | The Square Law is why ten Reapers take a lot less than 50% losses when squaring off against five Reapers. |
=== Anti-Square Laws === | === Anti-Square Laws === | ||
Line 36: | Line 32: | ||
''Why you should be attacking'' | ''Why you should be attacking'' | ||
− | This is more a philosophy of how you should be playing, but if you want to be better at the game, one of the key principles is just to be aggressive. | + | This is more a philosophy of how you should be playing, but if you want to be better at the game, one of the key principles is just to be aggressive. Its a war game, so fight! Put simply, you cannot win by defending. The only way you'll ever win by defending is boring the enemy to death. You'll have to attack eventually, so why not attack now instead of later? Sure, later you'll have more units and economy, but so will he. |
− | + | But, attacking is also a sound economic decision. Metal is the most important resource. The only way to get metal is to expand and take Metal Extractors, or to fight the enemy and reclaim their wrecks. Thus, metal is territorial- you must always be trying to gain territory from the enemy to get more metal. This means aggression. | |
− | If you build a lot of energy structures to overdrive your mexes it gives you no advantage - the enemy can do the same thing, and will do so faster if he is more aggressive about taking mexes. | + | If you build a lot of energy structures to overdrive your mexes it gives you no advantage- the enemy can do the same thing, and will do so faster if he is more aggressive about taking mexes. |
Take the situation of a 4v4. On one team, 3 players fight, one builds economic structures. On the other, all 4 fight. | Take the situation of a 4v4. On one team, 3 players fight, one builds economic structures. On the other, all 4 fight. | ||
− | Given equal skill, the 4 fighting players will win - they will take more territory, more metal spots, and when they destroy their enemies they will get to reclaim all the wrecks (both from their own dead units, and the | + | Given equal skill, the 4 fighting players will win- they will take more territory, more metal spots, and when they destroy their enemies they will get to reclaim all the wrecks (both from their own dead units, and the enemies). All it takes is 1 commander wreck and they have a huge economic lead- probably much more than the player who goes pure economy, while having wiped out all his allies. |
− | What if all players from team 1 | + | What if all players from team 1 porc defences, and on team 2 they attack all out? |
− | Even assuming team 1 manage to take at least half the map (which, given a less offensive approach, is unlikely) an intelligent team 2 will see the amount of defenses they have, and know that this means less offensive units. Having the advantage in offensive units mean they need not fear attack from the enemy - they have more mobiles and can thus always beat him even with only token static defense. Team 2 can spend the rest on economy consolidation, much more than the players who are devoting their resources to defenses. | + | Even assuming team 1 manage to take at least half the map (which, given a less offensive approach, is unlikely) an intelligent team 2 will see the amount of defenses they have, and know that this means less offensive units. Having the advantage in offensive units mean they need not fear attack from the enemy- they have more mobiles and can thus always beat him even with only token static defense. Team 2 can spend the rest on economy consolidation, much more than the players who are devoting their resources to defenses. |
+ | |||
+ | Even though static defences are, on average, 2.5x as cost-effective as mobile units they must be spread thin over a larger area. This means an attacker can concentrate his forces on a single point in the defensive line (perhaps softening it with an artillery barrage), taking on only a fraction of the enemies turrets while the rest of the defensive structures sit idle and useless. | ||
+ | |||
+ | So attack. It's the only way to win. | ||
== Defending vs Attacking == | == Defending vs Attacking == | ||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
— '''Sun Tzu''' | — '''Sun Tzu''' | ||
− | Defense structures in | + | Defense structures in ZK are generally a match for twice their cost in mobiles. This, along with the simplicity of managing them, makes it tempting for players (not all of whom are new) to use them a lot (not just in turtling without expansion, but also during confrontations after boundary lines have been drawn). |
It goes without saying that this is a Very Bad Idea™ indeed. | It goes without saying that this is a Very Bad Idea™ indeed. | ||
− | Mobile units being, well, mobile, means that they can gather in a single area (namely, where the action is happening), while statics, being rooted to one spot, must be spread evenly across the defensive perimeter. This means that attackers can easily achieve local net superiority over a static-reliant defense, resulting in a line of useless | + | Mobile units being, well, mobile, means that they can gather in a single area (namely, where the action is happening), while statics, being rooted to one spot, must be spread evenly across the defensive perimeter. This means that attackers can easily achieve local net superiority over a static-reliant defense, resulting in a line of useless d-fenz and a breach in the line - and that's before we discuss the effects of artillery against statics. In contrast, mobiles can respond to an attack at any point, relying on the few local statics to give them the small but crucial net advantage over the enemy. |
− | Therefore, a better player will concentrate defense only at key points and sprinkle it over the rest of | + | Therefore, a better player will concentrate defense only at key points and sprinkle it over the rest of his/her perimeter, relying primarily on mobiles for defense. But is there an even more effective way? |
''Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us.'' | ''Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us.'' | ||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
Yes, the best way to resolve the problem of static vs mobile defense is to leave the question to your opponent. By attacking, you force the enemy into a defensive posture, forcing them to spend more on defense while you have to spend less. With more resources for mobiles, you can contest mex spots and wrecks more effectively, resulting in an even greater resource advantage. Additionally, the psychological pressure will make your opponent more prone to making mistakes, which you can exploit effectively to create a similarly vicious cycle. | Yes, the best way to resolve the problem of static vs mobile defense is to leave the question to your opponent. By attacking, you force the enemy into a defensive posture, forcing them to spend more on defense while you have to spend less. With more resources for mobiles, you can contest mex spots and wrecks more effectively, resulting in an even greater resource advantage. Additionally, the psychological pressure will make your opponent more prone to making mistakes, which you can exploit effectively to create a similarly vicious cycle. | ||
− | + | ''So attack. It's the only way to win.'' | |
− | + | — '''Saktoth''' | |
− | So | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
== Maneuvers == | == Maneuvers == | ||
Line 98: | Line 81: | ||
=== The Shield and the Rapier === | === The Shield and the Rapier === | ||
When a head-on assault on a defense line is called for, one trick to increasing your firepower is to mix some raiders with assault units. The assault units close in first to draw fire from enemy defenses, then the raiders move in for the kill with their superior DPS. In addition to increasing the odds of a successful breakthrough, this also makes a raider force immediately available to attack the enemy's logistics once the enemy's defense line has been penetrated. | When a head-on assault on a defense line is called for, one trick to increasing your firepower is to mix some raiders with assault units. The assault units close in first to draw fire from enemy defenses, then the raiders move in for the kill with their superior DPS. In addition to increasing the odds of a successful breakthrough, this also makes a raider force immediately available to attack the enemy's logistics once the enemy's defense line has been penetrated. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
== Aphorisms == | == Aphorisms == | ||
Line 108: | Line 88: | ||
* When you lose sight of your strategic goal, a thousand tactical victories shall amount to nothing. | * When you lose sight of your strategic goal, a thousand tactical victories shall amount to nothing. | ||
* He who plays to achieve victory will accomplish it; he who plays to avoid defeat merely prolongs it. | * He who plays to achieve victory will accomplish it; he who plays to avoid defeat merely prolongs it. | ||
− | |||
− | + | ---- | |
− | [[ | + | |
+ | [[Manual|Back to Manual]] |