Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: boxboy28 on November 08, 2002, 01:11:39 PM

Title: as doctor yo STATES..........
Post by: boxboy28 on November 08, 2002, 01:11:39 PM
The ROOKS ARE MORE EFFICENT..........well i as a rook like to believe this is true, but not all rooks. I tend to think (if there is a problem) like this it lies with in the fact that newbies jopin a team because of th numbers they have....and no other reason........

just my thoughts flame away........



well come AK's to the ROOKS AND THE diddly the politics side of life..........

BOX
;)
Title: as doctor yo STATES..........
Post by: Swager on November 08, 2002, 07:02:51 PM
That's the kinda language I like to see when I'm reading this BBS!

Totally unecessary, but the maturity involved is self explanitory!
Title: as doctor yo STATES..........
Post by: LePaul on November 08, 2002, 08:03:41 PM
Agreed


Clearly, school is out....
Title: Re: as doctor yo STATES..........
Post by: Dead Man Flying on November 08, 2002, 08:11:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by boxboy28
The ROOKS ARE MORE EFFICENT


And as I pointed out, this "efficiency" is a product of base defense and proximity to things such as ack and suicide divebombers.  

Don't kid yourself.

-- Todd/Leviathn
Title: as doctor yo STATES..........
Post by: DoctorYO on November 09, 2002, 07:04:55 AM
I would like to rebuttal...


First off i agree 100% that attacking is much harder than defending.. warfare for the last 2000 years has proven this... but note these figures:


Bish Deaths 47652 divided by 2 (representing a 2 front war) = 23826 vs Knits or Rooks

Now lets use the same factor for Rooks

Rook Deaths 28776 divided by 2 = 14388

Now check this out....

23826 divided by 14388 =  1.66

So what your saying is attacking allows for 1.66 factor of death...



Now under traditional warfare with exception to the routes that happened back in ancient warfare  (Alexander vs Darius comes to mind; and new technology  WW1 Invention of the machine gun combined with trench warfare Etc.....)

If we all are using similiar technology (war planes) this factor of 1.66 is obserd.

Note this is very generous stating that they is no gang banging of the rook armies by knits and Bish.... "which we all know is not true just check the resets" at a miminum I feel a +10% modifer of forces on the Rook Front but we dont even need to factor that becuase its moot.... without that factor its still 1.66...(holy fraking expletive)

So what people are saying is that the rooks dont attack at a factor of 1.66...

we all know that is a very high number of non attack.  Thats Everest  huge....

And even if its +/- .30 for (Attack strength) which is alot for error even with that our K/D is still higher...

I could put alot of research into it but this is just some quick figures.  

To me its clear as bell who the best are, at least if we were counting attrition....

To the untrained or those who dont know their history or the history of warfare then these numbers may sound skewed...

DoctorYo