The mathematics of starting a FS with a chem rush vs hitting, and then readying up with missiles?

I've had 3 or 4 old FFA types (2 of which I greatly respect their opinions on warring) tell me that this is the superior way to FS in FFA. I've tried to wrap my head around the math of how this could work (this is not to say I'm great at math, but I am pretty stubborn), but just can't seem to come up with a way it's mathematically more beneficial when you take into account that those missiles hits @ full readiness are essentially lost attacks that could have been made otherwise.

Can someone help me out here, or is this maybe another old game myth?

I have always found missles effective as a second wave for rebuilding readiness

It's about hitting before they buy SDI as opposed to hitting before they buy turrets/troops.

The quicker you get kills, the quicker you can move on.

Ok, that makes a bit of sense - but if kills are happening every 30 seconds or so, what are you actually gaining from wasting those attacking hits? Just 2 tabs open = running through a country in about 15 seconds if you know what you're doing, with maybe 5 seconds to switch between countries (url hack ftw! Very nice touch on that one development team :-)).

depends on how many Cms u have imo.
if u can GS and CM for readiness and end up with 0 CMs, that's ideal
but if u stil have like 30, then u die, or they destroy them. that's 30 wasted CMs. there is nothing worse then dieing with Cms not fired.

I was taught to missile first to kill faster... But I won't tell you it's the better way or not... I never had the impression that it was a bug deal either way.

If you FS and still end up with 30 chems, you've either done something horribly wrong, incredibly right, or are just the luckiest schmuck on the face of the planet. :-P

A tyr, for example, can run through appx 70-75 readiness turns if you start hitting with full turns (126 - I'll ignore bonus turns for now as they're going away shortly anyways). A Dict, I believe, runs about 80-85 readiness turns on about 150 turns (different readiness cycles, etc), which means approximately 70 turns to fire missiles in a FS. That means 70-75 turns where you are able to send missiles - which in most FS'es I've seen is enough to send all your chems, and start in on nukes as well. I can't honestly say I've ever seen anyone stack up more than 75 chems in a country without some serious preparation/missile dumping before hand to do it.

At least that's how I'm trying to wrap my head around the math - lemme know if I'm wrong on something. I do agree on the speed thing....I'm just much bigger on hitting efficiency/effectiveness than speed in most cases.

IMO you FS with standard breaks, for 2/3 of your turns unles Tyrs, then you Chem targets for readiness. A pure Chem FS is a stupid idea, as war is all about readiness, and you are wasting 3% every chem fired with 100% as a tyr, 6% for any other gov.

p

The only situation I would said Mass Chem Rushes are valid, is when the other side will react instantly and effectively enough to kill most of your countries before you get another chance. This rarely happens when you FS someone however.

Personally when running a FS on any server, I set a normal target, then we run a chem rush 2nd, normal target, then chem rush, and do this continually.

Then we save chems for stonewallers :P

And I'm guessing the thought (inefficient might I add) is omg look at all the kills that go up fast.

or the whole omg they are going to buy SDI. only problem with that thought is the teching market isn't that deep and I see people already bought all the SDI at 9999 so I'm guessing this isn't valid unless there is a clan with techers that are praying for wars.

I prefer to have targets to break get them down and every time I drop below like 70% readiness launch off like 5 missiles and continue breaking. a bit slower yes but more efficient.

what BJ said

I can definitely see the speed and wow factor points. Not sure if I would sacrifice the less efficient turns for the quick kills though.

OK - follow up (cuz I am too lazy to look up formulas)....

Other than the fact that you level buildings vs just killing pop, and potentially bushels, is BR any more effective for killing than GS? I've had people try and tell me both are more effective, although I tend to lean towards GS just because jets don't provide any defense.

jets kill faster

ie 10 civis per hit at the end

Yes, but GS gives larger returns on the front end (breaking) of the KR - so in theory it should even out

jets also give the advantage, where if the person gets on and stonewalls

you've destroyed buildings instead of food

Chems first would make sense if the clan getting FSed had a lot of really big countries with low SDI and you couldn't break them normally and were fairly sure they would get online quick enough to prevent you from using chems 2nd. I cant remember a time when I have been involved in a FS where that was the case tho.

Well, yeah, the whole building destruction thing is a given - if you can, you should. I'm just wondering about the fundamental mathematics of killing civs.

They both balance out, personally prefer GS cause of the defence factor

NOW3P - It all depends on your enemy. If you have the opportunity to open with a FS targetted at the enemys top countries. Which are running low SDI. DO IT! Don't hesitate. As soon as they are aware they are being targetted, they will buy up SDI.


The overall goal in most FS's is to destroy as much NW and Stock of the enemys as possible. If CM's are the easiest means to gain that edge. Do it. If your enemy has alot of SDI, go with BR/GS's.


There is no clear advantage going 1 way or the other. It all depends on your enemy target as to which is the best route to go.


I personally prefer using the Missles for my readiness. But if we were going to war and making a FS and we saw an opportunity to take out 20-30 of an enemys top countrys with CMs, we would open the war with that tactic.

i take it on the balance of the war.....

If you have the numbers on ur side then the readiness thing is less important as u can get it back via ops etc....

If its a close war numbers wise and every hit is important you have to take more time and use ur turns more wisely....

If they stonewall, and lets face it in the old FFA stonewalling was uncommon, then rushing is a good way to deal with the problem...

As someone else said you dont want to lose chems in a counter, so always best to use them...

BR is far superior.

For 1 sole reason... People will not slow wall you. With GS attacks Ill string em for 400 before I consider buying up. With BR Ill buy up right away.

Mathematic wise vs offline targets, BR has a slight advantage.

You guys are missing the point. I understand the TACTICAL aspect of Chems vs Hitting w/ missiles only for readiness, and GS vs BR.....I'm looking for the MATHEMATICAL BASIS of how they work (i.e. civ returns on early GS vs early BR).

Starting a thread to determine the tactical aspect of any of the above would be a bit of a waste, as a lot of it is completely subjective and open to personal preference, style, and situation.