# Deployment Optimization of Defense Stations in an Attack-Defense Aerial War Game
## 7 Empirical Deployment Plans  
Based on the empirical rules of thumb learned from the simulations, as summarized in the last section, as well as intuitive observations on the deployment plans shown in Figures 8 and 9, we manually draw the empirical deployment plans of defense stations in Figure 20a,b against slant attack formation and pincer attack formation, respectively. The goal of these deployment plans is to protect all the three posts at the same priority, without resorting to specific type of defense cost function. The efficacy of these deployment plans is tested with the kill probability of 0.7. Figure 20a shows the empirical deployment against slant attack formation, in which 4, 4, and 2 defense stations are placed near the major post, north minor post and south minor post, respectively. Among these defense stations, 4, 3, and 2 of them are placed within 40 km of the major post, north minor post, and south minor post, respectively. Fewer defense stations are placed around the south post because it is farther away from the attack stations and is targeted by fewer attackers than the major post. A defense station is put slightly behind each post, and a defense station is put slightly in front of the major post and the north post, respectively, to attract some assaults. A defense station is put southwest to the major post to also cover the south post. The statistics of loss based on the empirical deployment plan against slant attack formation are also listed in Table 4. The average hits on the major post (1.57) is higher than all the other four deployment plans. The average hits on the north minor post is higher than that on \(\zeta_{1}\), close to that on \(\zeta_{4}\), and lower than that on \(\zeta_{2}\) or \(\zeta_{3}\). The average hits on the  
Figure 20: Empirical deployment plan of defense stations against (**a**) slant attack formation and (**b**) pincer attack formation, with kill probability of 0.7, square with cross: major post, square with slash: minor post, blue square: defense station. south minor post is higher than that on \(\zeta_{1}\) or \(\zeta_{4}\), but lower than that on \(\zeta_{2}\) or \(\zeta_{3}\). The defense stations lost (56.1%) is higher than all the other four deployment plans. The attackers lost (78.125%) is close to that on \(\zeta_{3}\), and lower than those on the other three deployment plans. These numbers suggest that the optimal deployment plan based on either type of defense cost function is generally more effective in protecting the major post, inflicting fewer loss of defense stations and more loss of attackers. Figure 10b shows the empirical deployment against pincer attack formation, in which 6, 2, and 2 defense stations are placed near the major post, north minor post, and south minor post, respectively. All the defense stations are placed within 40 km of a post. Due to the symmetry of pincer attack formation, the defense stations are deployed symmetrically in the north-south direction. Compared with Figure 10a, more defense stations are placed near the major post because the southern attack stations are closer to the major post in Figure 10b. A defense station is put slightly behind each post, five defense stations are put in front of the major post to attract some assaults, and a defense station is put at 40 km to the west of the north post and the south post, respectively. The two defense stations farthest from the major post launch interceptors in the early stage, and the other defense stations near the major post are reserved to intercept the attackers in the later stage. The statistics of loss based on the empirical deployment plan against pincer attack formation are also listed in Table 5. The average hits on the major post (2.67) is higher than all the other four deployment plans. Compared to the case under slant attack formation, the average hits is higher since the southern attack stations are closer to the major post.