Defense Research

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to study the effectiveness of various defensive structures, and to find the most cost-efficient ratio of defensive structures to use for an empire in OGame. This will allow alliance members to have a clear advantage over other alliances, as they will take much less time building up destroyed defensive structures. An alliance that can spring back quickly from an attack is certainly more powerful during times of war.

Definition of Terms

Defense Ratio: In numerical terms, a comparison of defensive structures to one another, to be used as a guide when building new defensive structures. Ratios are written with the first number representing Rocket Launchers, the second Light Lasers, third Heavy Lasers, forth Ion Cannons, fifth Gauss Cannons, and the sixth Plasma Turrets. (ex. [6:5:4:3:2:1] means that for every 1 Plasma Turret that is built, 2 Gauss Cannons should be built, 3 Ion Cannons, etc. Please note that this ratio is an example and not the ratio that this report finds in its conclusion.)
Mining Ratio: In numerical terms, a comparison of metal mined per hour to crystal mined per hour. Ratios are written with the first number representing metal, and the second crystal.. (ex. [2:1] means that for every 1 unit of crystal that is mined, 2 units of metal will be mined. Please note that this ratio is an example and not the ratio that this report finds in its conclusion.)
Cost-Efficient: For the purpose of this study, cost-efficient is more closely related to time than physical costs. The most cost-efficient structures are those that require the least amount of time for a player to mine the resources for.
Destroyed Defensive Structure: A defensive structure that has been completely destroyed (not repaired) from a battle and subtracted from a player's total.

Assumptions

Assumption 1: A player will only attack if he or she has a 100% chance of success and only if the attack has a purpose.
Assumption 2: After battle, exactly 30% of each type of defensive structure will be destroyed.
Assumption 3: For the purposes of this report, an individual player's metal and crystal mines are of equal level and operating at 100% efficiency. However, the conclusions drawn from this report can be modified to match differing mine levels.
Assumption 4: Because the income received from raiding and harvesting debris is unpredictable, those methods of income are not taken into consideration for this report.

Hypothesis

Based on Assumption 1 and Assumption 2, each time a player is attacked, he or she must rebuild 30% of their defensive structures. In order for a player to rebuild in the least amount of time as possible, the cost of the destroyed defensive structures must compliment his or her mining ratio.

According to Assumption 3, a player's mining ratio is [3:2]. Therefore, a player's defense ratio should have a total cost equal to this ratio. This will insure that when a player is attacked and must rebuild, they do so in the least amount of time as possible, because they will not be waiting for one amount of resource over another.

Calculations

First, I compared the costs of each defensive structure to the mining ratio. I found that Rocket Launchers, Light Lasers, and Heavy Lasers were all heavy in metal costs, and that Ion Cannons, Gauss Cannons, and Plasma Turrets are heavy in crystal costs. The next step was to equal out each defensive structure with another to balance out the costs. The following combinations achieve this.

2 Ion Cannons + 7 Rocket Launchers
3 Ion Cannons + 28 Light Lasers
3 Ion Cannons + 7 Heavy Lasers
4 Gauss Cannons + 5 Rocket Launchers
3 Gauss Cannons + 10 Light Lasers
6 Gauss Cannons + 5 Heavy Lasers
2 Plasma Turrets + 25 Rocket Launchers
3 Plasma Turrets + 100 Light Lasers
3 Plasma Turrets + 25 Heavy Lasers

This gives us a defense ratio of [37:138:37:8:13:8].

However, this ratio is unbalanced in terms of fodder to cannons. To better balance this ratio, I made sure each combination above had an equal cost (300.000 Metal and 200.000 Crystal). Multiplying a few of the cheaper combinations so they equal this cost nets us the following ratio.

Balanced Ratio [174:346:84:94:31:10]

Now the ratio of cannons to fodder is about [35:2]. Enough fodder to protect the cannons from swarms of weaker ships, but not too much fodder as to make our planets weak against Bombers or Death Stars. However, this ratio isn't easy to remember. I decided that a little bit of rounding was acceptable and being a few units off from the perfect ratio is probably not going to make a massive difference in performance. After rounding off and reducing the ratio to the by the greatest common factor, I reached the following ratio.

Final Ratio [35:70:15:20:6:2]

This means that following this ratio, once 100 Plasma Turrets are built, 300 Gauss Cannons, 1000 Ion Cannons, 750 Heavy Lasers, 3500 Light Lasers, and 1750 Rocket Launchers will have been built as well. Note that these number are similar to the generally accepted ratios provided on the forums and wiki pages. However, with this ratio, rebuilding will become much faster, and more importantly, won't drain one resource over another.

Conclusion

Building defensive structures according to the defensive ratio I have calculated ([35:70:15:20:6:2]) will allow a player to rebuild much faster after an attack, and leave them with a more favorable amount of resources after the rebuild to be used on other projects within their empire. During wartime, this will be invaluable for our alliance as being attacked won't set us back as much as it would the rival alliance. This may open up the possibility of winning through attrition if need be. (ex. Our alliance can only manage to make moderate hits against the rival alliance, while they seem to hit our members for larger damage. However, over time if we are able to keep rebuilding while whittling away their resources, we can have an economic advantage and come out in the end when their fleets are reduced below our own.)

This concludes my research. I hope that the information contained within serves the Galactic Empire well.


I think there may be some discussion about this post. However, I believe that first and foremost we should applaud Captain Patrick T. James for his work in compiling this excellent report. ~Hesh

Thats some serious work from captain Patrick T. James, well done and thanks. Iv saved this info into my notes for use right away so many thanks to both you guys.

yes a very great work indeed
an addition to the work of sir patrick ive also added an easy ratio for each defense
since this is a better way of remembering it

• 1 Rocket Launcher = 2 Light Lasers
  
• 7 Rocket Launchers = 3 Heavy Lasers
  
• 7 Rocket Launchers = 4 Ion Cannon
  
• 35 Rocket Launchers = 6 Gauss Cannon
  
• 70 Rocket Launchers = 4 Plasma Turrets
  

btw, always be warry of the plasma's at least 1-2 ratio of Anti-Ballistic missiles per plasma's
since plasma's is the primary reason why people would use Interplanetary missile's

again nice work from sir Patrick T. James ^_^


-notes-
this defense ratio would not be called as an ultimate defense but rather as a very good cost-efficient defense ratio according to one's mines

Thank you kindly everyone. I would definitely like some criticism and feedback. I'd like to think that this is the end-all be-all ratio for defense, but I'm not naive enough to think that I got everything correct the first time. I'd like some more experienced players to analyze this ratio and find what it's weakness and strengths are. Some concerns I have.

-Is the [35:2] fodder to cannon ratio an effective ratio? Should there be more fodder to protect the cannons, or does it need more cannons to defend against capital ships?

- Are all of my assumptions and ideas correct? Do most people have equal level crystal and metal mines? Is the basic idea of cost-effectiveness based on time to mine resources sound?

Again, thank you for your feedback everyone. Long live the Empire!

for me i think the ratio between the plasma's-fodder are a little bit off
you could halve the number of your plasmas or double the amount of your fodder
either way you can only choose a pre fodder RL/LL
and for the cost-efficient defense build i think the LL fits it best matched with IC's to balance perfectly with metal/crytal ratio :S

-review-
since when you get nuclear attacked(enemy sending you bombardier of IPM's) your plasma's would be the primary target for it and once it reaches 0 or a certain number the attack will commence
so its better to invest a lot more on fodders

why?cause the building time is much faster than the bigger guns so basically they are the very first you'll rebuild(or maybe not?>.>)
and because fleeter's also use LF as their fodders might as well match the enemies fodders to your defenses

I respectfully disagree with your assessment, sir.

You make the argument that having fewer Plasma Turrets will make you more resistant to nuclear strikes. However, wouldn't having fewer Plasma Turrets make you a better target for nuclear strikes? If I can take out all of your Plasma Turrets with one strike, wouldn't that make them a prime target, and a bonus of crippling your offensive power? No matter how many more light lasers you build to compensate, if you can't dish out large amounts of damage, you can't take out the larger capital ships. Obviously you need to build as many ABMs as possible to protect your defenses.

Now I would make the argument of specialization. Each planet should either be a fortress, or an attack post. A fortress builds defense and only constructs ABMs to protect its defenses. An attack post is a place you can attack from and only needs IPMs to help aid in attacks. A fortress (which is what we are talking about here when we talk about defense ratios) should have enough ABMs that an attack is simply not profitable anymore. In theory, could an attacker send all his or her IPMs at your defenses, taking out half your ABMs in the first wave, then rebuild said IPMs and repeat twice before you log back on to react? Sure. In practice, would anyone waste that many resources just to hit your fortress? Improbable.

However, all of this is rendered moot by the fact that the suggested defense setup you've found for us (and is posted here) is actually heavier on the cannons than my ratio provided. The suggested setup found on the wiki (or forums or wherever that is from) has a ratio of [50:3] while my ratio provides [35:2], a slight increase in the amount of fodder (most of this increase in the amount of Ion Cannons I believe, which are arguably the best type of fodder to have, based on their massive shields and less Rapid Fire against Bombers and Destroyers).

The more I review the numbers, the more sound and versatile I think this ratio is.

A fortress (which is what we are talking about here when we talk about defense ratios) should have enough ABMs that an attack is simply not profitable anymore. In theory, could an attacker send all his or her IPMs at your defenses, taking out half your ABMs in the first wave, then rebuild said IPMs and repeat twice before you log back on to react? Sure. In practice, would anyone waste that many resources just to hit your fortress? Improbable.
-yes they will, having too much of PT challenges the minds of those on the higher grounds-
a 10k of RL or LL is nothing but a hundreds of PT is much of a threat for them
having that said cause i experienced that many times on other servers T_T
(they planted mobiles right next to my planet and build off 2 other planets building only missile silo's)
oh your a nice target for -HOF-
something like that :S
Obviously you need to build as many ABMs as possible to protect your defenses.
yes that's the main argument in there the ratio between the ABM's and PT's
people tend to build off too much PT(since you can build off PT much faster than waiting to build of Missile silo's)
for a lvl 5 missile silo 50 ABM's
defenses that can be supported
5k RL, 2.5k LL,250 HL, 500 GC, 500 IC, 25-50 PT
with the ratio of a 100 PT
1750,3500,750,300,750,100
before you can build off that defense you would have ultimately build off a lvl 10 missile silo >.>

an ending scheme is PT's are the reason why people uses IPM's
so no matter how many you have if they really have the intent on destroying you, they will :S
they won't bother using anymore IPM's after they got ridden of you PT's
so why not inc your fodders?
but then again you have more resources to waste on rebuilding a lot of fodders :p

in the end there are still pro's and con's on each side
-notes-
keep in mind that fodders exist not for defending against an attacking fleet but merely for absorbing dmg so that your bigger guns don't get dmged

-on a side note-
it seems that the both of us are really into defense sir


please everyone kindly share your opinions, the one's reading this can help them create their own ideas on how to strengthen their defense
both cost-wise and safe-wise

great work u guys.(captain patrick t james especially)

In my opinion more plasma the better build like 80 abm's and 200 plasma with some other def and no one will touch u unless u dont get on for 5 weeks and have like 500 mil profit sitting there


( i know not very mathmatical but u get the idea )

deadman6 wrote:

great work u guys.(captain patrick t james especially)

In my opinion more plasma the better build like 80 abm's and 200 plasma with some other def and no one will touch u unless u dont get on for 5 weeks and have like 500 mil profit sitting there


( i know not very mathmatical but u get the idea )

That's basically the point I was trying to get across. I really don't think someone would waste 80+ nuclear missiles to take you out just for fun. I've never seen it in my experience anyway. I suppose if you had enough resources siting there to merit those huge losses then sure. I just don't think anyone would crash that many missiles for no profit.

Captain Patrick T. James wrote:

deadman6 wrote:

great work u guys.(captain patrick t james especially)

In my opinion more plasma the better build like 80 abm's and 200 plasma with some other def and no one will touch u unless u dont get on for 5 weeks and have like 500 mil profit sitting there


( i know not very mathmatical but u get the idea )

That's basically the point I was trying to get across. I really don't think someone would waste 80+ nuclear missiles to take you out just for fun. I've never seen it in my experience anyway. I suppose if you had enough resources siting there to merit those huge losses then sure. I just don't think anyone would crash that many missiles for no profit.

that's why i said i quit after that since it doesn't make sense anymore lol
im not talking about profits here anymore(in any defense strategy set up no one would attack you since no one would profit from you+regular FSing)
im talking about a situation where someone's intently going to attack you profit or no :S
but then again you said you never experienced anything like that so, good thing for you (bad for me? T_T) lol

-i was msging him before the attack since i just got logged in and saw 50 apm's incoming
what's more is there's 2 people much higher than me :S-

well he already admitted it in the forums anyway that he wasted a lot of resources just to crash me(oh yeah he's merely crashing a 20 BS, 300 LF?what fleet would you expect from a turtle with 100k score?>.>)(the mistake

the real point was im trying to balance the equation between fodders and bigger guns since from the def itself the only ones who is going to attack you are people with a lot of fodders 5k LF's.Where your big guns would be rendered useless since they won't even hit the guys larger ship cause of the LF's

Thats some really good work Patrick.

Would just like to mention that ABM's are essential when you have plasmas because if you have no missile def one IPM can destroy over 100k of resources if it hits a plasma without you even having a chance to fight back.

I like this..I used a 5:1 ratio and it worked until I got nuked..so APM's are a must in defense...It is a very good guide though.

earlbedfordjr wrote:

I like this..I used a 5:1 ratio and it worked until I got nuked..so APM's are a must in defense...It is a very good guide though.

5:1 ratio for what defense?

i messed up I was kinda under the influence..To actually explain what I do here we go..

Since I believe I have a very weird type of OCD when it comes to defenses I usually keep a ratio that is very easy to build. I actually use a 10:5 ratio..it is basically stepping down.

for instance let's say I built 50 RL, 45 LL, 40 HL, 35 IC, 30 GC, 25 PC..

Or in the case of when I was attacked 25 RL, 20 LL, 15 HL, 7 IC and 1 small shield

In that battle it was a draw with the attacker losing 140k worth of resources (only his cargo ships remained. He sent 3 Cruisers and 1 BS)I lost 98k but that was mostly solar sats..I only lost 13 RL and 3 LL

After that he had to nuke my defenses like three times to destroy them all. Now granted the 10:5 ratio isn't very cost effective...but it is strategically effective (For my style of play.)

I have a few concerns with that setup.

1.) It's expensive in terms of crystal. If you followed my suggested ratio you'd actually have more resources to build more defenses total.

2.) It's not a ratio. After you have 1 plasma turret, you are simply building an equal amount of each defensive structure. At low amounts of defense, this translates to an overabundance of fodder. Too much fodder and you can't really deal enough damage to bigger ships. However, at higher amounts you'll have too many cannons. Having a large amount of cannons will let you deal a lot of damage, but an attacking fleet can easily counter this with an equal number of capital ships, plus a large (but still inexpensive) amount of light fighters. Your cannons will most likely target their fighters and your cannons will have a better chance of being targeted by their capital ships.

I have OCD with things too. My ratios always have to be perfect. But a perfect ratio doesn't have to be even numbers at even intervals.

I'm not saying that it is perfect. It just works with my playing style. I am less of a hurry hurry hurry kind of player. I really don't focus on improving one thing at a time. (This may put me at a disadvantage in the short term.) I build my fleet with my defenses, and I believe that the defenses are there to keep someone from taking my resources. But I also believe in defense fleets as well. I have two types of fleets. I have the fleet that I always fleet save and attack with. Then I have the fleet that just doesn't go anywhere. But like I said I have specific OCD and don't really care about the cost, just that it is done. I agree your set up is very cost effective and is also very effective as well. And I will be trying it once I get my BS research done.

Capt, nice research there and that's a really nice idea to minimize time-to-rebuild, basing it on your mining ratio. The two questions I have are this:

1) How does the statement of assumption 3 (a non-quantitative assumption) lead to a 3:2 mining ratio? I've re-read that section a few times and cannot figure it out. I thought you had stated prior that metal:crystal was 1:1?

2) Where is the assumption of losing 30% of your defenses coming from? Is that from the fact that 70% of your defense will rebuild after an attack, so 100-70=30?

2.1) I know this is a third question but can someone explain in detail how the whole 70%-of-your-defense-rebuilds-thing works? Is that after each round? Is that at the end of battle? Does it consume resources? Is it automatic? How fast does it take? I have yet to find any good forum posts on this topic.

Nice work capt and thank you for the suggested defense ratio!

arcturusk1 wrote:

1) How does the statement of assumption 3 (a non-quantitative assumption) lead to a 3:2 mining ratio? I've re-read that section a few times and cannot figure it out. I thought you had stated prior that metal:crystal was 1:1?

If your mines are an equal level, you will be producing about 3 metal for every 2 crystal. Take a look at the info screen for the two buildings and compare any level, you'll see.

Quote :

2) Where is the assumption of losing 30% of your defenses coming from? Is that from the fact that 70% of your defense will rebuild after an attack, so 100-70=30?

Yes. The chance is actually random, but since we can't predict the random chance, assuming an exact 30% works well enough for the ratios. Also, after several battles it will become closer to the 30% average.

Quote :

2.1) I know this is a third question but can someone explain in detail how the whole 70%-of-your-defense-rebuilds-thing works? Is that after each round? Is that at the end of battle? Does it consume resources? Is it automatic? How fast does it take? I have yet to find any good forum posts on this topic.

They are rebuilt automatically without consuming any resources after the entire battle. It is also instant. Just think of it as 70% of your destroyed defenses actually aren't destroyed at all after combat.

Hope my answers help!

Captain Patrick T. James wrote:

arcturusk1 wrote:

1) How does the statement of assumption 3 (a non-quantitative assumption) lead to a 3:2 mining ratio? I've re-read that section a few times and cannot figure it out. I thought you had stated prior that metal:crystal was 1:1?

If your mines are an equal level, you will be producing about 3 metal for every 2 crystal. Take a look at the info screen for the two buildings and compare any level, you'll see.

Quote :

2) Where is the assumption of losing 30% of your defenses coming from? Is that from the fact that 70% of your defense will rebuild after an attack, so 100-70=30?

Yes. The chance is actually random, but since we can't predict the random chance, assuming an exact 30% works well enough for the ratios. Also, after several battles it will become closer to the 30% average.

Quote :

2.1) I know this is a third question but can someone explain in detail how the whole 70%-of-your-defense-rebuilds-thing works? Is that after each round? Is that at the end of battle? Does it consume resources? Is it automatic? How fast does it take? I have yet to find any good forum posts on this topic.

They are rebuilt automatically without consuming any resources after the entire battle. It is also instant. Just think of it as 70% of your destroyed defenses actually aren't destroyed at all after combat.

Hope my answers help!

Doh, you're absolutely right on my first question. I had noticed the lopsided production before but I guess it never clicked. As for the rest of my questions, thank you for the answers!

The only thing I can add to this is that I personally would add a little bit more gauss cannons. In case the plasma cannons get wiped out, gauss are still a decent cannon to work with. Why not add a few more?

Well the great thing about this ratio is that if you don't mind doing a little bit of math, you can keep it balanced for its costs and adjust to the amount of defenses you prefer. More fodder? Add several ion cannons which will increase the amount of rocket launchers and/or light lasers. More Gauss you say? Simply add more with some rocket launchers to help balance it out a little.

Its really easy to adjust, but I gave my preferred ratio as a suggestion with the math already done, because I know people are lazy.

As a side note, I actually don't like Gauss cannons as much for their cost. They simply are more expensive, resource per stat, than plasma turrets. I'd rather build 2 plasma turrets than 3 Gauss cannons for the extra damage and intimidation.

Well if some people don't want to do the math, heres a good site for you: Defense Calculator
Its easy to use, and It also lets you change the defensive style for your play style.

Captain Patrick T. James I like your defense ratio just how it is,
but this site would be good to help review that ratio: Evaluation of Defense