 |
| |
|
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Defense in general has a lot of advantages: closer to centers of production, closer to barracks for healing, fortification/city/terrain defensive bonuses, etc. An attacking force needs to be superior (tech, numbers, strategy, etc) to succeed; only an unprepared defender will fall easily to strike units.
|
Defense in general does have numerous advantage but offense has the best two advantage IMO, element of surprise and choice of battlefield.
"only an unprepared defender will fall easily to strike units."
Not true. You arent defending a small 1x1 square. What good is defending north when attacker gets to choose south as stage of war? Defense has to waste allocating resource on all accessible locations. Offense can choose to focus his interest in one. Defense cannot afford this.
quote:
Do you play Civ 3 much? I think it's better to let them close to your cities where your artillery is protected and able to damage enemy units, while remaining safe inside the city. Outside the city they are toast really easily because of their slow movement.
|
Defending in cities is preferrable because of city bonus but you generally fight on the field hoping the enemy not to do any domestic damage by pillaging. If I can take a battle to the city, I'll do it as much as I can, but I don't wanna risk any forces slipping in any cutting off cities any pillaging my entire city square, which humans will do better job then AIs now do.
quote:
I actually think it depends on when technologically speaking, you are fighting. If its in the age of infantry, and I've got enough artillery, I let their cavalry go straight for my cities, where they get chewed up. But if they have tanks I fly out to meet them on the field, since infantry is crappy against tanks. This kind of switching in tactics happens for me all through histroy, as the progression between slow/defencive and fast/offensive units goes back and forth.
|
No, It's generally a better idea to attack an attacker unit and avoid attacking defender unit as much as you can. Defender that is not defending against an attack nor attacker that never attacks because it is always attacked first are useless. Of course the simple rule of thumb gets complicated when defender is shielding attacker or defender is closing in and may come in to pillage or obtain territorial control etc.
If your gonna defend against a tank, do it in city as much as you can and get the city defense bonus. Why would you go through the trouble bringing infantry out to defend w/o city bonus unless you meant attacking the tank first. You werent really clear on that part you said "meet"
quote:
have one answer to that Randolph...
N U K U L A R - W E P O N Z ! ! !
MUH HA HA HAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
BAHHAHA HAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!
|
You have a problem w/ ur solution..
"N U K U L A R - W E P O N Z ! ! ! "
Nuke is only useful if your on the same level w/ rivaling civ. Assuming both have it, if he is significantly stronger, he will have more so even if bombed first he will retaliate ten fold, if he is significantly weaker than you, you will win conventionally anyway. Nuke will just be another method to kill him off. So only time it really matters is when power struggle is close and you decide to strike first. Assuming you do striek first since if it is close and rival is smart he is probably aware of the same situation. If the rivaling civ doesnt have access to nuke, well then you're technically stronger arent you, cause you have a more powerful weapon. So nuke isnt a real problem solver to anything. Bah.
Last edited by Zero on 11-11-2002 at 11:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
ah the joys of using 5 or 6 planet busters to totally blast an enemy faction's homeland back into the sea. It was a joy to behold the way that by the end of your barrage there would just be a big lake where the enemy once stood tall and proud.
one of the best weapons ever for getting revenge on an enemy. classic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
If you sit in your cities with a stack of mech infantry, or what ever defending unit you have, your city will fall. With enough artillery and bombers you can take any city, even if you have to use a stack of 100 of them to do it. You have to take the offensive and not the the enemy reach you cities in the first place. That is how you counter any attack. If you look over time, when has fortifications ever stop a army from invading anther country??? They only slow the enemy down, they dont stop them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
When I ever I fight a war, I try as hard as I can to fight the war on the enemies territory. You take the war to them, and make them fight it on their ground. When defending you have to launch counter attacks. Like I said if you sit in your city or fort waiting for the enemy you will lose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anaximander
|
 |
Huntsville, Texas
Sep 2002
time: 23:22
|
|
Ok Calc, you are right about one point. That is that defensive planers need to manipulate the battle field so as to make the order of battle more predicitable.
However, if that is what you are relying on you will get beat more times than not. Fixed defenses can't compeate with a highly mobile and highly aggressive offinsive force.
Leading up to WW II the French believed that the Ardenes were impassiable to a modern army. As a result they built the Maginot Line on their border with Germany. What did the Germans do??? The smashed through the Ardenes taking the French compleatly by suprise.
Now we must ask our selves, what from this history lesson can we apply to our Civ games??? If you build a static defense force with predesigned killing fields, I will just take another rout. The fact is that you can't effectivly defend your ENTIRE border. Whether it be a vast jungle, a mountain belt, or a shore line far away from the front; there will be an area where you will say "He'll never attack here in a million years" and that will be the place I attack.
Calc, you mention that defenders must try to manipulate the battle field in order to best engage the enemy. A good attacker will be looking for these traps, and then avoid them. He will be forced to be creative in his attack methods, because all the easy routs will be clogged with your units. In a way, you can make your self more vunerable if you set up this kind of defensive strategy. The solution? A mobile offensive force to counter attack with. I'll be far more warry of sending my horsemen (or knights, or cavs) through that mountain belt if I know that you have some horsies (or knights, or cavs) of your own waiting to ambush me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
planetfall
|
 |
Incoming from CO
Jan 2002
time: 22:22
|
|
You guys are talking pass each other. Who said the counter to a horseman rush was static? Like football, the best defense changes with the audibles called.
The best defense is one where after each conflict the attacker is weaker and weaker. I have not found horsemen to be all that powerful. I read advice warning about raging barbarians and the time when the uprising came with more than 10 horses. The consensus was don't try to fight, you will lose cities, live with it. Well, being of a scientific bent, I had to test this assumption. Sure enough with raging barbarians suddenly 12 horseman popped up within 4 tiles of 2 cities with 1 spear and 1 warrior in each. They attacked and attacked and attacked. My units just grew in experience and surprise the cities held.
So what worked:
1) good city location,
2) first level defense held until
3) second level defense was available.
The point is good defense has at least 2 levels. The goal of 1st level is to slow down the attacker until the 2nd level can get to work. What I have found most effective is to have not only a 2 level defense but also
To use your WWII analogy. Sure the French lost with only a level 1 defensive line. But what happened in the Battle of the Bulge. Territory was lost for a time but after 2nd level starting in, Germany was in worst shape than before. A good civ3 player should have that skill set. Sure anyone can attack me, but "war is hell" and will not be cheap.
Like it or not civ3 games are like chess. If you only think defense, you will lose. The best defense is a good offense. Come on horsies and I will find a void spot in your empire created by the horsies. Horsies are only a problem if the defender does not have a good military road network. At the best they are worthless by the start of the Middle Ages. Can you say "pikeman"?
Anaximander-- you have 20 horses, come on in. I only have 4 horses, but combined with spears and swords and catapaults and good military roads you will have a expensive campaign. I don't allow border transgressions unless I gain more by pretending they didn't exist. Worry if you are allowed to enter without contest.
== PF
|
|
| |
|
|
|
planetfall
|
|
Incoming from CO
Jan 2002
time: 22:22
|
|
Theseus is right. Unless in very beginning horseman rush will work, but if standard defense is built. I will gain 100 shields for every 10 stack horseman rush. So come on baby...
Explanation for those unfamilar with defending vs horsemen.
A. Horsemen are only effective as sole unit stacks when
1. only 1..2 roads connect border city
2. only 1..2 units are defending in border city
3. there are large gaps between border cities.
B. Standard defense setup with border towns no more than 4 tiles apart. Duplicate configuration across entire border.
Code Key:
C == clear terrain
H == horse stack entry point
X == city
O == roaded tile
M == maximum horse penetration on first move
C C C H C C C
X O O M O X O
O O ? ? O O O
City X1 military
1 sword 30
1 catapault 20
2 spear 40
1 horse 30
1 warrior 10
Total: 6 units, 130 shields
City X2 military
1 sword 30
1 archer 20
2 spear 40
1 horse 30
1 warror 10
Total: 6 units, 130 shields
STRATEGY 1-- Go for interior
Stack of 10 horses reach point M.
Defensive attacks:
2 swords {from X1 & X2}
1 catapult
1 archer
2 spear move to archer & catapult positions to defend versus counter attack and fortify. 2 horse move to same position so horse can't retreat.
Gain 3 horse. Stack of 10 is now 7.
{Sword vs horse == 3 vs 1, .: invader loses 1 horse. If wounder horse retreats, our horse takes out and returns to spear/archer position.
Repeat x 1.
Catapult vs horse == 4 vs 1, invader loses .5 horse
Archer vs horse == 2 vs 1, invader loses .5 horse.}
Turn 2 counter attack, ibid, 7 stack -> 4 stack
Turn 3 counter attack, ibid, 4 stack -> 0 stack.
If attacker uses Strategy #2 and goes for towns, situation is even worst. All towns will have a combination of:
river 25% def bonus
hill 50% def bonus
fortified units 25% bonus
Summary, attacker used 300 shields to create 10 horse stack. Defender used 260 shields for defense. Cities 1 ring from border have additional units that can reinforce in 1..2 turns.
Typical losses:
Defender--
1 archer, 20 shields
1 spear, 20 shields
1 warrior, 10 shields
1 horse, 30 shields
Total 4 units, 80 shields
Attacker--
10 horse, 30 shields
Total 10 units, 300 shields.
Defender gains 220 shields for each 10 stack horse attack!!!!
Since each city has 3+ roads connecting to empire, the lost of 1..2 roads is meaningless.
Summary, keys for defense:
1. multiple military roads
2. mixed defensive units
3. use barren tiles to restrict retreat of invading horses
4. have reinforcements available 1..2 turns away
5. focus on bigger picture. In order to create a 10 horse stack, there have to be serious weaknesses in attacking civ. Find the weakness and exploit!!
== PF
|
|
| |
|
|
|
planetfall
|
|
Incoming from CO
Jan 2002
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anaximander
I have to say Planetfall, that has to be one of the best posts I have seen. |
Wow, now where is my picture frame? Frame that baby!
Thank you.
quote:
That sort of defensive network would make even the greatest offensive stratigests shudder... With your plan you have all the elements we have been talking about. A good road network, killing zones, good defensive units, and just enough fast moving units to negate the movement advantage of the enemy. This is the kind of defense that can shrug off horseman rushes. A question though. Needless to say we have gotten used to the AI and it's stacks o' death. These one pronged attacks could easily be isolated and beaten off. However, human opponents would use this approach in attacking the enemy, favouring instead multi-prong attacks. Do you think you will have to change your defensive plan any to counter this? |
Aw good question.
I don't think I will have to change basic defensive posture.
Actually this is my basic defensive posture. As time progresses not only do I upgrade units but also increase bombardment units. If I have a known aggressive neighbor, I may have 5-7 bombardment units/border city facing aggressive neighbor. My prefences also movement of artillery to 2 and radar artillery to 3. Usually I have 3..4 good defenders in border towns [spear/pike/musket/rifle/inf] with 3..4 reinforcements within a few turns.
Typical layout after unchallenged expansion ends:
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
X O O O O X O O O O X O O O O X O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O R O O O O O O O O O O R O O O O O O
R= reinforcements, 1..4 offensive units, i.e.,
chariot/horse/arch/sword/new add - Med Inf/knight/cav/inf/tank/MA
Only put in reinforcement line when suspect attack likely. Otherwise I focus on increasing military production capability for empire. I don't think this will change with humans, but don't know. It will be interesting to discover in a few years. This is still my first year of civ. I have yet to get to higher difficulty levels. Currently I play at monarch. After I learn enough to win at deity and have played GOTM well, then I will consider human vs human games.
But since this is not chess with 1 vs 1, but 1 vs many. I am reminded of the story of the 2 guys in the woods. One is throwing away his hicking boots and putting on tennies. His friend asks "why are you tossing your new boots away?". Well you see that bear coming up the trail. I know I can't outrun him. All I have to do is be the less vulnerable target.
Other civs won't have this defensive posture and should be easier targets for militarialistic civs. Once I am set, the Aztecs, Chinese, Japanese, Romans, Zulu are still easily annoyed, but they usually find someone else as a more vulnerable release value for their aggressive tendencies.
== PF
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anaximander
Ok Calc, you are right about one point. That is that defensive planers need to manipulate the battle field so as to make the order of battle more predicitable.
However, if that is what you are relying on you will get beat more times than not. Fixed defenses can't compeate with a highly mobile and highly aggressive offinsive force.
Leading up to WW II the French believed that the Ardenes were impassiable to a modern army. As a result they built the Maginot Line on their border with Germany. What did the Germans do??? The smashed through the Ardenes taking the French compleatly by suprise.
Now we must ask our selves, what from this history lesson can we apply to our Civ games??? If you build a static defense force with predesigned killing fields, I will just take another rout. The fact is that you can't effectivly defend your ENTIRE border. Whether it be a vast jungle, a mountain belt, or a shore line far away from the front; there will be an area where you will say "He'll never attack here in a million years" and that will be the place I attack.
Calc, you mention that defenders must try to manipulate the battle field in order to best engage the enemy. A good attacker will be looking for these traps, and then avoid them. He will be forced to be creative in his attack methods, because all the easy routs will be clogged with your units. In a way, you can make your self more vunerable if you set up this kind of defensive strategy. The solution? A mobile offensive force to counter attack with. I'll be far more warry of sending my horsemen (or knights, or cavs) through that mountain belt if I know that you have some horsies (or knights, or cavs) of your own waiting to ambush me. |
argh... I will not be crushed simply because I rely on fixed defensive position, I have never said to rely on fixed defensive position to win wars.
All I said is whenever chances permit, it is better to be defending than offending since defense is where all the advantage is. However, since offense has the two key element, the when and where, if you can somehow have some control over that, you will be left off in better position.
french simply believed that the germans will come toward their defensive line, germans being a smart invader avoided attacking their defenders. They acknowledged and exercised their rights to "when" and where". of course, defense simply falls to such kind of situation.
Of course smart attacker will be considerate of traps and tricks and your attempt to influence "when and where"... then even smarter defender will be aware that enemy knows and will act accordingly, and loop will continue, until SOMEONE outsmarts somebody. This arguement is basically who outsmart who then, and is of no use.
anyway, defense doesnt win wars... you gotta attack them to finish off the enemy, (I don't think no attacker will attack until he kills himself) but not using the defensive advantage whenever you can is foolish.
Last edited by Zero on 16-11-2002 at 06:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
Another post. Planetfall and anaximander, I hope we are not argueing simply "what is better? defense or offense?" you can't have a 100% defensive war OR 100% offensive war. Those generals you so named were brilliant in that they were able to maintain some kind of organization and defensive structure while rapidly moving into enemy territory. BTW Rommel actually achieved god like satus for his incredible success at retreating while the german forces were being crushed under allied attack, not because he was an amazing attack planner. Not saying that he wasn't, he was a great general who planned well for any scenario. It's a lil off topic but just wanted to clear that up.
For anything there should exist a balance and for different people different level of spectrum works. Some lean more to left or some lean more to right. I actually prefer to take on the offensive, but still my arguement stays the same, given the situation that when and where is written in stone, defense is better option. You can't argue with that, but of course there is the diffuculty in actually creating those situations... that you can argue with.
Chess and war games like civ is a funny little game. I noticed large population of players though have problems attacking everything in their sights (less so in chess though since reason not to attack is a little more visible than war games). Anyway, you know what kind of people I am talking about. THOSE kinds of people are suceptible of revealing the when and where
planetfall u mention chess, but unfourtunately, chess isnt such great example, since alot of actions take up in interdependence of piece with another piece to defend each other. Chess is actually great example of defense, since no units can defend against an attack! What defends that unit is a series of other units that are in relationship with one another and the risk of losing an attacker in part by the opponent. Without any elaborate system of defense, Chess would just be a game of you take that piece this turn, I take this piece next turn. There are dynamic action sometimes taken place by mostly pieces like bishops knights and rooks making interesting moves that abuses their ability to do some odd manuvers, but chess is more so about understanding the idea of how defense works and use of diverse units to create a system.
P.S Its funny how i entered into this forum condeming the idea of overemphasizing defense, but as forum evolved there seems to be more offense emphasizers. I may sound pro-defense, but Im really not. Trust me, you'll know when you get to see me play. I'm actually "overextend my troop a little too much attacking" side of spectrum. Anyway, just felt that forum was overemphasizing offense and felt the need to bring the gauge back to the balance.
BTW, Defense can't win superbowl either. Technically put when defense is going for the scoring it's on the offensive, so its like saying I attacked with pikemen and won the war thus defense won the war  defensive line won the war, but they scored by attacking.
Last edited by Zero on 16-11-2002 at 06:08
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-11-2002 04:22
|