Attack and Defense

[ichi]

My favorite battles have some similarities.

The initial phase is the positioning and maneuvering. Maybe there is a pav duel with cav skirmishing.

Then the melee, and afterwards there are a few units on each side, scattered over the field. They form up, sometimes the remnants are fairly even, other times one side has a clear advantage going into round 2.

OK, so if the Attackers have the clear advantage, no prob, they attack. If the units are even, no prob, the Attackers usually attack.

But what about the times when the Defenders have the clear advantage?

It seems to me that many veterans have an unspoken rule about this, that the stronger force attacks in round 2. Usually the guys that I respect the most take the initiative.

Some less experienced players, and some of the guys you seem only interested in winning at all costs, will sit on a hill and say "you are Attack, I expect you to climb this hill and fight a larger force"

How do you feel about this all important MP issue?

I voted 'If I have a clear advantage in Round 2 I attack'

ichi

[Nigel]

Although I was torn between several choices, I voted "Att/Def means nothing".

For some of my battles this is true right from the start. But it is certainly true for Round 2 for most of my battles. After the initial melee, when my heartbeat slows down a bit and we try to regroup, all I think about is how to make the best of the mess we are in.

If we have the advantage, I would be ashamed to camp on a hill and demand them to attack.

But I also remember a thrilling battle, were we were attackers. My two allies had mostly been beaten and I was facing 3 somewhat depleted armies. There seemed to be no question that we would make our stand on a small hill and prepair for their onslaught.

We won by an inch. Which was nice for us, but the main thing is, that we all had a very exciting endgame, which would otherwise merely have been a dull slaughter and rapid rout.

[Tomisama]

I voted "Att/Def means nothing" too

In my book, Attack and Defend are only relative to, and a legacy of, Single Player.

Multiplayer is more like a chance encounter between two opposing forces, and has only one objective; destroy the enemy
How you do that should be entirely up to you, as it is you that will pay the price if you don’t make it happen.

Two forces enter, one force leaves…

[Nikodil]

I went for the diplomatic "Depends on the situation" choice. For a friendly game, fun is more important, so i might "drop the guard" to make the game more balanced or try out some interesting tactics. But in a deadly competition game, winning *is* top priority, and games are usually fought in pairs, switching sides, and i would feel no obligation whatsoever to attack on defense (unless tactical sound, of course).

[Tomisama]

Excellent Blutzeit

If that is the difference, "friendly or competitive”, I would change my vote for “depends on the (that) situation”. Beyond that, it also “depends” on who you are playing with. Get a game of old pros on, and it’s "no holds bared"

[tgi01]

Does this really matter if one side has the clear advantage ?

Generally let me disagree here , if you are the attacker you have to attack , if you are in the second round and ya have to fight upphill , well then you lost ... rout your army and congratulate your opponent ...

There are scenarios/ maps when your atatcker / defender status will clearly decide the outcome ( like a map with woods when the defender has lotsa inf and the attacker lotsa cav / shooters left )

On the other hand the only time this really matters is in competitions and there you will have the chance to both attack and defend ...

For myself I m on the attacking side in 90 % of my games , but do not expect the roles to be reversed ...

TGI


PS: Good topic ichi :)

[Tomisama]

Why would I have to attack?

Where is it written?

I can just sit and wait for you to loose your cool and either quit the game, or attack me.

Saying I have to attack you because I am at the north end of the map, is the same as saying that you cannot attack me because you are starting at the south end of the map.

No game ever won by a defender who did not attack at some point. If attacking is fair for both sides, the strategically defending is fair for both. So it is really all the same for both, if you want to have a fair game.

If you want to practice being a defender in a friendly game say so, that’s ok. But to claim there is some “special obligation” on your opponent, to waste his time throwing himself against your camped position, well it wont be me...

[t1master]

my feet hurt cause elmo and ichi stepped on them while we were routing.

defense and attack mean nothing to me. if i'm on defense and we have an advantage i have no problems persuing it and my favorite teammates are of a like mind.

if after the big melee i'm on defense and we still have the advantage, i'd expect my team to go and mop up the stragglers.

i dislike those that shout, you are the attackers, you have to attack blah blah...

[Aelwyn]

Depends on the sitation. In any case I'm usually looking to get some sort of advantage, so even if I have less men, it might still be advantageous to attack even if on defense. If my opponent hasn't yet reformed, and I have enough cavs, I'll try to pick off individual units that are away from the main force, to try to even things up a bit.

[Sulla]

I voted depends on situation:

Attack and defensive, especially in competitive games, play a role. If Im defender, and have lots of archers left (with ammo), my enemy has none, I would engage him, shoot and wait till he rushes my position.

If im attacker and have no archers left, I just try to outsmart and outmanoeuvrer my opponent.

there is no real rule about the larger force attacks. Nor should there be... If I have lots of cav, and an attacker with only infantry withdraws do a defendable position, I just try to single out some units, usually taking inititative. I never bring a lot of infantry, so thats also a reason why I usually end up attacking in 2nd round or even a 3rd or 4th.

Just rout your opponent first round, and you wont have to bother

Sulla

[Nikodil]

The side you choose when joining a game is supposed to be on the strategic level. That is, at the start of the battle, the defender is the one who controls the land. The defending team want to preserve status quo, and thus seeks to avoid confrontation unless in clear advantage. On the other hand, for the attacker seeks a change of ownership, and must actively take action to succeed.

On the tactical level, attack more or less means being on the move. It doesn't have to do anything about attacks on strategic levels. Strategic defense can be done with tactical attacks (i.e. "attack is the best defence"), and strategic attacks can even be done with defense tactics (if you have the skill).

But then, in MP, as there is no consequence of the battle results (other then in competitions), this doesn't matter that much. Most battles are really meeting engagements, last man standing is the winner.

depends on the situation

[shingenmitch2]

If you join a game as an attacker, then you accept the fact that you must initiate combat in some way. If you don't accept that, then always be the defender or don't join.

Defender has the luxury of sitting at any point, or all game long.

Why is it like that? Because otherwise you will get both sides camping and both could make equal claim that the other must attack them... "You attack up hill" "no you" "no you" With teams marked "attacker"/"defender" there is no confusion on that responsibility.

If after the main battle, the defender has obviously more units left -- guess what, he is still defender and can sit.

--------------
That said, I'm the attacker 90% of the time. When I defend, I rarely sit -- as there are disadvantages to purely static defense.

[ichi]

Quote[/b] ]If after the main battle, the defender has obviously more units left -- guess what, he is still defender and can sit.

Very true. The 'Attacker' also has the option of sitting, and if both do then the game ends without a clear victory. Some would say that in such a case the attacker lost, others might disagree.

I asked the question to try to see if there was a community consensus on the issue, and while it seems like a majority feel that the defender, if they have a clear advantage, gains little honor by sitting and screaming "You are Attacker - Attack me", some disagree.

My hope was to at least open up the debate, so that new players would not automatically assume that they must sit and make some poor sap climb uphill against overwhelming odds.

Or that they somehow gain honor by doing so.

Can we agree that the defender is technically within their rights, but that the decent thing to do is to attack when you clearly have an advantage?

ichi

[Nikodil]

Quote[/b] (ichi @ June 09 2004,20:45)]

Quote[/b] ]the decent thing to do is to attack when you clearly have an advantage?

Is it decent? Hehe, I always try to behave as decent as possible, attacking the most disadvantaged ones.

[octavian]

Quote[/b] (VKC_Blutzeit @ June 06 2004,06:12)]I went for the diplomatic "Depends on the situation" choice. For a friendly game, fun is more important, so i might "drop the guard" to make the game more balanced or try out some interesting tactics. But in a deadly competition game, winning *is* top priority, and games are usually fought in pairs, switching sides, and i would feel no obligation whatsoever to attack on defense (unless tactical sound, of course).

seconded

[Aelwyn]

I defend so rarely that its actually a bit harder for me. So I am usually trying to attack even when on defense, and even when I've got less men. And it actually makes more sense to me as well. If you are really outnumbered, you don't want to wait until your opponent reorganizes and controls the situation, as if they have more men, you're most likely going to be overwhelmed...unless you camp in a corner and use two edges to force them into attacking you only head on. And that to me isn't much of a victory. Sure you used your brain a bit, but at that point the outcome doesn't really seem to matter. No one is proving their skill anymore. But, if you attack with an inferior number of men, rout them, and cascade that into a chain route that ultimately wins you the battle, thats a bit better. It still shows disorganization on the part of your opponent, but better than corner camping.

[ichi]

Quote[/b] (VKC_Blutzeit @ June 10 2004,01:19)]

Quote[/b] ]the decent thing to do is to attack when you clearly have an advantage?

Is it decent? Hehe, I always try to behave as decent as possible, attacking the most disadvantaged ones.

*stretches mind to embrace the irony*

Today has been an ironic day for me, so . . .

Yes, the decent thing to do is to attack the weak and kill them.

There, I said it

ichi

[Nikodil]

(well, i was quoting slightly out of context, but still...)

I had an excellent 3v3 game vs the Storms yesterday, where they showed the art of defensive tactics, and very clearly illustrated the difference between strategical and tactical defense. They were on the attacking side, and all of us defenders had more or less purely defensive armies. The pav/archer war went on for a very long time (45 mins). I think the two armies on the right side didn't even engage during that time. One of my allies even started complaining "Aren't you gonna attack? If you dont attack you should be defending". But they were winning the missile war, there was no point for them to attack. Eventually all my ammo was exchausted, and gunpowder units coming close, I charged. And routed. Their tactics soon went into the so-called cleaning up phase. GG

[The_Emperor]

It always depends on the situation.

As I see it the attackers have the responsibility to move towards the defenders for the start of the Pav War battle, after that anything can happen.

[Bezalel]

I don't really make a distincition between attacking and defending sides. The one being that if I'm defending, I wait for them to march up to me. I usually just sit wherever I've been put when I join (unless I have the urge to play w/ someone else). If I see something that I can do to exploit something they have done, I'm going to do it. On to the topic. If my enemies are split up, I'll try to corner one and take him/her out while the time is ripe. Otherwise, I'll just regroup w/ my teammates. Better not to do anything rash, and lose a game you should have won.