The best way to attack is...

[Beholder]

to not go offensive.

After chatting with some experienced players, sometimes they talked about how some champioships were won by defensive players.

I admit the attacker takes all the risks. He is far from home attacking a fortified unit on a village (healing) hex. Even if he succedes, his units will be (mostly) on a bad defensive terrain. If the defender plays his cards right, he can make a desvastating counter-attack.

If you are a Chaotic / Lawful faction you may argue the advantages of attacking, and I won`t take your reason, but if you get 2 neutral factions (elves, dwarves) or 2 faction with the same alignment the advantage disappear.

Specially if you use a defensive faction, there is little reason to attack, elves / dwarves need specific tiles to be effective, and its better to counter-attack then to be on the offensive. You can win attacking of course, but I hope you see you are taking far more risks then staying on your good terrain.

But what if both factions are defensive? Assuming for a second defense is superior since you have good terrain, healing on nearby villages and quicker reinforcements, why to attack?

To close, I wish the attacking side got some kinda of bonus to make the game more dinamic. I wish whoever is attacking should have some kinda of advantage to force people to stay offensive.

[Noy]

Weren't you supposed to quit? Why don't you? I mean if this game that we made is so crap and you are so good, why don't you play a better game.

I'm too lazy to give you an answer, but here is one from another thread.

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 997#239997


BTW this thread is two steps away from being locked, because its a redone thread.

[Doc Paterson]

Beholder, my friend:

There are good offensive players. There are good defensive players. There are advantages to defending; relative closeness to your castle, healing, etc. There are advantages to attacking; you choose which pieces of their defense to target, create situations where you can maneuver behind them and disrupt their economy, etc. Check out the replays for TOC 2 to see a good offensive player running through everyone.

A defensive player believing their style to be superiour does not make it so.

This probably should be locked, but I'm going to leave it alone for now.

[Beholder]

Weren't you supposed to quit? Why don't you? I mean if this game that we made is so crap and you are so good, why don't you play a better game.

I'm too lazy to give you an answer, but here is one from another thread.

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 997#239997


BTW this thread is two steps away from being locked, because its a redone thread.

Do you expect people to really keep tabs of every single thread? I am serious here because eventully, all topics will fall on the "already posted" clause.

And on the personal side, posting takes far less time then to play. I can post from virtually anywhere too, but playing can be done only on my house.

Now, the crap part is only your. Guilty mind maybe? But don`t push your viewpoints on me. I personally never said the game was bad.

I only gave my opinion on the matter and was far more diplomatic then on my famed DrakeLoy thread.

I even said some factions works on offense too, but there is a chance too defensive players meet (elves x elves?) and the game turns in a stalemate.

And to Doc (brrr.. I already fear replying, let me choose carefully my words).

The defender, in a sense, can choose the battlefield.. the villages are already good defensive points and the defense can play in a sense all good terrains are already taken. This can change from map to map but I think (not sure) most houses are surrounded by plains making the attacker sit there to attack the villages.

Well, this is just my view of the thing. Maybe I am wrong? This was just something I tough after hearing some people won playing defense.

My point is if 2 players choose to defend , the game turn in a test of patience. If 2 good players choose defense and decide to -never- attack, what will happen?

So I think (keyword: my opinion) attack should be more awarded to not incentive players to "turtle".

[Yogibear]

I am surprised that (as far as i could see) there was never mentioned the main reason for being the attacker: You are the first to do damage with very few retaliation. Yes, you will be open to a counter attack, but with the right conditions, attacking will still be favourable.

Let's say you play a typical 1 vs 1 and after a few turns, you both have 8 units. Your opponent positions his units on favourable terrain and waits for your attack. You wait until the right TOD and go marching. Let's say you manage to kill 1 unit and wound a second badly. What happened:
- You have received almost no damage (melee against archers, ranged against fighters)
- Your opponent is outnumbered. If he doesn't want to lose his second unit he will have to retreat it and it's 6 units of him facing 8 of yours.
- If your TOD's are opposite, he can't strike hard.

That doesn't sound so bad for me. Yes, you are still taking a risk by being on bad terrain. It's your opponents key of surviving your attack. I am not saying attacking is a no-brainer. But if done properly it's a good chance to decide a game.

TOD plays a big role with this. Now what about the neutral factions? Dwarves got that ulfserker, being able to almost always kill any non-melee unit. Even if it gets killed it killed an enemy unit, wounded another one and drawed it away from attacking other units of yours. Giving you the opportunity to make the next turn even more devastating.

And elves? Well, there is a reason they are considered a defensive faction, they are just not made to break into an enemy front .

If you got the same TOD than your enemy, it's more difficult. You will still have the "attack first" advantage, but he can strike back much harder. And you will still be on bad terrain. These matchups are much more difficult to play IMO.

Over time, i found myself getting more aggressive within games. I don't attack blindly but if i think i found a good opportunity i almost always take it. Maybe it's just because i like to be in control of things .

[Noyga]

Well if both opponents just sit and wait, if one is Undead or Northerners, it can build a large army of level 0 units. Usually this is a waste of gold but if you're too passive this might have a chance to succeed.

Also some types of gameplay work better with some factions.
For example defensive play works nicely with Rebels but is more difficult with Drakes (who work nicely with a hit and run gameplay).

[Lorbi]

And elves? Well, there is a reason they are considered a defensive faction, they are just not made to break into an enemy front .

Mage negates the terrain bonus.
If i see my opponent playing defensive i get 2 or even 3 of them and use them to get rie of 1 or 2 units of his on terrain that is good for me.
eg. kill a unit in w00d and place an archer there to protect mage and attack further

but well .. what i want to do is not to give a lesson how to play elves but underline this:
a succesfull attack is possible with any faction and against any faction

[Velensk]

a succesfull attack is possible with any faction and against any faction

I agree to this

[Noy]

Weren't you supposed to quit? Why don't you? I mean if this game that we made is so crap and you are so good, why don't you play a better game.

I'm too lazy to give you an answer, but here is one from another thread.

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 997#239997


BTW this thread is two steps away from being locked, because its a redone thread.

Do you expect people to really keep tabs of every single thread? I am serious here because eventully, all topics will fall on the "already posted" clause.

No I expect them to use the search function. Pretty simple basic stuff even for you.

And on the personal side, posting takes far less time then to play. I can post from virtually anywhere too, but playing can be done only on my house.



Now, the crap part is only your. Guilty mind maybe? But don`t push your viewpoints on me. I personally never said the game was bad.

riight. Well lets look here, you seem to claim that this game is unbalanced in innumerable instances.

I even said some factions works on offense too, but there is a chance too defensive players meet (elves x elves?) and the game turns in a stalemate.

Elves are "defensive"? They have some of the most offensive units in the game: the mage and the Wose.

Great you have 70% defence in the forest with an archer. A 10-3 hit by a mage in a forest in the day drops you down to 4 hp which gets mopped up fairly quick by a fighter with 4 strikes. Buhbye "impenetrable defence" because I now hold the 70% terrain.

And to Doc (brrr.. I already fear replying, let me choose carefully my words).

The defender, in a sense, can choose the battlefield.. the villages are already good defensive points and the defense can play in a sense all good terrains are already taken. This can change from map to map but I think (not sure) most houses are surrounded by plains making the attacker sit there to attack the villages.

So you can defend all points equally well and make an impenetrable defence now?

Well, this is just my view of the thing. Maybe I am wrong? This was just something I tough after hearing some people won playing defense.

My point is if 2 players choose to defend , the game turn in a test of patience. If 2 good players choose defense and decide to -never- attack, what will happen?

So I think (keyword: my opinion) attack should be more awarded to not incentive players to "turtle".

Honestly? A lot of us are getting tired of your "opinions." Particularly when they are consistently wrong, or just plain idioitic. Who makes the statement "if 2 good players chose to defend and never attack what will happen?" Its as pointless a question for this debate as "what is the sound of one hand clapping."

Defence always looks easier. There is a line in Sun Tzu's Art of War that I always like.

Invincibility lies in the defence: The possibility of victory in the attack. One defends when his strength is inadequate; he attacks where it is abundant

Clausewitz also states that defence is the stronger form of war.

If defence is the stronger form of war yet has a negative object, it follows that it should be used only so long as weakness compesls, and be abandoned as soon as we are strong enough to pursue a positive object. When one has used defensive measures successfully, a more favourable balance of strenght is usually created; thus the natural course in war is to begin defsnively and end by attacking. It would therefore contradict the very idea of war to regard defense as its final purpose.

My point of posting all of this is that even in classical war theory, defence is easier to conduct than attack. You're just falling into a trap in thinking that its better just to play defence. Taking good terrain does not mean that you win. you can never take all the good terrain, and no defence is ever perfect. Good players know that, and see how they can exploit another's weakness and defend against their own.

[thespaceinvader]

Defending continually is all very well, but unless the enemy is dense enough to attack you directly with his leader, how are you ever going to win? I know it's been said before, but that's putting it far more bluntly =P

And besides, they say the best form of defence is a strong offence...

[Yogibear]

Defending continually is all very well, but unless the enemy is dense enough to attack you directly with his leader, how are you ever going to win? I know it's been said before, but that's putting it far more bluntly =P

Well, you don't defend forever. You just wait for the enemy to attack, wipe out his main force by countering and then win by sheer numbers. It's a viable strategy but IMO bears as many risks as attacking first.

[thespaceinvader]

Indeed. In fact, if you set your line too far back and your attacker is canny, you risk him never running out of units...

[Beholder]

Do you expect people to really keep tabs of every single thread? I am serious here because eventully, all topics will fall on the "already posted" clause.

No I expect them to use the search function. Pretty simple basic stuff even for you.

And on the personal side, posting takes far less time then to play. I can post from virtually anywhere too, but playing can be done only on my house.



Now, the crap part is only your. Guilty mind maybe? But don`t push your viewpoints on me. I personally never said the game was bad.

riight. Well lets look here, you seem to claim that this game is unbalanced in innumerable instances.

I even said some factions works on offense too, but there is a chance too defensive players meet (elves x elves?) and the game turns in a stalemate.

Elves are "defensive"? They have some of the most offensive units in the game: the mage and the Wose.

Great you have 70% defence in the forest with an archer. A 10-3 hit by a mage in a forest in the day drops you down to 4 hp which gets mopped up fairly quick by a fighter with 4 strikes. Buhbye "impenetrable defence" because I now hold the 70% terrain.

And to Doc (brrr.. I already fear replying, let me choose carefully my words).

The defender, in a sense, can choose the battlefield.. the villages are already good defensive points and the defense can play in a sense all good terrains are already taken. This can change from map to map but I think (not sure) most houses are surrounded by plains making the attacker sit there to attack the villages.

So you can defend all points equally well and make an impenetrable defence now?

Well, this is just my view of the thing. Maybe I am wrong? This was just something I tough after hearing some people won playing defense.

My point is if 2 players choose to defend , the game turn in a test of patience. If 2 good players choose defense and decide to -never- attack, what will happen?

So I think (keyword: my opinion) attack should be more awarded to not incentive players to "turtle".

Honestly? A lot of us are getting tired of your "opinions." Particularly when they are consistently wrong, or just plain idioitic. Who makes the statement "if 2 good players chose to defend and never attack what will happen?" Its as pointless a question for this debate as "what is the sound of one hand clapping."

Defence always looks easier. There is a line in Sun Tzu's Art of War that I always like.

Invincibility lies in the defence: The possibility of victory in the attack. One defends when his strength is inadequate; he attacks where it is abundant

Clausewitz also states that defence is the stronger form of war.

If defence is the stronger form of war yet has a negative object, it follows that it should be used only so long as weakness compesls, and be abandoned as soon as we are strong enough to pursue a positive object. When one has used defensive measures successfully, a more favourable balance of strenght is usually created; thus the natural course in war is to begin defsnively and end by attacking. It would therefore contradict the very idea of war to regard defense as its final purpose.

My point of posting all of this is that even in classical war theory, defence is easier to conduct than attack. You're just falling into a trap in thinking that its better just to play defence. Taking good terrain does not mean that you win. you can never take all the good terrain, and no defence is ever perfect. Good players know that, and see how they can exploit another's weakness and defend against their own.

And here comes the personal attacks. Good thing you are a mod, uh?

[Kestenvarn]

Apparently the best way is to go after the guy that keeps making these sort of threads.

[Yogibear]

And here comes the personal attacks. Good thing you are a mod, uh?

Ok, i will say this only one time:

I read this very carefully and i found only a single offending word in a quite long post. Beholder, i know Noy much longer than you do and he may have his faults but he really tries to get into a reasonable discussion with you.

He is one of the persons knowing most about strategy around here and if you want, you can benefit a lot from his contributions. Just leave away all this nitpicking and you will find that Noy will happily do the same.

Again: If there is something to discuss about other persons behaviour or character, get it out of here and use PM's for that. And don't tell me someone else started it. Just show you know better and deal with it the way it is meant to be.

Edit:
Look again at your threads, and you will find that it wasn't Noy who locked them.