defense vs attack

[Divinus Arma]

defense vs attack

which is more imporrttnasntr ?

why and whenen?

[Taurus]

I'm afraid I will be speaking from a multiplayer point of view here but anyways.

It depends on what unit you want the defense/attack for and what situation you will be in, and hat faction you will be up against.
For example, it is best to upgrade your archers/slingers equally with both attack and defense a you want them to do as much damage to the enemy without receiving as much. So (in mulitplayer anyway) it would be best to have gold sword and gold shield archers/slingers or whatever you can afford.

However for all of the other units I would suggest attack in most cases. For example, (once again in multiplater) I upgrade my cavalry quite a bit with silver or gold sword but hardly ever a defense, this is because I wan by cavalry to charge the rear or flank of an enemy unit and kill as much of that unit as possible, which is allowed with gold or silver weapons.

Infantry wise I wouldn't really upgrade them too much (in multiplayer) but I would go either attack or defense depending on what you think you will be up against. For example, I don't know if anybody else does this but when I'm using a strong phalanx army and I am up against, say, Urbans who can throw devastating pila before they charge. In this case if I had any spare money I would upgrade my defense stats on my pikemen to minimise the damage done by the pila.

Obviously, this is from my experiences and as stated before I am speaking from a mulitplayer perspective, but I hope this helps. ~:)

Thanks ~:cheers:

[Aesculapius]

As a broad generalisiation, the attacker chooses the time, and the defender chooses (and often prepares) the terrain.

So which is better depends on which of those two elements is more crucial. On even terrain, I'd rather be the attacker: as long as I have the initiative, I can dictate the nature of the battle to my advantage. I can attack before the enemy reinforcements arrive, I can choose which threat to deal with in 'interior lines' style, or I can delay until my own situation is better and the enemy's worse (as long as my delaying is not so passive as to surrender the initiative to the enemy).

On the other hand, if there is high ground with lots of cover, or a bridge, or some other vital terrain feature, who would turn down the opportunity to defend? Particularly if you can dig trenches, prepare ambushes or otherwise modify the terrain to your advantage.

Closing thought: sometimes attack is the best form of defence - but in a war of attrition, defence may be the best form of attack. Ask the Russians!

[Puzz3D]

As a broad generalisiation, the attacker chooses the time, and the defender chooses (and often prepares) the terrain.
Right, and what did CA do in RTW? They lowered the terrain effects and raised the speed dramatically. The dynamic balance between attack and defense that once characterised Total War MP has been lost.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

RTW does seem to favor the attacker a notch.

That having been said, a defender utilizing good ground usually has the tactical advantage, especially with a decent proportion of missile armarment.

Strategically, Von Moltke was known for advocating both. Utilize the strategic advantages of the attacker (initiative, concentration of forces) to secure a forward area that the opponent can't afford to let you keep. Then use this good ground to advantage as the "defender" securing that side of the equation's advantages as well.

Racing a force forward and plopping yourself on a bridge that cuts the opposing faction's prime land trade route would be one RTW example of this approach.

Seamus

[Orda Khan]

The terrain still matters enough to give defenders on high ground a considerable advantage for their archers. This means that the attacker, in this situation, has to consider his attack very carefully, looking for safe routes, using tactics that cause impetuousness and so on. However, the defender does not necessarily have to remain static and can force the attacker into premature engagement

.....Orda

[pezhetairoi]

I like attacking in campaign but defending in battle, because it fits my campaign aims. I attack choosing the time because I can make the enemy respond to my moves instead of forcing me to conform my plans to his. I defend in battle usually by attracting him to places he MUST defend (usually when I'm besieging a city on purpose with his army nearby so he will sally with relief force and I can annihilate them both gaining a city without a costly assault), and this has the added advantage of giving me the terrain to use. Only rarely do I change this pattern.

The thing is, neither is really more important than the other--what really matters is that you take the opportunity to do either when it fits your purpose. Defence is more important in the case that you've been invaded. However that does not mean a non-attacking approach, since indirect warfare dictates that my style of defence is usually to counter invade (leaving the enemy army in my territory) and threaten HIS major cities, upon which he will weaken his force by splitting it, or he will simply leave my territory to protect his home base, and I catch him on the march, or in the sally battle that ensues.

In the same way attacking does not mean a non-defensive approach since my invasions are usually made up of a bunch of defensive stands or simple withdrawals when my objective is to draw the enemy attention away from one sector and concentrate on this one. For example--I intend to strike Alesia. But I send my large and most experienced army towards Lemonum and Narbo Martius. The Gauls will tend to concentrate there if you keep refusing battle and moving around in their territory, besieging them where possible and lifting once the enemy attacks. That has denued the Alesia province of troops more than once, and with only two units in Alesia I am then able to take it with just three or four. Then as the enemy heads back for Alesia then I go on the attack against the cities I was originally menacing. Shield-and-sword approach, this is. A combination of defence and attack in pure attack. It can also be vice versa in defence. This strategy tends to be very useful in Dacian campaigns at the start, when it is crucial for you to defeat Thrace by capturing cities with minimal casualties. I attacted all but two units into Campus Getae, and while 20 units were locked up in that city I stormed Tylis, then caught their relief force of 10 units on the march, annihilating it. But the important thing was, Tylis lifted me out of debt, and I only fought one battle to gain it.

Okay I forgot my point. Will end here.

[Razor1952]

If your're playing single player campaign, no question , being able to defend is huge advantage.

Choose the edge of the field, highest ground if available , you can moove to the corner of the field after battle starts so you can never be flanked, you can set your main troops to defense so you can maintain your army order in battle.

Whilst attacking however it's much harder to maintain battle order between units and things tend to get very disordered allowing the ai to flank your troops.

With a good defensive position I can regularly get kill rates of 10:1 with similar sized armies, attacking I would rarely get this when tackling similar sized enemies.


Partly I think its because the ai can't cope with a strong strategic defense, it tends to throw its cavalry and archer/skirmishers straight onto waiting spears. and then send its infantry to its death.

One solution to the corner unable to be flanked method would be that troops outside the main battle arena would suffer a big morale drop.(perhaps if set to defense?)

[Joe_Nvidio828]

I love defending. It is way easier than attackin. tho attacking isnt that hard either.

If u r playing as rome, just get ur infantry in a single line or double line, depending on the size of the enimes army. If single line, put ur archers behind them in the middle, and put ur general behind them. If double line, just put ur archers in the middle of the double line. and for both, put 2 units of infantry at each flank behind the infantry.

Put ur infantry on defend and fire at will. and disable skirmish mode on ur archers, cus they will fall back if the enemy gets close, its annoying.

so when the enemy gets close, ur archers open up on them, and when they get closer, ur infatry throws there spears(which are awesome). If the enemy has no cav, u can just flank them once they engage ur infantry. it will be over within seconds ater that.

so its 12 missle infatry in front, 2 cav units on each flank, and 4 units of archers. or replace 3 infantry units with heavy onegars with flaming ammo. and be sure to place onegars right at ur infatries back so they dont accidentally level ur own guys if they shoot short.

defense is way better and more fun. the ai just acts retarded while ur archers/spear throwers anihillate them. its funny. the end score is usually something like 2000 kills and 100 losses. or if the enemy does well, 2000 kills 500 losses. thats usually the best they do.

[Puzz3D]

One solution to the corner unable to be flanked method would be that troops outside the main battle arena would suffer a big morale drop.(perhaps if set to defense?)
In STW, units near the edge of the map suffered a morale penalty. This feature is apparently not in RTW.

As far as I'm concerned, backing into a corner is not playing in the spirit of the game.

[econ21]

In STW, units near the edge of the map suffered a morale penalty.

I never knew that. (Don't think it was in MTW either.) What a cool feature.

I remember another clever STW feature against "gamey tactics". In STW, I had a battle of one AI spear vs one cav of mine. I tried to lead the AI spear on a dance around the map, but eventually my cav's morale fell and it routed.

[Conqueror]

Whether it's better to attack or defend depends much on the composition of your army and the enemy's. If you have long range missile units (and plenty of them) but the enemy doesn't, then you should attack - this leaves them with the choise betwen sitting still and being shot dead, or charging your lines (effectively making you the defender vs their attack). This might fail if the terrain allows them to deploy on a high hill. If you are playing on huge unit size though, then onagers can cause massive destruction to an army camping on a hill.

[Sjakihata]

I remember another clever STW feature against "gamey tactics". In STW, I had a battle of one AI spear vs one cav of mine. I tried to lead the AI spear on a dance around the map, but eventually my cav's morale fell and it routed.


AFAIK That's not a 'feature'. I think you are speaking of the rout-bug. When you gave a unit too many orders, sometimes it routed, with no possibility to rally it.

[Puzz3D]

AFAIK That's not a 'feature'. I think you are speaking of the rout-bug. When you gave a unit too many orders, sometimes it routed, with no possibility to rally it.
It wasn't bug. The purpose of the feature was to prevent winning by repeatedly retreating until the timer ran down. It was changed in MI so that ranged units could be moved back away from the enemy without routing as long as they still had ammo. I think the feature was removed in MTW.

Another feature that STW had was you could move into the red edge area, which was two tiles wide, if your unit was moving. That meant a stationary defender who tried to use the map edge to protect a flank could be outflanked along the edge. Many multiplayers didn't like this feature, and it was removed. One problem with the feature was that units in the red zone could shoot but couldn't be targeted for return fire.

[L'Impresario]

The purpose of the feature was to prevent winning by repeatedly retreating until the timer ran down. It was changed in MI so that ranged units could be moved back away from the enemy without routing as long as they still had ammo. I think the feature was removed in MTW.

There was still the "constant retreat" morale penalty, which could be important in low morale and/or high fatigue situations, ofcourse being defender and retreating a bit is affordable as the attacker still has to cover more ground (I'm assuming here 2 bars' phase in relatively plain terrain).
Now that I read again the above post it seems that it only refers to missile unit retreats. I can't recall seeing "constant retreating" penalties for missile units tho.

[Orda Khan]

The morale penalty for repeated retreat was something that interfered with the tactical use of some units. Deliberately 'retreating' after an engagement is a legitimate tactic, as in feigned retreat. This tactic was used to great effect by various armies and it could cause an opponent's army to lose its formation, thereby making them vulnerable to the 'actual' attack. The morale penalty dictated 'forward only' tactics and ( IMO ) was a nuisance. Maybe the Moslem factions of MTW would have fared better had this penalty been removed from them. Admittedly, there has to be a defining feature to prevent 'constant' retreat but it is a fine line before it becomes a restriction that limits tactical approach. In STW it was even worse, where it was like a countdown of backward moves. Once you reached your limit your unit simply had enough and marched off. There has to be a differential between being forced to retreat and choosing to

......Orda

[L'Impresario]

That was indeed an issue, specifically with factions having HA and fast shock cav.
Still it was not so great if the enemy was actually forced to attack you after pushing him into a position that was clearly giving him a disadvantage, namely the unability to respond effectively to skirmishing and a clearly superior firepower -though it has to be quite distinct sometimes to make the defender attack, in any other case it requires bad/rush playing, inability to measure the potential harm being provoked by abandoning defensive or generally good terrain for concetrated allied movements, troops vulnerable to missiles and some other factors.
Yet florin level,map size/terrain type, # of players, overall game pace were more important in order to determine how and when the retreating morale penalty would kick in, and the effects it 'll have over the final battle result.

[pezhetairoi]

Here's an example of how crushing an advantage you can have over an attacking AI.

I was attacked by two huge Gaulish armies, approaching from northeast and southeast. My battlefield (outside Bibracte in Mundus Magnus) was dominated by a cliff facing east with a valley running along its foot and another sheer cliff forming the other wall of the valley.

I immediately moved my sole unit of Roman archers to the edge of the cliff, and formed a line with 7 hastati, with 3 velites thrown out in front and 2 hastati in reserve. Cavalry consisted of 4 equites and 2 generals. These were placed behind the line to deal with any attempt by the reinforcement southeast army to take me in the rear.

The northeast army approached first, and half its units tried to get into my rear via the valley while the other half attacked me headon, with predictable results since their charge at my hastati was coupled with a countercharge by my equites after they had been taken under flaming arrow fire for some time. That cost me 4 casualties among my hastati and none from my equites, since most of them broke the instant my hastati threw pila. the others trapped in the valley routed with arrow fire, and 2 Equites were sent around to pursue. I transferred my line of hastati to the rear to face the southeastern army, which was just approaching. AMazingly, the same thing happened, with half attacking me headon and trying to work around my lines via the valley. This time I didn't even wait for them to take position to match my line, because they faced their right flanks to me while marching into position. One cavalry charge swept them away, and the 2 equites, returning from pursuit, swept the poor Gaulish warriors trapped in the valley. Final deaths, Gauls 4500 or so, me 18.

Defender has a good advantage. Yah. But the above was just me trying to show off :D