T3 CoAF - defense policy

[zyxy]

How will we defend our empire?

There are several choices that can be made.
- What will we defend? Borders only, or interior cities as well? How about the coast?
- How will we defend if another nation threatens us, for example when they seem to sneak attack? Will we wait for them to attack? Or will we pre-emptively attack in such a case? Note that this is in part a diplomatic decision under the control of the external Consul, and in part a military decision, because it has an impact on force composition.

I would prefer an offensive defense, consisting primarily of fast attack forces. They will defend at the land borders only, not in interior cities, with a few fast units in coastal areas to counter naval invasion. Any attacks have to be pre-empted by attacking the attackers. We should have a small number of defenders (like pikes) at key positions.
The main advantage of this is that a passive stance requires enormous amounts of units, and we will not be able to afford the upkeep as a Republic.
Moreover, we will probably be expanding by force for quite a while, and fast attackers can also be used for that, saving even more cost.

I think such a policy should be implemented as soon as possible, but definitely not later than when we get knights.

What do you think?

 

[mad-bax]

The way I defend is not to. I tend to build fast units and rely on having built a couple the previous turn if a sneak attack happens. If I don't <shrugs shoulders> I lose a corrupt town - big deal.

We can't be sneak attacked along the coast near our core because astronomy is not out there yet and any boats have to move through our borders.

 

[GenMarshall]

First of all, Capture that city that fliped to the Dutch and leave no Dutch city behind. Second, build culture buildings.

 

[RegentMan]

Conscript millions into the Fanatannian Army and we shall rule the peninsula! Oops... we don't have nationalism...

I think that this recent flip may change some people's opinions about renegotiating the Indian peace treaty.

 

[Ranger99]

hmm, thats is always the question i ask myself, "How to defend my growing civilization?"

One thing that i use ALL the time is DEFENSIVE DEPTH, i usually have quiet a few fortresses dotted all throughout my lands, i ususally have, ahh what is it?? yes,, zone control units in them, this defense becomes more effective as time goes on as the AI will find out that he almost always HAS to attack the fortresses head-on, or my zone-control guys blow 'em to pieces. This is one that i use quite a bit, but more so in the earlier ages i garriosn cavalry in them, and then a few catapults when they come along, AND then the powerfull zone-control units come, so this is more of a modern-defense, but sometimes its hard to get those fortresses up.

 

[Bertie]

I prefer a proactive defense rather than a passive one. That means building very few defensive units, except to man obvious chokepoints. It also means leaving interior cities unprotected.

I hate to enact a blanket policy stating we will attack any nation that appears it may be fixing to attack us. Sometimes we would want to do so; but at other times it may be advantageous to let them go ahead and attack us first (if we'd get war happiness that way, for example). So yes, I'd plan to build the capability and station troops so that we could attack preemptively is we elect to. But I don't want to make a policy that mandates that we must do so anytime we perceive a threat.

How about a policy that says our best defense is a good offense, and we will act immediately and vigorously to thwart the ambitions of any nation that threatens Fanatannia? Does that allow us sufficient wiggle room and yet convey that we will readily use military force if the situation warrants it?

 

[zyxy]

... I hate to enact a blanket policy stating we will attack any nation that appears it may be fixing to attack us. Sometimes we would want to do so; but at other times it may be advantageous to let them go ahead and attack us first (if we'd get war happiness that way, for example). So yes, I'd plan to build the capability and station troops so that we could attack preemptively is we elect to. But I don't want to make a policy that mandates that we must do so anytime we perceive a threat.

How about a policy that says our best defense is a good offense, and we will act immediately and vigorously to thwart the ambitions of any nation that threatens Fanatannia? Does that allow us sufficient wiggle room and yet convey that we will readily use military force if the situation warrants it?

I immediately agree that a blanket DoW-instruction will give us too little room to adapt to a specific situation. It is also not needed, as is most cases you can see a sneak attack coming one or two turns in advance - rival forces amassing on your borders for no apparent reason, usually. This will give time for forum discussion. Also, I think that any declaration of war has to be explicitly ratified by the people, for maximum popular support. It seems to me that we are of the same mind, but word it differently.
Let me attempt to clarify the intention of my statements in the first post. Our long term policy is to conquer our half of the continent, but not fight the civs on the other half directly, only through alliances. Consequently some of these civs may remain or become fairly strong and pose some threat to our security. If we decide for an offensive defense policy - and I am all for it - then in case of a pending sneak attack we'll have three options: (1) strike pre-emptively, or (2) vacate some border cities and let our enemies strike first, or (3) jeopardize our forces by waiting. We do not have the option to change our defense policy at the last moment.

I have two reasons for bringing this up: (1) the citizens have to be aware what they vote for: offensive defense is cheap and efficient, but we have to be prepared to declare war, or accept the loss of forces or cities. (2) the DP should be requested (through your instructions I suppose) to stop the TC in case of a pending sneak attack.