DUST Search - PC Reinforcement Increments Question

gbghg wrote:

5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:

Smaller corps will never be able to win territory off larger corps and ill demonstrate why.

Corp A has three territories, Corp B have 10 territories.

Corp A launches an attack from A1, is good and beats Corp B in one match over territory B1.

Corp B launches attacks on A1-A3 from B2-B4.

Corp A has no territory to launch an attack on B1 from to finish the job, faces fighting to protect a depleted A1 and what's more has potentially 2 more territory at risk. They now have to fight 3 more battles just for survival and without even winning a battle the larger corp is already recovering and replenishing.

Even if corp B can't be bothered to finish them off, corp B now know their place. In conquest it doesn't matter how good you are or how much you win, a corp with more territory will always be able to beat you.

Oh and yes I know other corps could also launch attacks at the same time but based on a couple of models I ran with this example it would be possible for a corp with 10 territories to hold off 4 corps with 3 territories each by using this method and alternating between targets merely to break the sieges. Then if any of the smaller corps stopped attacking even for a day it would be possible through weight of numbers to take out all of the smaller corps one by one over a period of just over a week through weight of production vs consumption.

You taking into account biomass gathered at the end of a battle, or clone loss due to travel distance, in these scenario's? also are these based on the original figures, or the ones CCP FoxFour has been posting since then?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
5Y5T3M 3RR0R The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 5	Posted - 2013.03.30 22:21:00 - [1] - Quote Smaller corps will never be able to win territory off larger corps and ill demonstrate why. Corp A has three territories, Corp B have 10 territories. Corp A launches an attack from A1, is good and beats Corp B in one match over territory B1. Corp B launches attacks on A1-A3 from B2-B4. Corp A has no territory to launch an attack on B1 from to finish the job, faces fighting to protect a depleted A1 and what's more has potentially 2 more territory at risk. They now have to fight 3 more battles just for survival and without even winning a battle the larger corp is already recovering and replenishing. Even if corp B can't be bothered to finish them off, corp B now know their place. In conquest it doesn't matter how good you are or how much you win, a corp with more territory will always be able to beat you. Oh and yes I know other corps could also launch attacks at the same time but based on a couple of models I ran with this example it would be possible for a corp with 10 territories to hold off 4 corps with 3 territories each by using this method and alternating between targets merely to break the sieges. Then if any of the smaller corps stopped attacking even for a day it would be possible through weight of numbers to take out all of the smaller corps one by one over a period of just over a week through weight of production vs consumption.
5Y5T3M 3RR0R The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 5	Posted - 2013.03.30 23:37:00 - [2] - Quote gbghg wrote: 5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote: Smaller corps will never be able to win territory off larger corps and ill demonstrate why. Corp A has three territories, Corp B have 10 territories. Corp A launches an attack from A1, is good and beats Corp B in one match over territory B1. Corp B launches attacks on A1-A3 from B2-B4. Corp A has no territory to launch an attack on B1 from to finish the job, faces fighting to protect a depleted A1 and what's more has potentially 2 more territory at risk. They now have to fight 3 more battles just for survival and without even winning a battle the larger corp is already recovering and replenishing. Even if corp B can't be bothered to finish them off, corp B now know their place. In conquest it doesn't matter how good you are or how much you win, a corp with more territory will always be able to beat you. Oh and yes I know other corps could also launch attacks at the same time but based on a couple of models I ran with this example it would be possible for a corp with 10 territories to hold off 4 corps with 3 territories each by using this method and alternating between targets merely to break the sieges. Then if any of the smaller corps stopped attacking even for a day it would be possible through weight of numbers to take out all of the smaller corps one by one over a period of just over a week through weight of production vs consumption. You taking into account biomass gathered at the end of a battle, or clone loss due to travel distance, in these scenario's? also are these based on the original figures, or the ones CCP FoxFour has been posting since then? To be honest those figures become only semi relevant and ill give you the maths behind this conclusion. In the new system each zone generates 75 so ten generate a minimum of 750 but to be generous we will say 1/3 are boosted and produce 3x25 for a total of 825 a day. Now lets say they are being attacked by 2 corps on any particular day because of the defensive doctrine above. Now if they lost both battles it would cost the corp 75+150 per a zone they lose on. So if they lost on both it would cost 450 but it is unlikely they would consistently lose both but even so it would work out to be 825-450=375 net additional clones on top of their stockpile of 3000 to 3450 clones. Now considering profiling it is unlikely they are going to loose every battle so they would more likely have more than 375 additional clones to launch in attacks and so could afford to lose an additional 2 conflicts. So out of a total of 8 conflicts they would only need to win half to be up, and only a third if they won either of the defending fights. On the part of the smaller corps they could on average generate 225 so they can only really afford to launch 1 attack every turn or in the case of the doctrine above launch 1 attack every second turn and recover from 1 defeat every turn second turn, they will however be fighting 4 conflicts every 2 turns so its not sustainable for them. Now I know I'm not counting losses during winning games in this situation but really this will just accelerate the losses on both side which is worse for the smaller corp. Essentially the larger economy has more resources and therefore greater resilience and therefore can more often outlast its opponents. Now if I was one of the smaller corps I would eventually notice this wasn't working and that up to three other small corps are depleting themselves trying to break into this territory and I would instead attack one of them while they are weakened and try and make some ground. Suddenly the only thing restraining the large corp from expanding collapses and that small corp grows along with the large one, while the others are decimated. After which you have a single mid sized corp and a large corp able to dominate the smaller corp. It's economic theory 101 or in gambling terms the bigger corp is the house and the house and in the end the house always wins...
5Y5T3M 3RR0R The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 5	Posted - 2013.03.31 00:06:00 - [3] - Quote Oh ****.... If you expand this model what will quickly happen is the largest corps will quickly expand until they bump up against another large corp and then change direction to consume other small corps through sheer weight of numbers until eventually only the largest corps remain. Based on a scenario of 250 territories and a daily conflict cycle this could happen within months of release. Further more no one will be able to break in because even if you win a territory from a large corp they can immediately and perpetually siege the territory until you can no longer sustain your defences...