Defense or Offence?

[0101001]

In open field battles do you prefer attacking or defending? I myself enjoy defending a lot more than attacking.

[PershsNhpios]

It very much depends on what your identity is, and who your enemy are.

If in charge of a phalanx battle-line, I play very defensively.
If in charge of a Celtic or Roman line, I play offensively.
If in charge of a Nomadic battle-line, I fight evasively.

This is how I fight with an army, but I often have cavalry skirmishes to wear down sighted armies before engaging, which can be done without any losses to your men, and thus the enemy can suffer a loss of one third of their army before they even reach your line.

[blank]

ATTACK!!!

It's easy to catch the advancing AI army off-guard like that

[TWFanatic]

I always attack if I can, because the AI sucks in EB. Unfortunately, I sometimes get attacked, and nothing I do can make the AI stand still. I just defend in these situations.

[Watchman]

Depends on the armies involved and if whether I'm the attacker or the defender, natch. For example if both armies include a lot of missile infantry it tends to be grossly advantageous to be the defender.

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

I prefer to attack with a large force, clogging up their line with troops who aren't going to win the battle, but still keep them stalled. Then I move a secondary force of elite soldiers around the battleline and then start to rout them, one group of soldiers at a time, and when they are routing I send my cavalry to make sure the survivors will not be able to function as human beings afterwards.

:beam:

[johnhughthom]

I play with the general camera and find defending is much easier than attacking as I don't like to send my units too far away as I lose track of them, especially cavalry chasing routing enemies. I know it has been said many times before but if you find EB too easy try general cam, it isn't exactly hard but you do have to think more.
Although the OP was about field battles,I should mention I have found assaulting cities is certainly much more difficult as attacking through different walls/gates is hard to control(which meant I had to totally change my tactics in assaults)and the AI seems sensible enough to attack the weakest general if you seige with two different armies.

[pseudocaesar]

Im a defender, i rarely seek out an attack, what i do is try and offer the enemy battle. This usually only works with larger forces, likewise, i never attack settlement, i just wait it out and let them sally.

[Conqueror]

A good way to make war as one of the successor factions is to march an army to enemy territory, park it on an advantageous spot and wait. They will attack you and then you can fight defensively with phalanx deployed on a strong position, keep your cavalry fresh untill they're needed to overrun routers. This way you can inflict great casualties in a couple of big battles, then move on to siege a city.

[alatar]

Defend, even as rome, the Orbis formation is great, but anything is good.

[Geoffrey S]

When I still had a useable PC for EB I tended to attack or defend based on the traits of the general. It's very easy to win cheap victories by just sitting on hills, but more fun to mix things up and incur defeats by taking risks.

[Reno Melitensis]

With the romans I play a mixture of both. First defend, I move forward the Accensi to shower enemy with missiles, than the Velites move out from between the maniples of hastati to lure enemy soldiers out from their positions. When enough damage has been done, Attack! Charge !. Hastati and Principe throw their pila supported by the Velites and Triari. If every thing goes to plan:sweatdrop: , it will be a Roman victory.:yes:


But recently I took a all cavalry Parthian army to war against the selucid. It was a Custom battle against the Selucids. I decided to give the Selucids a balanced army with a core of Phalanxes and elite support troops, plus some heavy Cataprachts. I went on the attack, and the damage inflicted by the archer cavalry, and the tremendous charge of the Parthian cataprachts is awesome.


Cheers.

[Horst Nordfink]

In my current Mak campaign, I prefer to defend. Those argyrspidai and pezhetairoi (spelling?) forming a defensive line with archers and slingers behind them. It's more or less unbeatable, especially with Thessalian Cavalry to run down those gutless bastards as they run away!

[LusitanianWolf]

When I'm playing an "civilisated" faction (Rome, Carts, Greeks) or Lusotannan: "We walk to battle. We stand and they die." :yes: :wall:


When I'm playing an western "barbaric" (Sweboz, Celts) faction: Chaaaaaaaarge!!!!!! Attaaaaack!!!!! Hunt them all!!!!!!) :dizzy2: :smash:

I have done few successfull eastern campains by my usual tactic is "Our arrows will blow up the sun, :laugh4: " :brakelamp:

[Andronikos]

My most favourite style of fighting is the diadochi one - phalanxes form the main line and are complemented with cavalry, elephants, assault infantry, missile troops and so on. I fight in a quite agressive way, I make my enemies attack me, stop them with phalanxes and than perform a counter attack with assault infantry or cavalry usually from the rear. Cavalry is good for dealing with missile troops too so they don't make much damage.

Romani and Celts are interesting too, it requires a lot of patience and maneuvers especially when facing a phalanx or strong-unit army, so it is more attacking with them, but many of their units have javelins what is very useful in defence.

To conclude, it depends a lot on your enemy which style is better. And a good general should know what to do.

[NeoSpartan]

IF I play in VH battle difficulty I prefer to sit on a hill and defend. OR attack a smaller enemy force.

IF I play H battle difficulty I usually attack.

I don't play M battle difficulty... too easy.

IF I play MP.... well it really depends. IF I have no missiles I attack FAST. IF I have missile supperiority I play defensively unitl I run out of missiles or the other guy comes after me.

p.s MP is the S***!!! So get on X-fire and lets :boxing: dance

[Sand]

I prefer attacking normally - I dont have to watch the enemy move back and forth endlessly. Also my armies tend to be cavalry heavy so their predisposed to the attack.

That said, the toughest, most draining, most enjoyable battle I ever had was on the defence. A Roman army I was sending to besiege Numantia got blindsided east of Numantia by the large rebel stack that hangs about there [literally came out of the fog, missed it with the spies]. I had an understrength stack, only intended for a routine seige not a field battle, to defend against a horde [full stack] of agressive, well armed and experienced Spaniards, led by the Moska [?] guy.

Basically I was screwed, badly but decided to fight anyway. Suffice to say it was a hell of a battle - I wished Id frapsed it or taken more screenshots but it was only about 20 minutes in that I realised "I might win this!".

Id had very few cavalry, most of what I had was killed early in the battle, so I found it very hard to A) Break the Spanish, B) Rout them off the map. So a lot of Spanish units routed [Finally!!!!], then reformed a distance off and returned to my despair - I simply couldnt spare the men to finish them as there was always some emergency where my fighting line was buckling or actually breaking.

After an huge epically bloody mass melee [battlefield was carpeted with bodies along the line] and me pulling out every AI expoiting trick I could, desperate charging and counter charging [Acceni were thrown in against the breach the Spanish made, because there litterally was no one else], my General [ Again, like the stack totally unremarkable green character] fighting like an absolute hero and killing the enemy general [none of the Spanish routed :( ], the exhausted and mauled few hundred Roman survivors [mish mash of surviving units] managed to fall back to a high rocky outcrop in the center of the battle where they saw off the surviving spanish elites and won an epic victory.

Did I get a famous victory icon for a battle involving thousands of troops and effectively as many casualties for both sides? No :furious3:

But I did get a *hell* of a battle which I still remember, and sometimes thats what defending can do. I attack when I know I can win, but defending sometimes lets you win battles you never thought you could at the outset.

[raenor]

Im a defensive player. I find that I tend to lose less men while defending rather than attacking. I had an Epeirus campaign at around 200BC or so and would just sit a stack at choke points and let the enemy break on them. With Chaonian Agema, Illyori (sp) Thorakitai, Agrinian Assault Infantry, Odd missile unit, General and one or two units of Mossolion Agema.

I would sit my infantry in a standard line with two lines on the flanks (AI tends to get units behind you sometimes) Let the enemy sit on my pikemen then just flank them with my assault infantry and Heavy Cav = dead enemy.

Playing as Qarthadast atm and its a bit different. Pikemen being too expensive for me right now so its down to the more standard fare of their "Hoplites", Spearmen and the Assault swordsmen. At around 240 BC right now and at war with only Lusotann and Ptol. Lusotann is down to two cities with one seiged by me. Its great, Rome has left me alone! I've got Rhegion too, so heaps of Trading being done! Damn Ptols keep going after Lepki every so often tho :(.

Anyways I still play Defensive with Qarthadast but not as much. Those Iberian assault infantry are great for flanking the lusotann spearmen! and the Iberia Lancerii (sp) are great heavy cav along with the general's unit! Its easier to attack with the Qarthadast than it is with Epeirus or another Successor. I want to play AS but ugh I find it hard to start them :(

[Hooahguy]

i wait for them to come to me- better make them get tired and not my forces. but if im in a forest, i split my forces up and ambush them as much as possible, which usually works. :smg:

[Centurion Crastinus]

If I greatly outnumber the enemy greatly, I always attack. If the sides are even or disadvantageous to me I will defend. I then make use of natural geographical features to strengthen my line like a steep hill that can not be climbed.

[Parkev]

A few times while attacking as the Casse I have dispatched a lesser general or cavalry units on the campaign map to act as a re-enforcement from behind and attacked with my main force in the same turn. This forces me to balance peppering with missile fire, encroaching to a close enough distance and engaging before my allied AI controlled general kills himself by charging into some spears. Much more engaging and difficult.

[Long lost Caesar]

Defend. Just let em come to ya, and light em up with my catapults:idea2:

[NightStar]

It depends and is circumstantial. One thing I know is never attack the Saka with a successor army, chasing the bastards while being shot to snailsnots is no battleplan at all.

Often I tailor my army composition by the army I'm gonna engage. If the enemy is fielding a lot of archers I field lots of cavalry and attack. If the enemy has horse archers I field archers and spearmen and let him attack me.

[glouch]

what i do is kind of a manipulation of the AI.

i use diadochi factions,
and i usually attack a city, then wait for their reinforcement armies...
very often i'm outnumbered 2-1 or more but that way i don't have to hunt down their armies all over the map. its a good way to make the enemy armies come to you... so you can slaughter them within a much more efficient timeframe.

as long as your army has all the elements (meaning it has phalanxes and a least a pezhetairoi [argyraspidai or some other elite phalanxe is better] unit to hold the center, adequate missile support, at least 2 units of thorakitai-style troops to guard the flanks of the phalanxes, and 2 to x [where x is an element of the set of natural numbers] units of adequate cavalry to deliver the 'hammer strike'), and you wield your army with wisdom and foresight, you're unbeatable.

[Megas Methuselah]

Can you even beat those pesky parthians who can simply ride circles around you? :mellow:

[Conqueror]

Seleukid and Baktrian factions at least have access to good Mesopotamian, Iranian and Indian archer units, which they can use to counter horse-archer based armies. You have phalanx and thureophoroi/thorakitai type units which hold the line and behind them you place your foot-archers, in loose formation. Heavy cavalry charges will be stopped and killed by the pikemen/spearmen, while your archers exhange arrows with HA.

Of corse, you'll need to pay careful attention to the formation and deployment of your army. You'll want to design it to make flanking as difficult as possible, and always be ready to counter flanking manouvres and breaks through your infantry line with mobile units. Get to high ground if you at all can, and use any present buildings and vegetation to protect your units from missiles and cavalry charges.

Never allow yourself be drawn out of the advantageous position, for that is the quickest and surest way to lose the battle against nomad factions.

[PenguinLobster]

My campaign strategy revolves around sieging, assaulting a turn later and immediately moving to the next city. The only time I attack is if one of my cities is under siege or their blocking my way. Why destroy the enemy troops when I can just go past them and leave nothing for them to come home to.

[NightStar]

Never allow yourself be drawn out of the advantageous position, for that is the quickest and surest way to lose the battle against nomad factions.

I agree, therefore you should avoid attacking them, unless you are going to besiege them. If they want to fight, let them come to you.

[Zalmoxis]

In a campaign game, it depends on whether or not I have soldiers to spare; if I do, then I attack, if not, I position myself very close to their troops and wait for an attack.

[Olaf The Great]

I suck at offence even with celtic battlelines because of one thing


The freaking AI has some sort of crazy line :P


So, I always just sit and wait for the enemy to attack.

[russia almighty]

mobile defense .

Basically I keep moving but I let the enemy attack first .