Was it really so much easier to defend than to attack?

[Imperial Fist]

I think it depended on the situation whether it is more difficault to attack or the defend. Take a look at massda or alesia. The romans outnumbered their enemies but still werent able to storm the cities(fortresses). And i mean the romans had formidable siege equipment and with the legioners quite heavy infantry. The jews and the gauls had the geographical advantage. The fortresses were built on hills, which made the siege equipment more or less useless.
The battle of hastings is also a nice example, although it took place 1000 years later, the equipment didnt change that much. The saxons had also the geographical advantage, but were fools enough to give it up.
I would say you cant expect a game, with lets say "rules of playing", to show you it could have been in the real past.

[Gaius Valerius]

i swear by the tactics of the great Wellington: a strategic offensive, combined with a defensive tactic: i move my troops deep into enemy turf and let them come to me afterwards, preferably on a spot i pick. i rarely attack cuz i like them to come at me. it makes it easier cuz otherwise they mostly spawn their army at the other side of the friggin map and that sucks. the outcome is the same anyway.

in battle i always tend to pin them down with my center, then nail their flanks with mine, and finally crush one flank with a decisive cavalry blow. when you are attacked you can easily deploy your troops. when your attacking, you need to bring your formation to them and do it so they wont screw up your plan. sometimes that goes wrong (some units arrive to early, to late, etc...), but adapting is something i like.

i generally dont like ambushes. i like to take them out on the field, and i mean that literally. i hate fighting in forests cuz i have to little overview that way. and since i rely severely on my cavalry for the finishing touch i need to see the whole picture.


@ Imperial Fist:

as i recall, the romans did storm massada. they build this friggin huuuuuge rampart for their siege equipment (you can still see it today i believe) but the judeans killed themselves before falling victim to the romans. at alesia i dont think they had the possibility to stage an assault since caesar himself was pinned between 2 armies. so he could only wait for someone to make the first move. geographical issues werent such a problem for roman engineers. to build the rampart there they supposedly cut down every tree in the surroundings. really, their construction were mind-blowing, no medieval siege can even come close to what they did.

[Watchman]

Siege-ramps were always the purview of major empires that could keep large armies in the field more or less indefinitely; they served the Achamenid Persians quite well too, by what I understand. Of course, throwing one up required the besieging army to have ample time at its disposal, ie. no nasty relief armies on the way and so on. And of course the logistics to be able to remain in the siege camp for the required time.

Medieval armies tended to be remarkably short of both those kinds of full-time troops, and sieges where they didn't have to worry about either other enemy forces or the shortage of victuals. They habitually compensated with a lot of quite sophisticated siege engines though.

[TWFanatic]

Assaulting walls has always been one of my strengths and I enjoy it, so I rarely carry out a lengthy siege unless there logistical or strategic demand for me to do so. I virtually never defend, the AI simply isn't fast enough to keep pace with a human brain. It's also extremely rare, from my experience, for the AI to launch a large-scale invasion. Yes I play on vh/h.

If you attack, the AI gives away all initiative to you, and you can easily outmanouver them and force them to split up etc. Typically, on the defensive you have to face a more aggressive and coordinated enemy.

Precisely. Plus it's boring to sit and wait to be attacked. Who knows, maybe the AI will simply yet you devastate their land. If I have a full stack army, I want it always on the march, always attacking, always conquering. I can't afford to sit and wait for the enemy to attack me.

[Gaius Valerius]

i mostly use a minimum of 2 armies when assaulting enemy territory. one with only heavy inf that lays siege and the other(s) - fully fledged battle armies -to secure the siege and take on relief armies.

the AI never comes when you attack, thats why i rather have them coming to me in defense. otherwise they are always waiting half across the map...

[Intranetusa]

^ Same here Gaius, but I often include an army of millita/levies as garrison when I conquer a city so my main force can move on... :D