He who attacks first loses? Vel?

[Garth Vader]

You said this in your interview. That with evenly matched military he who attacks first loses, even in other war games.

This is the exact opposite of what I have experienced in SMAC and in basically every other war/stratedy game I have played MP.

In my way of seeing it the defender has 3 main disadvantages.

1. Spread defence. The attacker can attack at any point with as much or as little force as they want, meaning the defender has to be spread out.

2. Fighting on own turf (also an advantage). Bases get taken, lose pop, terrain improvements, or get destroyed. Lose formers and crawlers. The advantage is faster reinforcements. In any game with resource management I would much rather attack and fight on the other guys land.

3. Lack of initiave. The attacker decides where and when to attack. What the initial and secondary goals are. With proper information the initial goals should always be met because if you can't even do that you shouldn't be attacking. After that it's a matter of attack plan vs defender reaction. But even if the entire attack force is wiped out the attacker still has an untouched homeland and has done signifigant damage to their enemies economy and should be able to regroup faster for another attack. Or has forced enough of a lead to be able to sit back with a tech advantage.

I was just wondering what your thoughts on this were!

[bondetamp]

The problem comes when someone attacks you when all your unit are out fighting somewhere (and someone) else.

In a three player game, if a attacks b, c will probably have a big advantage.

[Evil Twin]

Actually, in a war between two equally matched forces, the attacker is at a big diasdvantage.

1> They dont have any defensive positions to fall back to when damaged.
2> The defender can choose where to defend and where to run and can harass the attacker before retreating to defensive positions.
3> The attacker has to commit to an attack plan whereas the defender can make it up as they go along which makes it easier to react to changes.
4> If the armies are evenly matched then the attacker will need multiple units to dislodge a single defender which means the defenders have more units to move around and attack with.
5> The defender can rush build new units and get them into the field faster and so will build up a local numerical superiority. Once they have this, the attacking force will be crushed and the defenders will have enough forces to go on the offensive.

The attacker can only win if they have superior numbers or superior firepower. Preferably both.

[Ned]

With evenly matched forces, the attacker will always win. He can choose the time and place, to the extreme disadvantage of the defender. He will concentrate his forces while the enemy is disbursed. A local bridgehead can be expanded. All the while, the bridgehead base acts as a platform for strategic carnage to the defender's infrastructure.

Attack first!

[theohall]

With evenly matched forces, the attacker can choose the time and place.

However, defending is always easier than attacking if both sides have tech. (ie evenly matched forces).

In SMAC/X it is easy to "hide" units using fungus and bunkers creating a serious disadvantage for the attacker if he chooses to strike without executing adequate reconnaisance.

The catch - the defender should be able to take out "recon" units without revealing his true defensive strength.

An axiom of most strategy games - if you don't have greater than 2-1 odds or greater, attacking is a mistake. This tends to be true in SMAC/X as well. The only exception I'm aware of...the early game rover rush when you find Unity Rovers and no one has developed a significant defensive tech.

[JAMiAM]

You have to forgive Vel...

He's a superb and prolific writer, but...

He really needs to get out more often, and hone his skills against real opponents (i.e. humans).

[Kirnwaffen]

I'd have to say I'm in agreement with Vel. Sure, the attacker can choose time and place and all that, but with evenly matched armies, hitting those hardened positions is going to be tough.

In addition, the attacker can actually only choose time and place to an extent. You don't really think that:

A. I'm going to sit there and let you march units right up to my core bases and launch a "surprise" attack do you?

B. Even if for some incredible reason, I do let you, you don't really think that I haven't shifted a few units around to accomodate new circumstances (yes, even if there is a pact).

Most players can afford to lose some of their fringe bases without serious consequence.

Heck, why should I even bother to respond to an attack on border bases (unless I hold the base, which is unlikely to happen against concentrated forces) immediately. I just reinforce the new border with extra (cheap) defenders, and let you pound away all you want. Then, when you've lost enough units I can hit back at you with my slightly bruised army against your severely beaten army. Even if you have drop infantry, you can just keep droping them, since they attack at 50% penalty.

The one opportunity I see for the attacker is with marines, which are capable of taking important coastal bases. But now what you have is a base with limited facilities, lots of drones to control, and a major liability for defense and reinforcement. Now we get back to the fact that you're on my turf, and my reinforcements are much closer than yours.

So think about it. Vel might have a point here (Not that that happens very often, or anything) .

[Basil]

Originally posted by Garth Vader

3. Lack of initiave. The attacker decides where and when to attack. What the initial and secondary goals are. With proper information the initial goals should always be met because if you can't even do that you shouldn't be attacking.

If the attacker can set useful initial and secondary goals and be sure to obtain them, then the attacker probably will do well even in a situation of military parity. But that situation would be much more rare in a situation of military parity than when the attacker has the advantage in military strength.

Both Garth Vader and Vel say that what they are saying is true in their experience. I suspect that a lot of the people who lost by attacking at parity (in Vel's experience) shouldn't have attacked (by Garth's standards).

I have yet to see a war break out between 2 human SMAC players in a situation of military parity. Of course, I haven't played that many games!

[Ned]

Basil, I think in most wars with military parity, the attacker, having he surprise, will take the first objective. Then there will be a long, protrated struggle while the one attacked marshalls his forces to retake the base. Regardless of the outcome, the one attacked will have a major setback in the game. This is not necessarily the case with the attacker. He may only have lost his invasion force while his homeland bases continued to build infrastructure. Ned

[big_canuk]

I think you guys miss Vel's point.

With 2 evenly matched sides, the side which decides to attack, must divert resources from build to military. He then must take the time to get that force to the target. Provided that the defender has infiltration, he will have time and extra tech to respond.

This is a fine line, and you are right, the attacker will probably inflict more damage. But the lead the defender has gained will probably not be overcome, unless he has underestimated the attack.

Of course, on a tactical level, the attacker has the advantage. But on the metagame level, it would be the sharp defender who would prevail.

[Velociryx]

Good thread and good discussion! As to what I meant, much of that has already been addressed here, but I’ll add my two cents as well.

Two main reasons I made the statement:

First, consider a multi-player game with three or more opponents, all more-or-less equally matched. Player one launches an attack against player two, and they wear themselves out on each other. Player three, who did not participate in the attack in any material way has an enormous potential advantage, now being able to strike at either one or both significantly weakened opponents. In this case then, the advantage clearly goes to he who does not attack first.

Second case, a one on one match. Note here, that I said “he who attacks first, loses.” Thus, the discussion is not so much one of the supremacy of attack vs. defense, but rather, a discussion of timing. By maintaining a watchful eye (amounting to infiltration and constant patrolling) it is possible to see the attack force building up by watching your opponent’s queues. Do this, and you will know the exact composition of that force—and thus, design a counter for it). One simple way to counter the attack at this point is to simply launch one of your own, now that your opponent has put his cards on the table.

Your opponent who launched his attack first now has two unpleasant options. First, he can send the attack force back home to deal with the threat that your force presents—assuming he’s paying just as much attention to your build queues. If he does, then you don’t have a problem. You’ve mucked up your opponent’s game and cost him turn advantage since he now has to spend several turns backtracking. Or, he can proceed with the attack and hope for the best. If he chooses this option, keep in mind that the attack force en route is of a static size. It’d be cool if transports could build units en route to the battle, but since they can’t, you know with absolute authority that the number of units heading your way is a fixed quantity. Further, you have at least some time to augment your existing defense force while he’s travelling to your lands, and with a proper base defense model in place, you can track the attack force’s progress and get a good idea of where it will be landing, shifting resources as needed to deal with the threat. Further still, since you’re aware the attack is coming, you might find yourself in the position of being able to deal with it before it lands and while it is vastly more vulnerable (by sinking the transport, for example).

Finally, there is the structure of an empire to consider. Now, I don’t know about you guys, but my “core” bases are damnably hard to even get to! How’s that, you ask? Simple: Fringe bases. Newer, more marginal bases, put in place specifically to serve as way points and lookout posts. They’re garrisoned, and their very existence means that an attacker will need to conquer them first to keep his forces from getting surrounded/give my jets and choppers a landing site behind the battle. So…the attacker marches in and (maybe) takes a cheesy base on the fringes of my empire. Did that hurt? Nope. Did he totally tip his hand? You bet, and what’s the next step?

Does he divide the force, leaving a garrison at the new base and sending the rest toward another objective. That’s no good, because at that point, he’ll almost certainly be outnumbered at the next objective.

Does he hole up in the base? Also not viable….he’s right next door to my entire military apparatus. Not much hope of keeping the base.

Does he burn it down? No loss there, the base didn’t really have anything in it, and by doing so, his troops are again vulnerable since they burned down their rest and repair station.

Ahhh, and one final thing before I head outta here to work on the next segment of “Break-Away” in the SMAC fiction section.

JAM makes a valid point. It’s true that these days I don’t spend a lot of time on computer games in general. It’s also true that what time I DO spend on computer games is usually limited to SP, with a once-in-a-while hot seat game tossed in for grins—spent three hours playing the Spartans in a hot-seat game against my buddy Greg last week….awesome! I leave it to each person reading my rambles to decide if those facts diminish the truth and validity of the things I write here. Personally, I don’t think so, but in the end, it is for each person to decide. Mostly, that’s a matter of priority. Death will do that to a fellow and I feel as though I have been given something of a second chance at life. The question then, becomes what do I really want to do with the time given to me.

For me, the answer is writing. I love it. Eventually, I hope to “make it” as an author. Given that, my choice is an easy one. I’d simply rather devote more time to writing, thinking, philosophy, and the arts in general than to honing my skills against human opponents in a game, regardless of how fantastic that game is. One thing that dying young taught me….there’s no predicting when the big guy with the scythe will come ask you to dance. Well that and, when you come back, LOTS of people make cookies for you….



-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel, Building up an army, putting them on transports and sending them forth is a legacy of CIV. SMAC is a game about airpower, and to a lessor degree, seapower. If I loaded a bunch of high cost military onto transports and sent them into hostile seas, I consider myself nuts.

No, the way operations can and should be conducted is by taking a base by any means possible, e.g., probe, or landing one or more garrisons off a transport after the airforce has cleaned out the defenders. Then one rush-builds 1-1-1 trained scouts and upgrades them to the best defensive units in order to hold the base while the airforce does its job. Eventually, a second base may be taken. If it is, the rest is history.

Ned

[Velociryx]

Ned, excellent point re: using air power as the prime-puncher of your attack, but in my mind, that does not change the equation to any great degree. This is simply because there are so many ways of dealing with the air power threat. Here, with the range of aircraft having to be considered, the first, best defense is the fringe base, and active patrolling. If an opponent begins launching an attack toward you that is aircraft heavy, it is EXCEEDINGLY easy to spot, as it will take on one of two forms:

1) The opponent will be using a “jet heavy” force, meaning he has to build sea colonies “toward” your empire in order to set up way points for his jets. Barring that, he must wait until he acquires the tech for carrier deck. If he opts for the latter, we’re talking about late game, and if we’re talking late game then we’re also talking tachyon fields which, when combined with AAA tracking means that a single defender can mess up something like half a dozen attack jets, making an air strike counter productive in terms of cost vs. potential gain.

2) The opponent will be using a “chopper heavy” force, meaning they can come from further away and without way points, but also meaning that they will be damaged 30% or more when they reach their objectives. In this case, it’s vigilant patrolling that will serve you well, as a SAM capable chopper can pretty handily munch the daylights out of a bunch of damaged enemy choppers designed to shoot ground pounders. In any case, queue monitoring will reveal much about the opponent’s intentions. Why build a fleet of assault choppers unless you’re planning to send them toward your opponent? 3-4 of them posted at each end of your empire is more than enough to handle a truly VAST attack force if it gets close….any more than that and you’re blatantly advertising your intent, yes? And if you’re blatantly advertising, versus an opponent who is watching your queues, of course he’ll be ready!

On the notion of sending out expensive attackers on transports….it depends. With proper cover it can be a useful thing, but if I’m loading out a transport, very likely it will be with 2-1-1 shell units(with a 1-best-1 defender along for the ride) that I can upgrade just before they land. That way, if I lose the trannie for any reason, I haven’t lost much, but it’s still a threat because they can be upgraded to any configuration or combination I’ll need when they get closer. Also, if an opponent is watching my queues, it won’t be nearly as informative. He’ll know I have lots of shells….::grin:: This brings up one final point which is something of a tangent. Loading out a transport with shell units is MUCH more deadly if you’re playing a game which allows for upgrades from the design workshop! If so, you can upgrade them to deadly configurations and attack the same turn….OUCH. OTOH, if you’re opponent is careless enough to allow said transport to get that close to one of his bases, he kinna deserves what he gets….

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

Good points from all.

I would like to add that most of my experience is from wars in the 2150-Air Power time frame. I don't know if this is still considered a rover rush. Plus I usually played 2 players with 5 AI's. That's where I was coming from in my initial post.

With the limited units available it's quite easy to sneak your transports undetected, and an initial force of 4-6 units can do a whole lot, so even if you are infiltraited an attack is not obvious, especially if the AI's or worms are especially bad. At this stage luck is huge, if you happen to locate your opponent before they locate you surprise can be complete. But if their one naval unit happens to find your invasion fleet it's all over!

My few games with a higher tech war lead me to the conclusion that it is often suicidal for the attacker.

[Avenoct]

I was going to post straight away to this topic, but I'm glad that I waited. What an excellent discussion! I think Theohall has the crux of the issue. If you are going to attack in a strategy game, you make damn sure you have 2:1 odds or better! Evenly matched opponents do NOT attack one another successfully.

To simplify further, assume a 2-player + AI game. Evenly matched opponents might mean 9 rovers, 5 attack infantry, 10 defensive infantry. Imagine that is your force, plus transport. Anyone who tells me they are going to send those 14 attacking forces against me is surely loony. On the simplist level Vel's statement is a tactical truism. Whoever attacks first loses, b/c those 9 rovers are now gone and I have at least half my army left to respond. Why? Attacking units don't 'Pair Up' with attacking units for the most part. Attackers pair up with garrisoned defenders, ie. Expensive but mobile units face odds with cheap stationary ones.

Expanding...of course there are notable exceptions. On the strategic level the defending force may not be well placed and/or the attacker may succeed in a 'roll-over' type offensive where fast units take bases and slow units follow up to mop up or garrison. Furthermore, a lack of information on the defenders part might let them be taken unawares, perhaps while they are launching their own offensive (ouch!). Thirdly, the attack might be limited in scope, ie take a strategically important base and reinforce it, going no further. There are many variations of the successful 'Even-odds' attack, but the point is that they are exceptions. This is of course without taking into consideration 'Onlookers' better known as 'Vultures'. War is expensive....



I was going to post about Risk, a vastly simpler game that works on the same basic principles. What makes it so hard to make war successfully is that it is never, till the end, a 'Me vs. You' proposition. Experienced players will not allow an agressor to roll over their enemy unless they stand to lose in the long run (their backside is mooning). Even with superior firepower on the tactical level, which you need in SMAC just like in Risk, it is only subtle tactics that win the overall strategic battle. A very dumb person quoted G.I. Joe on her yearbook page way back in 1988. It always bothered me that she quoted G.I. Joe, and what I thought was a very dumb quote: 'Winning is only Half the Battle'. It just bothers me no end. Maybe you see why?

Anyways, I have to say that I disagree with Ned in theory but not in practice. Attacking first almost always works, but this is because of inequal dispositions and the 'roll-over' effect. When sides are balanced, which is so rare as to just about be never, the attacker loses invariably. On the other hand, the longer you let a hostile enemy build up defenses, the harder it will be to finally engage them. Oh I have lost my track, maybe it's this Tawny Port?

-Smack

[WhiteElephants]

Well, just to save a little face for ole GI Joe I thought I would post the correct quote that goes a little something like this:

Kid says, "Gee, now I know I should wear my seatbelt".

And Snow Job (an oddly suggestive name for a GI Joe doll) would respond with, "And knowing is half the battle!"

Ah the memories...

[Avenoct]

Chuckles

[Ned]

Vel, et al., Back from a Far East trip.

Vel, Without ever building a single chopper, cruiser or drop infrantry, one can take out an enemy across the planet. Simply take a well fortified enemy base with a probe (foil). (If you don't have the HSA, you need two probes, one to defend after taking the base.) From this meager starting position, one can build one best armor AAA, ECM defender each turn through the upgrade technique to hold the base against the inevitable counteract. If you survive for even two turns, chances are that you can survive for a dozen. If you are lucky, you may be able to reinforce the base, or take another one through probe action. Regardless, you will have forced the one attacked into an all-out effort to dislodge you. If he does not succeed, then he is dead and he knows it.

In the meantime, the attacker's homeland could continue to build infrastructure. Eventually, this additional infrastructure will create an imbalance that will tilt the war to the attacker's favor due to improved resources from the increase infrastructure.

I don't see a downside. In my view, it is always better to fight a war on the enemy's home turf even if the enemy is strong enough to drive you back into the sea. With the war on his territory, one simply cannot continue business as usually infrastructure building.

Monitoring the enemy's build queue's or garrisons does not help against this strategy.

What does help, though, is an substantial navy on full automatic.

Ned

[Horus]

As I just finsihed reading Eric von Manstein's (German field marshal) reflections on the defensive war on the Eastern front WWII 1943/44, I would like to share his wiev on one poinr regarding defense.

The attacker got the benefit of massing his forces were he wants, true.

But it is only a great benefit if the defender has spread his forces out, in order to hold a thin line.

If the defender got most of his forces as a mobile reserve, then the attacker migth be in great trouble.

In SMAC/X I guess the mobile reserve always should consist of at least some airdrop units, so that the tables can be turned as soon as the home front is safe.

[Sealurk]

There are quite a few strategies that will make a side successful. However, I believe the attacker will win in the long run.

1. Probes. Against some opponents that build average probes, high morale probes will win, especially if the defender only has a single probe as defense. However, if you are the one with the average probes, don't ry this, as it will invariably fail.

2. A long, drawn out plan. Against good opponents, I prefer to use this strategy. It takes quite a while, but is effective.

Build an army. A large army. Preferably as high-tech as it can be while maintaining a substantial number. or, if you prefer, a smaller number of ulimate troops. Then you attack one base with this army. Undoubtedly, the opponent should have a spread defense to some degree, then you take that base with everything you have. After you take the base, you build 1-best-1 troops for defence just for that base. You should take at least one 1-best-1 defender for the initial counterattack. If your opponent offers blood truce at this time, take it. It helps the plan.

Once this base is secure, you go for the next base, using the same strategy. You should win, and the process should be repeated. After a few bases have been taken, the perpetual-motion should have started, all the while sending reinforcements from home.

Flaws with this plan:
It takes a long time. Quick attacks won't happen, and the initial assault will be fairly slow. With enough forces this shouldn't be too much of a problem, apart from maybe losing patience, and it won't work against two defenders. Another problem is strength. Never attack anyone who is stronger or equally matched. Attack someone who is weaker than you, but not so weak as to not be a challenge for best results.
Drop troops can also counterattack reasonably well, and can just provide the edge on the attackers before the main waves of defense finally get there.

Defense

Defense already has the edge with bases and facilities. Bunkers and sensors also help, but don't depend on them-they get destroyed too easily.
Make sure each base has at least two AAA or SAM units to defend with. Also some bases will have Aero Complexes, giving air defence a great boost. Add into that any amount of well armoured ground troops and you have yourself a formidable defence. Also keep a handy stock of drop troops for quick response time, and all the other bonuses should give you the edge. For total protection, keep two probes as defense, and all round defense shouldn't be a problem.

[cbn]

Originally posted by Ned
Vel, et al., Back from a Far East trip.

Vel, Without ever building a single chopper, cruiser or drop infrantry, one can take out an enemy across the planet. Simply take a well fortified enemy base with a probe (foil). (If you don't have the HSA, you need two probes, one to defend after taking the base.) From this meager starting position, one can build one best armor AAA, ECM defender each turn through the upgrade technique to hold the base against the inevitable counteract. If you survive for even two turns, chances are that you can survive for a dozen. If you are lucky, you may be able to reinforce the base, or take another one through probe action. Regardless, you will have forced the one attacked into an all-out effort to dislodge you. If he does not succeed, then he is dead and he knows it.

In the meantime, the attacker's homeland could continue to build infrastructure. Eventually, this additional infrastructure will create an imbalance that will tilt the war to the attacker's favor due to improved resources from the increase infrastructure.

I don't see a downside. In my view, it is always better to fight a war on the enemy's home turf even if the enemy is strong enough to drive you back into the sea. With the war on his territory, one simply cannot continue business as usually infrastructure building.

Monitoring the enemy's build queue's or garrisons does not help against this strategy.

What does help, though, is an substantial navy on full automatic.

Ned

Of course it is almost always good to probe away a base and when the opportunity presents itself, go for it. However I would not build a strategy on this. If you are infiltrated , your enemy will know that you have x number of probe foils/cruisers and will know where they were built and when. You will also see if your opponent is hoarding cash for possible probe actions. Even if you succeed, if you are without the HSA , a probe swarm will get the base back.

Most of my coastal bases get 2 probe defenders as a matter of simple security. The second that I see an enemy has 3 or 4 seabourne probes on the loose, patrols get increased and I might start triple defending bases with probes. You can even float a few probes from base to base so the attacker does not know from how many probes his target base will have on the next turn ( I sometimes do this with units too). The reality is that there are usually a few bases that are sufficiently patrolled that the chance of a probe getting through is minimal. For the rest, home security probes are cheap and support free. The attacker here must either have 3-4 probes stacked within movement range of the base meaning thay can all die before a single patrol OR have them spread out , increasing the chance of detection.

This plan seems to assume that you can sneak up to a base successfully. If you can do that, you might as well offload a transport full of probes and cause general havoc OR offload a bunch of rovers. The plan is decent when it works but I can see a whole bunch of times that the probe will get detected on the way in.

[Ned]

CBN, I am simply amazaed that you guys spend so much effort on defense. Why not spend a little more on offense and take the battle to the enemy. However, I guess that is Vel's whole point isn't it - defense. When you are that well prepared, perhaps he who defends first wins. Sounds like the Baltimore Ravens. Ned

[cbn]

Ned

Whether I attack or defend depends a lot on the faction I am playing and the overall circumstances. I probably will go on the offensive but only after my core feels safe . The planes and choppers that are such good patrollers are also good when the attack moves outward. The fringe bases that are so effective as a defense in depth also serve as a waypoint for attack.

I don't think other approaches are bad, its just the difference between momentum and builders. AS a momentum guy you hit fast and keep rolling. As a builder you play as if you never HAVE to take anybody else's city. You quickly have an infrastructure that is worthy of protection so there is an investment in that protection. However, most of the defensive stuff can be turned to offensive purposes when the time comes

[Ned]

CBN, I don't disagree that any significant investment in military is good both for defense and offense. However, it seems to me that if one adopts Vel's thinking, one will never go on the offensive because one will never have a significant military advantage over an equally skilled adversary. What some of us are saying here is that taking the fight to the enemy, even if they are equally as powerful, is the better strategy. Ned

[cbn]

I guess my position is an emphatic--- it depends

There are times when there could be oportunities for effective offense but other times, when you weigh out what you will have to expend in order to take a base, its just not worthwhile. You will likely get that first base but then it is vulnerable to multiple strikes back by the defender. Assuming the defender has more bases within drop range and more closer bases, you are fighting a battle with equal forces where a defender has the reinforcement advantage.

Don't get me wrong. Offensive action can be hugely beneficial . Against the AI I find that the costs are miniscule for the benefits I get. In the few PBEM battles I have been in, though, I have gotten a new respect for defense. . . . and not just building good defenders-- Good defense seems to involve serious attacks at the strike force of the attacker.

[Velociryx]

Hey guys, and welcome back, Ned!

About attack and defense – It’s not that I disagree with Ned regarding attack….quite the contrary! He’s right, sometimes attacking is THE way to go, but simply building some attackers and launching them toward the enemy isn’t enough. Yeah, that sometimes works but I’d not rely on it.

To make an effective attack takes timing.

I consider the game to be something like a meeting of two Samurai warriors, happening in really slow motion.

Before the combat, they lock eyes and stare….each waiting….watching for an opening.

First one to make a mistake loses.

Not some of the time, not most of the time….but every time.

There’s a famous story about that, actually. It’s been a while since I read it, so I’ll not even try to do it justice, but I’ll summarize it below:

A Tea Master in Japan accidentally insulted a powerful Samurai, who demanded satisfaction in the form of a duel. The Tea Master was terrified….he had no training with the sword and would surely die fighting a member of the Warrior class. He asked everyone he knew for help, and finally the help came from an old beggar wandering the streets, who told him that when the day came….when the duel began, he must think in the same way he did when performing his tea ceremonies. To use that same level of precision and concentration and he would do fine.

The day arrived, and the Tea Master met the Samurai in the street, barely able to keep his knees from shaking. They locked eyes and stared, each waiting for the other to flinch, or show any signs of weakness, creating an opening for attack.

The Tea Master did as the old beggar had instructed, and his mind was filled with peace and clarity. In time, the Samurai bowed slightly and left.

The Tea Master was bewildered, not fully understanding what had just happened, but the old beggar appeared again and explained that the Samurai could not attack because there simply was no opening, and when the Warrior realized that his opponent was filled up with such precise and absolute concentration, he realized too, that there would be no opening for attack, and wisely left him in peace.

Same thing if you watch a martial arts competition. The winner is NOT the guy who comes screaming across the mat like a banshee just to strike first….it’s the more careful opponent. Again, it’s a case of the-first-guy-to-slip-up-buys-the-proverbial-farm. Thus, my attention to detail when it comes to defense, because I know that all I have to do is be patient….watch for signs of an attack, and crush the would be attacker once, and then I’ve got momentum on my side.

Thus, in the case of a probe action, I’m defending with Infantry based probes (18 base cost)—at LEAST two per base, more if I know that company’s coming for dinner--and my opponent is attacking with foil based probes (45? base cost) – from a mineral standpoint, even if we trade blows (I lose one, he loses one on the counter), I’ll take that trade all day long. And at that rate, gaining 20-odd minerals with each attack, how long will it take to build up a decisive edge? I’d contend, not long at all. Add to that the fact that I can replace my probe losses more than twice as fast as my opponent can build more attackers….

In the case of an opponent building an attack force and capturing one of my fringe bases…I guarantee that the attacker will lose more minerals on the attack than I will on the defense unless the attack force is large enough to take out my entire in one shot (and if that’s the case, then it’s all going to come down to that one, epic battle). Those minerals, plus any incidental minerals supporting the attack force that was lost will add to the net mineral edge mentioned above, and is what culminates in that decisive edge I’m looking for before committing to an attack. When the edge is large and sharp enough, when enough abortive attacks have been turned back, then it’s time to return the favor….in force….a series of blows not simply to throw the opponent off balance, but to dominate.

I’m a firm believer in the value of attack….when it’s time….

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel and cbn, Do you guys really have two infrantry probes defending critical seaside bases? Most of my games I have a probe or probes on an interior base in range of a coastal base in order to retake the base if it is taken by a probe or by any other enemy means.

I also normally just have one or two 1-1-1 police units in my bases, which I then can upgrade as necessary to face a threat. For rovers, I typically use 1e-3r-2 defensives that I also upgrade as necessary. These I also place in the interior, away from the coast so that they are not lost on an initial surprise attack.

I place a great deal of emphasis on a navy and and airforce to keep the enemy at bay and to attack an invasion fleet or army as it approaches. This allows me to significantly under-invest in defense as a whole, allowing me increased resources to invest in infrastructure.

Vel, your story about the Tea Master and Samurai was very interesting. There few occasions while playing CIV, CIV II and SMACX where I found an enemy that had no apparent weaknesses and seemed impregnable. These games are always the most interesting. In the end, the only way to attack may be my by shear brute force, ala Grant against Lee. But this implies military superiority. However, the topic under discussion here is where both sides are equal in overall strength. So, I guess in the end, Vel you a right, that you have to wait until the other side makes a mistake.

But what do you do if the only victory condition is world conquest?

Ned

[cbn]

Yes I will often have 2 probes in a base but it really depends. I really try to minimize the chances of getting infiltrated so bases get a probe early. Usually 1 probe per base is enough since I rely on my constant patrolling to detect intruders. BUT if I saw that an opponent was building probeships (I also really really try to get infiltration on everyone) I might pop out some extra probes. Usually I can have a base that can pop out one per turn that might build nothing but probes for several turns.

As we discussed earlier, they are not purely defensive. When I am ready to attack, these probes will likely get drop abilities so if I take a base in the enemies turf, they can be dropped in to defend the place (and actually perform probe actions on ensuing turns). Also, if someone does probe one of my bases or drops some unstacked attackers in my lap, I always have a probe available for possible mind control actions.

None of this is carved in stone. If there are narrow channels on one side of my empire I will probably block them with trawlers and leave that side with only a probe a base. Interior bases may have 0 probes. At a key time I might see that an additional plane can mean a constant patrol or blockade of a key square soI build those instead of more probes. If I am behind in tech, I may leave a fringe base vulnerable in the hope it is taken so I can probe away some tech.

I will tell you this-- On every turn I look at the fog of war display and ask myself if I am ready if a probe force or armada is in the area I cannot see. I never am totally prepared for what COULD be out there, but every turn I try to do SOMETHING to make myself safer-- even if its something as mundane as moving a ship through two squares of sea fungus to ensure nothing is lurking there.

[Ned]

cbn, All I can think of when I read a post like this is two things: First the Maginol Line and second my similar compulsive attitude towards defense when I first started playing CIV. I have come to believe that over-investment in defense actually hurts one's chances of winning. Besides, with the ability to upgrade, it makes no sense to build high quality defensive units in the first place. If the enemy is lucky enough to get past your automatic navy and automatic airforce and actually take a base, you can respond quickly with upgrades in nearby bases. The better investment, IMHO, is in naval and air forces.

Ned

[Garth Vader]

A little OT here, but I always have at least one defender probe, possibly more depending on the level of threat. Plus I try and have a few mobile probes inland so I can reinforce if necessary. This is to prevent infiltration and tech theft more than base stealing.

I stole so much tech off my friend game after game he is now obsessive in his probe defense.