Perfect Defense vs. Imperialist

I know that this subject has been broached lots of times, but I just want to add my 2 cents with some number-crunching. Imperialist and Perfect Defense are both viewed as powerful all-rounder strategies, and are very popular in competitive play. I will look at how Imp (Imperialist) and PD (Perfect Defense) match up in different areas.

NOTE: I will be ignoring any unit upgrades here (f.e. Faster Naval Stealth), but I will include unit unlocking upgrades here (those that I have unlocked so far, so I can't analyze some units like Helicopters and Stealth).

GROUND OFFENSE:

On the offensive spectrum, Imp will usually use tanks. As for PD, both infantry and tanks work (infantry being cheaper and make defense easier, tanks being more expensive but better at offense).

Imp tanks:
Cost 90
Attack 7
Defense 4
Crit. Chance 5
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 9
Range 7
Collateral 2

PD tanks:
Cost 120
Attack 7
Defense 4
Crit. Chance 3
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 12
Range 7
Collateral 2

Evidently, Imp tanks are strictly better (better or equal to in all categories) than PD tanks.

PD infantry:
Cost 60
Attack 4
Defense 7
Crit. Chance 5
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 6
Range 5
Collateral 0

With PD infantry, things start to get interesting. On one hand, Imp tanks have more attack and more range, both very important categories for offense. However, PD infantry is cheaper, has greater defense, and has less collateral. Looking at efficiency: For 180 money, you can buy 3 PD infantry or 2 Imp tanks. Here, the PD infantry clearly takes the cake with more HP, much more defense, and only slightly worse (2 less) offense. And it's still cheaper on cost per turn!

Conclusion on ground offense:

PD infantry are cheaper and more cost-efficient than Imp tanks. However, Imp tanks have a higher attack and a longer range. Verdict: Imp tanks are better for offense unless you're going to be very thrifty (like in a 5K).

GROUND DEFENSE:

On the defensive side there are two main troops to consider: Infantry and Militia.

Imp infantry:
Cost 40
Attack 3
Defense 6
Crit. Chance 5
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 4
Range 6
Collateral 0

PD infantry:
Cost 60
Attack 4
Defense 7
Crit. Chance 5
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 6
Range 5
Collateral 0

Here, Imp infantry is weaker than PD infantry, but cheaper and more mobile. Also, Imp infantry is by far more cost-efficient than PD infantry, as for 120 you can buy 2 PD infantry or 3 Imp infantry.

Imp militia:
Cost 10
Attack 2
Defense 4
Crit. Chance 0
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 1
Range 2
Collateral 0

PD militia:
Cost 20
Attack 3
Defense 5
Crit. Chance 2
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 2
Range 3
Collateral 0

The situation here is almost parallel to the infantry comparison; Imp militia is cheaper but weaker, and more cost-efficient than PD militia. However, PD militia has a longer range and higher crit chance. IMO, PD militia is better than Imp militia because you will rarely be producing militia in your cities and instead picking them up on your conquests.

Conclusion on ground defense:

Imp is excellent if you're going thrifty as you can easily spam militia or infantry. But if you have more money, PD is definitely stronger, especially since the increased militia range can give you a GW-esque snowball effect, or simply give you extra defensive walls without wasting infantry.

OTHER:

I'm lumping together air, sea, and transportation into one group because the situation is almost the same for all of them: Imp is cheaper than PD, and strictly better for the following units:

• Bombers
  
• Destroyers
  
• Transports
  
• Air Transports
  

For Marines and Submarines, Imp is 30 cheaper in cost and has 3 less cost per turn, but PD has one more attack. The verdict? It depends. In lots of games where you'll need to spend lots of money on getting significant amounts of marines and submarines, Imperialist is better. But if you have lots of money to burn, you should be better with PD, since the extra attack is more valuable.

CONCLUSION:

After looking through these categories, Imperialist and Perfect Defense are hopefully clearer. My final verdict?

Advantages of Imperialist:

• more mobile
  
• more versatile
  
• usually cheaper
  
• better offense
  

Advantages of Perfect Defense:

• better defense
  
• harder to punch through
  
• very mobile defensive units
  

All in all, it boils down to two questions: Which better suits your playstyle, and which better suits your situation?
Imperialist is good if you want to be cheap and versatile, able to adapt to many situations and pour out large stacks of almost any unit in the game. Perfect Defense is good if you want to be very hard to break, able of stopping assaults with powerful infantry, militia, and defensive walls while slowly pushing forward until you can overwhelm your enemy.

Neither one is always better, and neither one is always worse. So choose yourself!

I hope I helped those of you who read this, even if it was just a little bit.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if you disagree.

Greenflame

TL;DR Read the conclusion.

GW>PD>IMP end.

Skrivet av Guest, 17.01.2017 at 12:50

GW>PD>IMP end.

depends...if you are playing scenrios imp is never wrong and pd is decent while gw is usless 80% of the time
on competative matheces it is the same as you said

Good analysis, imp is probably the most cost effective strategy but lacks reinforcements efficiency which can be a problem in some cases

IMO, PD militia is better than Imp militia because you will rarely be producing militia in your cities and instead picking them up on your conquests.

Actually I make milita in my cities quite a bit, I use a mix of infantry and militia to defend for an optimum use of cash. I also use militia to capture neutrals and stuff (maybe mixed with infantry, maybe not), to boost rolls and unit count while rushing, etc.

Skrivet av Darth., 17.01.2017 at 20:44

IMO, PD militia is better than Imp militia because you will rarely be producing militia in your cities and instead picking them up on your conquests.

Actually I make milita in my cities quite a bit, I use a mix of infantry and militia to defend for an optimum use of cash. I also use militia to capture neutrals and stuff (maybe mixed with infantry, maybe not), to boost rolls and unit count while rushing, etc.

Imperialist militia is definitely better if you're low on money, but I feel that PD militia is helped a good deal by the slightly better att / def stats and especially because of the increased range.

Skrivet av Greenflame, 17.01.2017 at 11:52

-

Nice analysis!

The comparison is however, pretty short in some aspects. Before making my additions let me include what the ideal niche for each strategy is:

Citera:

Imperialist: High reinforcements, low-fund strategy
Perfect Defense: Medium reinforcements, medium-fund strategy

Most of the strategies are compared based in both Reinforcements and Cost, as theses are the predominant factors in the game. My correction are focused on it, too, so I'll skip the other factors.

Here are my additions in the offensive spectrum:

Skrivet av Greenflame, 17.01.2017 at 11:52

PD infantry are cheaper and more cost-efficient than Imp tanks. However, Imp tanks have a higher attack and a longer range. Verdict: Imp tanks are better for offense unless you're going to be very thrifty (like in a 5K).

As imperialist's niche is to abuse cost-efficiently, you will actually find IMP players often spamming IMP Infantries, not IMP Tanks. The word "thrifty" is tricky there, as imp infantries are evidently more efficient than PD infantries for attack.

The situation is pretty misleading to mark a verdict, too:

- From the PD player perspective, you're using infantries over tanks because you don't have enough money and you do have enough reinforcements.

- From the IMP player perspective, you're using tanks over infantries because you have enough money but not enough reinforcements.

- Evidently if the IMP player acquires more reinforcements or lose some income, he might start to think more about IMP infantries over IMP Tanks.

- Evidently if the PD player acquires more income or lose reinforcements, he might start to think more about PD Tanks over PD Infantries.

This is all in the offensive spectrum, assuming you need theses units for attack only. Must also remind that, in reality, you gotta have a mixed situation and the best alternative will be, most of the times, a mix of both units for both strategies.

The example can go to the extremes, such as a pretty low income or pretty high reinforcements. Then you gotta consider to use militias or destroyers accordingly. I excluded such situation to keep the analysis on the two units that you used, which are Tanks and Infantries.

Skrivet av Greenflame, 17.01.2017 at 11:52

Imp is excellent if you're going thrifty as you can easily spam militia or infantry. But if you have more money, PD is definitely stronger, especially since the increased militia range can give you a GW-esque snowball effect, or simply give you extra defensive walls without wasting infantry.

As Chess said, IMP militias get +1 defense in cities so they actually match PD's militias defense. Nonetheless your conclusion is good enough for theses two particular units. Summarizing:

Either strategy (Low/High reinf , Low income) -> Militias
Either strategy (Low reinf, High income) -> Infantries

Rest of the situations usually flavor a mix of militias and infantries for either strategy. As the variance is pretty high, I'd rather not generalize the usage of one particular unit on (high reinf, high income) or "middle" reinf/income situations.

Skrivet av Greenflame, 17.01.2017 at 11:52

I know that this subject has been broached lots of times, but I just want to add my 2 cents with some number-crunching. Imperialist and Perfect Defense are both viewed as powerful all-rounder strategies, and are very popular in competitive play. I will look at how Imp (Imperialist) and PD (Perfect Defense) match up in different areas.

NOTE: I will be ignoring any unit upgrades here (f.e. Faster Naval Stealth), but I will include unit unlocking upgrades here (those that I have unlocked so far, so I can't analyze some units like Helicopters and Stealth).

GROUND OFFENSE:

On the offensive spectrum, Imp will usually use tanks. As for PD, both infantry and tanks work (infantry being cheaper and make defense easier, tanks being more expensive but better at offense).

Imp tanks:
Cost 90
Attack 7
Defense 4
Crit. Chance 5
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 9
Range 7
Collateral 2

PD tanks:
Cost 120
Attack 7
Defense 4
Crit. Chance 3
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 12
Range 7
Collateral 2

Evidently, Imp tanks are strictly better (better or equal to in all categories) than PD tanks.

PD infantry:
Cost 60
Attack 4
Defense 7
Crit. Chance 5
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 6
Range 5
Collateral 0

With PD infantry, things start to get interesting. On one hand, Imp tanks have more attack and more range, both very important categories for offense. However, PD infantry is cheaper, has greater defense, and has less collateral. Looking at efficiency: For 180 money, you can buy 3 PD infantry or 2 Imp tanks. Here, the PD infantry clearly takes the cake with more HP, much more defense, and only slightly worse (2 less) offense. And it's still cheaper on cost per turn!

Conclusion on ground offense:

PD infantry are cheaper and more cost-efficient than Imp tanks. However, Imp tanks have a higher attack and a longer range. Verdict: Imp tanks are better for offense unless you're going to be very thrifty (like in a 5K).

GROUND DEFENSE:

On the defensive side there are two main troops to consider: Infantry and Militia.

Imp infantry:
Cost 40
Attack 3
Defense 6
Crit. Chance 5
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 4
Range 6
Collateral 0

PD infantry:
Cost 60
Attack 4
Defense 7
Crit. Chance 5
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 6
Range 5
Collateral 0

Here, Imp infantry is weaker than PD infantry, but cheaper and more mobile. Also, Imp infantry is by far more cost-efficient than PD infantry, as for 120 you can buy 2 PD infantry or 3 Imp infantry.

Imp militia:
Cost 10
Attack 2
Defense 4
Crit. Chance 0
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 1
Range 2
Collateral 0

PD militia:
Cost 20
Attack 3
Defense 5
Crit. Chance 2
Hit Points 7
Cost per turn 2
Range 3
Collateral 0

The situation here is almost parallel to the infantry comparison; Imp militia is cheaper but weaker, and more cost-efficient than PD militia. However, PD militia has a longer range and higher crit chance. IMO, PD militia is better than Imp militia because you will rarely be producing militia in your cities and instead picking them up on your conquests.

Conclusion on ground defense:

Imp is excellent if you're going thrifty as you can easily spam militia or infantry. But if you have more money, PD is definitely stronger, especially since the increased militia range can give you a GW-esque snowball effect, or simply give you extra defensive walls without wasting infantry.

OTHER:

I'm lumping together air, sea, and transportation into one group because the situation is almost the same for all of them: Imp is cheaper than PD, and strictly better for the following units:

• Bombers
  
• Destroyers
  
• Transports
  
• Air Transports
  

For Marines and Submarines, Imp is 30 cheaper in cost and has 3 less cost per turn, but PD has one more attack. The verdict? It depends. In lots of games where you'll need to spend lots of money on getting significant amounts of marines and submarines, Imperialist is better. But if you have lots of money to burn, you should be better with PD, since the extra attack is more valuable.

CONCLUSION:

After looking through these categories, Imperialist and Perfect Defense are hopefully clearer. My final verdict?

Advantages of Imperialist:

• more mobile
  
• more versatile
  
• usually cheaper
  
• better offense
  

Advantages of Perfect Defense:

• better defense
  
• harder to punch through
  
• very mobile defensive units
  

All in all, it boils down to two questions: Which better suits your playstyle, and which better suits your situation?
Imperialist is good if you want to be cheap and versatile, able to adapt to many situations and pour out large stacks of almost any unit in the game. Perfect Defense is good if you want to be very hard to break, able of stopping assaults with powerful infantry, militia, and defensive walls while slowly pushing forward until you can overwhelm your enemy.

Neither one is always better, and neither one is always worse. So choose yourself!

I hope I helped those of you who read this, even if it was just a little bit.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if you disagree.

Greenflame

TL;DR Read the conclusion.

I've seen imp europe beat sm asia twice in a eurasia game.
From personal experience, with only full europe you can churn out 150 infantry per reinforcement turn. Once i had middle east, I could use their massive production to churn out marines and subs to attack him from behind to increase pressure.

Imp = dumb
PD = cool

Skrivet av VOLDERMORT, 24.01.2017 at 21:41

Imp = dumb
PD = cool

I've seen imp europe defeat sm asia twice.

Skrivet av VOLDERMORT, 24.01.2017 at 21:41

Imp = dumb
PD = cool

Lol dude. Imp can be OP. Especially Imp East Asia. Chinese and Indian Production with an economy that can actually support it? Your unit stacks will be massive, and you can drown Europe in numbers by attacking along a massive, wide front (North, South, and Central), maybe make some subs and marines etc if you have the cost upgrades and are good at micro. Quantity is a Quality all its own. I'd go Imp Asia over PD Europe. PD is relatively slow at expanding because you need to use Inf only at the start while Imp can use a few tanks for improving rolls. Imp can do it quite fast. But again, Europe has a massive economy so you need to ensure that he doesn't pass through the middle east or Volga/Siberia before you do.

Skrivet av Darth., 25.01.2017 at 10:26

Skrivet av VOLDERMORT, 24.01.2017 at 21:41

Imp = dumb
PD = cool

Lol dude. Imp can be OP. Especially Imp East Asia. Chinese and Indian Production with an economy that can actually support it? Your unit stacks will be massive, and you can drown Europe in numbers by attacking along a massive, wide front (North, South, and Central), maybe make some subs and marines etc if you have the cost upgrades and are good at micro. Quantity is a Quality all its own. I'd go Imp Asia over PD Europe. PD is relatively slow at expanding because you need to use Inf only at the start while Imp can use a few tanks for improving rolls. Imp can do it quite fast. But again, Europe has a massive economy so you need to ensure that he doesn't pass through the middle east or Volga/Siberia before you do.

i know imp cn be all pow but Wil it
+ pd is the best
+ noone ever uses imp its dumb

Skrivet av LukeTan, 25.01.2017 at 05:06

Skrivet av VOLDERMORT, 24.01.2017 at 21:41

Imp = dumb
PD = cool

I've seen imp europe defeat sm asia twice.

thx for qoting me do so any time

Skrivet av VOLDERMORT, 25.01.2017 at 14:30

Skrivet av Darth., 25.01.2017 at 10:26

Skrivet av VOLDERMORT, 24.01.2017 at 21:41

Imp = dumb
PD = cool

Lol dude. Imp can be OP. Especially Imp East Asia. Chinese and Indian Production with an economy that can actually support it? Your unit stacks will be massive, and you can drown Europe in numbers by attacking along a massive, wide front (North, South, and Central), maybe make some subs and marines etc if you have the cost upgrades and are good at micro. Quantity is a Quality all its own. I'd go Imp Asia over PD Europe. PD is relatively slow at expanding because you need to use Inf only at the start while Imp can use a few tanks for improving rolls. Imp can do it quite fast. But again, Europe has a massive economy so you need to ensure that he doesn't pass through the middle east or Volga/Siberia before you do.

i know imp cn be all pow but Wil it
+ pd is the best
+ noone ever uses imp its dumb

But Darth has a valid point. If you went PD East Asia instead of Imp, 1. your ranges would be lower 2. you would be spending a lot of money compared to imp. Like clovis1122 said, Imperialist is a high reinforcement, low fund strategy. That applies perfectly to countries like India, where you'll have a massive amount of reinforcements but not enough money to handle it too well. However, PD is definitely better than Imp in some situations (like Germany in Euro+) and worse in others.

Skrivet av clovis1122, 18.01.2017 at 08:07

- From the PD player perspective, you're using infantries over tanks because you don't have enough money and you do have enough reinforcements.

- From the IMP player perspective, you're using tanks over infantries because you have enough money but not enough reinforcements.

- Evidently if the IMP player acquires more reinforcements or lose some income, he might start to think more about IMP infantries over IMP Tanks.

- Evidently if the PD player acquires more income or lose reinforcements, he might start to think more about PD Tanks over PD Infantries.

You definitely said it a lot better than I can.