# Deployment Optimization of Defense Stations in an Attack-Defense Aerial War Game
## 6 Comparisons and Discussion  
Figure 3 shows that the attacker loss rate is about 58%, with attacker maneuverability of 0.5 and kill probability of 0.7. Table 4 shows that the attacker loss rate is raised to the level of 80% on any type of defense cost function, which implies the deployment plan of defense stations indeed takes significant effect. Next, compare the deployment plans (kill probability of 0.7) in Figures 8 and 9 with their counterparts (kill probability of 1) in Figures 18 and 19, respectively. It is observed that the defense stations are deployed more dispersedly if the kill probability is 1, which implies that fewer defense stations are required to protect the major post. In contrast, it is more difficult to protect the assets if the kill probability is reduced to 0.7 because some attackers may survive the interceptors and strike the defense assets. However, an optimal deployment plan of defense stations does raise the level of protection on all the assets, with kill probability of 0.7, which is verified by comparing the loss rate of attackers in Figure 3 with those in Tables 4 and 5. By comparing the data in Table 4 under slant formation and Table 5 under pincer formation, it is found that the impact scores on the major post and the south post are generally higher under pincer formation, especially the south post, since the southern attack stations are closer to both posts. By comparing the deployment plans in Figures 18 and 19, it is observed that more defense stations are clustered near the major post than near the south post under pincer formation. The attack force under pincer formation imposes the same level of threat from north and south to the defense force, and the two forces are closer than under slant formation, hence the defense stations are pushed to cluster near the major post. In contrast, the deployment plans in Figures 8 and 9 show that the number of defense stations near the major post does not increase under pincer formation on \(\zeta_{1}\) or \(\zeta_{3}\). With kill probability of 0.7, some attackers will survive the interceptors and strike the major post under either attack formation, and merely increasing the number of defense stations does not prevent this from happening. It is observed that deploying more defense stations within 40 km of an asset offers better protection. Take for example, the protection of major post on \(\zeta_{3}\) under slant formation and on \(\zeta_{2}\), \(\zeta_{3}\), and \(\zeta_{4}\) under pincer formation, all with kill probability of 0.7. Nearby defense stations can attract some assaults to themselves and fire additional interceptor upon an attacker if the latter is marked by only one interceptor. Deploying enough defense stations around an asset is crucial, placing them at right spots also matters. Take, for example, the protection of major post on \(\zeta_{2}\) under slant formation, with kill probability of 0.7 and the protection of north post on \(\zeta_{1}\) under slant formation, with kill probability of 1, are compromised because some attackers maneuver to break through the defense stations. At a first glance, placing a defense station within 40 km of the protected asset can impede the attackers by firing additional interceptors or attracting some assaults to itself. However, attackers can sometimes survive interceptors even with some defense stations placed within 40 km of the asset. There are many episodes that an attacker is almost certain to hit its target which is covered by some defense stations within 40 km of the target. Two examples are the major post on \(\zeta_{2}\) under slant formation and the south post on \(\zeta_{1}\) under pincer formation, both with kill probability of 0.7. Additional examples include the south post on \(\zeta_{4}\) under slant formation, the north post on \(\zeta_{1}\) under slant formation and the north post on \(\zeta_{4}\) under pincer formation, all with kill probability of 1.