once the strongest spear was thrown at the strongest sheild. the spear bounced off and broke (stupid spear) the spear decomposed, and the head was found years later and sold for $4,000 to a museum
(the shield was a priceless artifact in the same museum)

_______bump________

I think you've got that backwards - the best defense is a good offense.

I think you've got that backwards - the best defense is a good offense.
same thing

No, no it's not the same thing.

i don't care, its like the same thing

No it's not. The best defense has no bearing at all on offense. If you leave your units sitting in your cities, you won't have any offense at all.

If you keep your opponents on their heels by attacking them all the time, you wont' have to worry so much about defense because your opponents will have their hands full trying to survive. That's what peopel mean when they say the best defense is a good offense.

same thing

Hardly. They're polar opposites.

"The best defense is a good offense" this means killing everyone before they have a chance to kill you.

"The best offense is a good defense" I've never heard anyone actually use this as a cliche, but it would mean that you never let anyone take it to you and you wear them down (I think).

NOT the same.

Hardly. They're polar opposites.

"The best defense is a good offense" this means killing everyone before they have a chance to kill you.

"The best offense is a good defense" I've never heard anyone actually use this as a cliche, but it would mean that you never let anyone take it to you and you wear them down (I think).

NOT the same.
The best offense is a good defense is the strategy the US used to 'win' the Cold War without ever sending a troop onto Soviet soil. By convincing the Russians that they had to keep up in the nuclear arms race - always characterized by both sides as defense against the other's first-strike capabilities - the US gutted their economy and ability to remain a coherent government. It's quite a subtle strategy, and not really applicable to Civ at the moment. Also see the Detroit Pistons of the late '80's - in that case, the saying could have been 'the best way to make a lousy offense effective is with a good defense.'

The best offense is a good defense is the strategy the russians always used :
letting ennemy troops die from bad supply lines, cold, ... in russian soil before counterattacking.
In CIV it's quite a working strategy if you can beat down the usual 2 big stacks sent by an AI, you can counterattack with very good results.

In sport, the cliche is used a fair amount (usually by teams that play unexciting, play that stifles the opponent's creativity).

A goal not scored by the opposition is equal to a goal scored by you.

i don't care, its like the same thingCongratulations! This is, in fact, THE MOST CHILDISH POST TODAY!! :goodjob:

Wanted to take part in the poll but what year do we consider an early war? 3000bc? 2000bc? 1000bc? 1ad?

Had to ask :)

Fetch you never heard of "Da Bears"? They been selling that crap for years and years.

Isn't it spelled Defence :confused:

Or is it spelled differently in (i'm assuming) America?

> a good defense is the best offense

I thought it is always the other way around: "a good offense is the best defense". :) In single-player games, you have to go early war in Immortal and Deity.

However, in multiplayer games, if you advance too much early, people will be scared, and cooperate and take youd own first. Therefore, it is not a bad idea to stay defensive and make some good friends.

Actually the concept of "a good defense is the best offense" seems quite applicable to Civ, a couple of different ways:

-- since the game includes ways to win which are not military, one possible path is being impenetrable enough militarily to buy the time needed to carry out a cultural or diplomatic victory, or simply a time victory (highest game score). Of course not all games played include all those victory options, but if it does then they are a type of "offense."

-- even in games that don't include cultural/diplomatic/time victory options, the "cottage spam" approach is ultimately a type of "good defense becoming the best offense" military strategy. The idea is to spam cities/cottages and do certain other things which leave you quite vulnerable for a good while, but at some point abruptly provide you with the means to purchase a lot of the biggest/nastiest armaments and go crush the other civs. The hard part is surviving intact long enough to do this, and against experienced human players it really requires having decent defenses all along. (The costs of which in turn make carrying out the strategy a bit more difficult.) So this strategy is really, "a good defense buys you enough time to suddenly come roaring out with an overwhelming offense."

-- and of course the traditional version that applies to any decently-balanced strategy game is to lure opponents into exhausting themselves pounding without success against your defenses, and then counterattack. I lost a 3-way team game online like this just the other day: my teammates and I concluded that we should attempt to wipe out one of the other teams; we threw everything we had at them and did some damage but failed to kill them; having weathered the storm they came back at us with more/better units than we could hold off with our temporarily-depleted military. (And the third team was smart enough to see their opportunity, and ended up winning, the vultures!)

I have a wussy emotional problem declaring war on my AI rivals...so I usually wait for them to come to me. Thus, I use the Hedgehog strategy of trying to keep my forces equal and counter to them. If they have lots of horses, I use spearmen, etc...

So I ascribe to your philosophy, although I'm not sure its the best. But when I do try an offensive game, I usually fall too far behind in tech.

I prefer to say it like this...if you want peace, prepare for war.

And then wipe out your enemies. No enemies alive = peace by default.

The best offense is a good defense is the strategy the US used to 'win' the Cold War without ever sending a troop onto Soviet soil. By convincing the Russians that they had to keep up in the nuclear arms race - always characterized by both sides as defense against the other's first-strike capabilities - the US gutted their economy and ability to remain a coherent government. It's quite a subtle strategy, and not really applicable to Civ at the moment. Also see the Detroit Pistons of the late '80's - in that case, the saying could have been 'the best way to make a lousy offense effective is with a good defense.'

I forgot about M.A.D. Good point.

Cottage spamming isn't "a good defense." You say yourself it leaves your civ vulnerable to attack, which can hardly be viewed as a good defense.

The problem with offensive units "exhausting themselves" against your defenses is that in civilization it's a huge disadvantage to have enemy stacks roaming your lands. They pillage improvements and prevent tiles from being worked, completely crippling your civ. You have to attack these units (offense) to get them out of your land.

Cottage spamming isn't "a good defense." You say yourself it leaves your civ vulnerable to attack, which can hardly be viewed as a good defense.

The problem with offensive units "exhausting themselves" against your defenses is that in civilization it's a huge disadvantage to have enemy stacks roaming your lands. They pillage improvements and prevent tiles from being worked, completely crippling your civ. You have to attack these units (offense) to get them out of your land.

Very situation dependant stating.
If you have a "trap", the AI (or the bad playing human) goes for it, gets killed and you can go counterattacking.
Typical: you built your border city on a hill, you left some forest (newer city) not just around but in the big cross. You have relatively low defense in it (say a spear and a longbow).
The AI declares, goes directly for this trap, stations its stack just near your city (no forest!) in order to attack next turn. the knights/mounted archers/whatever mounted units don't go pillaging, and if they do, it's in your newer city's vicinity, no big deal.
You switch production in the trap to longbow or pikeman/spearman depending on the incoming force, you bring in reinforcement from behind (that's why it's a trap!) including one or more catapults to hurt the stack, you send spear/pike at pillaging horses (replaced in the trap by the reinforcement).
Usually, the AI still tries to get that city. The whole stack gets lost on it.
Even if it finally gets the city, your reinforcements can still conquer it back in one turn (no enemy culture!) and defeat the whole stack.
Your turn to go conquering, and you didn't even get a relation penalty for declaring...:goodjob:

In sport, the cliche is used a fair amount (usually by teams that play unexciting, play that stifles the opponent's creativity).

what are you, a colts fan, or something?
DE-FENSE!
DE-FENSE!
DE-FENSE!

what are you, a colts fan, or something?
DE-FENSE!
DE-FENSE!
DE-FENSE!

In sport, it actually works. Baseball, football, basketball, year after year the teams who win have dominant defense.

The best offense is a good defense is the strategy the US used to 'win' the Cold War without ever sending a troop onto Soviet soil. By convincing the Russians that they had to keep up in the nuclear arms race - always characterized by both sides as defense against the other's first-strike capabilities - the US gutted their economy and ability to remain a coherent government. It's quite a subtle strategy, and not really applicable to Civ at the moment. Also see the Detroit Pistons of the late '80's - in that case, the saying could have been 'the best way to make a lousy offense effective is with a good defense.'

You surely must be a US citizen if you think the US government really planned it like that. :lol:
As a non-US citizen, i think they were just genuinly pissing their pants just like the rest of the world and the US just happened to be more economically robust. I surely don't believe they tried to "convincing the Russians that they had to keep up in the nuclear arms race" in order to destroy their economy.

Isn't it spelled Defence :confused:

Or is it spelled differently in (i'm assuming) America?

Both are correct.

I like the fact that cIV uses the spelling theatRE and not theatER. :D

Good work Firaxis, now if only I could get them to change Harbor to HarboUr. :)

I'm not that aggresive but when an AI attacks me or he gets in my way (by building citys where i wanted to build one) I'll do anything to get back on him. (counterattack)
Then I take at least one city or I just destroy the whole civ

Congratulations! This is, in fact, THE MOST CHILDISH POST TODAY!! :goodjob:

Very close second place ... ;)


I'm just amused at the way in which the OP's initial confuzzlement has sparked a
strategic philosophical debate...... wonderfull stuff

Personally... (in Civ at least) i find 30 transports full of tanks genarally does the trick...... throw a few icbm's around for fun too :nuke: :crazyeye: :nuke:

Both are correct.

I like the fact that cIV uses the spelling theatRE and not theatER. :D

Good work Firaxis, now if only I could get them to change Harbor to HarboUr. :)

Absolutely! I hadn't actually noticed that theatre is now spelt normally; I do notice when things stand out. They used to spell collosseum coliseum for some reason, and I think that's changed. That was really bad; it's an American game, so I expect to put up with a lack of 'u's in harbour and armour, but coliseum really bugged me.

Defense is the sole American spelling whereas both are used in Britain.

Defense is the sole American spelling whereas both are used in Britain.

True, and I hate to rain on PublicEnemy's parade, but Theatre and Theater are both acceptable US spellings (I happen to prefer Theatre though :P)

You surely must be a US citizen if you think the US government really planned it like that. :lol:
As a non-US citizen, i think they were just genuinly pissing their pants just like the rest of the world and the US just happened to be more economically robust. I surely don't believe they tried to "convincing the Russians that they had to keep up in the nuclear arms race" in order to destroy their economy.

Umm, ever hear of the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, or George Kennan? The US actually DID plan it like that. The Cold War was an economic war, and one the US planned to win via containment from the 1950's on.

AI civs are there to found and develop your future colonies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WackenOpenAir
You surely must be a US citizen if you think the US government really planned it like that.
As a non-US citizen, i think they were just genuinly pissing their pants just like the rest of the world and the US just happened to be more economically robust. I surely don't believe they tried to "convincing the Russians that they had to keep up in the nuclear arms race" in order to destroy their economy.


Umm, ever hear of the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, or George Kennan? The US actually DID plan it like that. The Cold War was an economic war, and one the US planned to win via containment from the 1950's on.

the truth, as always, lies in between. let's say that the americans were home pissing their pants hoping their plan to economically cripple the communists worked.

Isn't it spelled Defence :confused:

Or is it spelled differently in (i'm assuming) America?
i think it can go either way

i think the best defense is beeing offensive.
caz in the early game, when you attack an opponent you will **** up his strategy and make him look stupid. he normaly sends you tells like "omg, you ****ed up the whole game. stop or ill leave."
random carbears have nothing to put against an early attack strategy caz they always try to expand with there citys, building workers instead of warriors etc.

sure! worker robbery is really powerful!
you end up with the warriors AND the workers!
while the opponent ends up with... nothing at all :lol: