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

[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