Dutchgael
Chieftain
It's also very powerful because the AI doesn't know how to use this or deal with this. Once Motorized Transportation comes along you lose that edge.
Artillery and infantry on the attack
- Thread starter jollyolly
- Start date
It's also very powerful because the AI doesn't know how to use this or deal with this. Once Motorized Transportation comes along you lose that edge.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
It's the usual AI problem with artillery.
But is also the AI's cognitively challenged approach to defense in general. Any sort of offense would be alot harder if the AI used it's typically excellent communications networks to move defenders to threatened points.
The AI ought to read Clausewitz, and take to heart the point that wars are won by destroying enemy units, not by short-time control of territory.
But is also the AI's cognitively challenged approach to defense in general. Any sort of offense would be alot harder if the AI used it's typically excellent communications networks to move defenders to threatened points.
The AI ought to read Clausewitz, and take to heart the point that wars are won by destroying enemy units, not by short-time control of territory.
rilnator
Emperor
Clausewitz might be more relevent to civ but in a real battle the destruction of the enemy is the final phase. Before that you try and cut off his supplies and communication so it does help if you have control of territory.
Look how many prisoners the Germans took in the opening months of Barbarossa.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
If the AI were good at fighting Civ wars, I wouldn't care if it couldn't fight real ones!
Now, I'm not a convinced Clausewitzian, but I wouldn't see Barbarossa as a counterexample to Clausewitz's analysis. Encirclement tactics certainly isn't an example of prioritizing territorial gains over destroying the enemy - they rather show that if you first neutralize enemy forces (in this case by denying them communications and supplies), the territory will then fall into your hands so much the easier.
The later years of WWII are a better example of "territorial" warfare - the allies made grand offensives on wide fronts, liberating much territory in one go, but usually allowing the Germans to retreat and establish new lines in decent order. (I'm not saying this was necessarily a strategic blunder - as Market Garden showed, "deep" warfare wasn't trivial against the Germans, and the allies were bound to win any war of attrition due to simple demographics.)
Edit: I should perhaps add that "destruction" enemy troops does not here necessarily mean killing, capturing or scattering them. Placing them in a situation where they can no longer effectively fight is enough.
Now, I'm not a convinced Clausewitzian, but I wouldn't see Barbarossa as a counterexample to Clausewitz's analysis. Encirclement tactics certainly isn't an example of prioritizing territorial gains over destroying the enemy - they rather show that if you first neutralize enemy forces (in this case by denying them communications and supplies), the territory will then fall into your hands so much the easier.
The later years of WWII are a better example of "territorial" warfare - the allies made grand offensives on wide fronts, liberating much territory in one go, but usually allowing the Germans to retreat and establish new lines in decent order. (I'm not saying this was necessarily a strategic blunder - as Market Garden showed, "deep" warfare wasn't trivial against the Germans, and the allies were bound to win any war of attrition due to simple demographics.)
Edit: I should perhaps add that "destruction" enemy troops does not here necessarily mean killing, capturing or scattering them. Placing them in a situation where they can no longer effectively fight is enough.
scoutsout
Minstrel Boy
Not a huge devotee of Clausewitz either... but this discussion runs the risk of going down a "rabbit trail" as far as discussion of "territorial war" versus "destroying the enemy" or "limited war" versus "total war". My study of military history and readings of Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Von Clausewitz, Rommel (etc. ad nauseum) lead me to two conclusions: First, discussion of "styles" of war are secondary, and the second, more compelling conclusion:
Only about half of anybody's "Principles of War" apply in Civ War.
When I say "Principles of War", I'm not talking about "tactics" or "strategy", or the styles of fighting battles and campaigns. I'm talking about the timeless principles that were inked in the day of spear and sword, and hold true in the day of smart weapons and grunts who are better educated than yesteryear's generals. Here they are, more or less as they were taught to me:
1) Objective
2) Offensive (or "Initiative" or "Attack")
3) Concentration of effort (or "Mass")
4) Economy of Force
5) Maneuver
6) Unity of command
7) Security (or "Security and Reserve")
8) Surprise (or "Surprise and Deception")
9) Simplicity
To these I have seen other "principles" added, though I generally regard these as important, but not central, considerations. For example: Flexibility (fits w/ maneuver) Cooperation, Logistics, Morale. Though important, they are not the stuff of war-plans. (Though logistics is extremely important.)
(Digression: A recurring problem with military doctrine is that there's always some colonel who is trying to re-write it to make general. Rarely does one come along who is any more brilliant than a Patton or Rommel, let alone von Clauswitz or Sun Tzu. End digression.)
"Unity of Command" is a non-issue in Civ war, and "Maneuver" in gameplay is necessarily over-simplified. "Simplicity" goes without saying in Civ war to anyone who has studied the profession of arms. As much as I like maneuver, flanking and enveloping schemes are usually less effective than a straightforward attack. "Surprise" generally only lasts for one round in a Civ war.
So, for Civ Wars, I offer these "Principles of War" for your consideration:
1) Objective
2) Initiative
3) Mass
4) Economy of Force
5) Security
6) Logistics
Far and away the most important principle above is Objective. If you don't know what your warfighting goals are, the other principles won't help much.
I would give Mass a close second in importance - and add that the game favors "Mass" or concentration of forces in ways that sometimes seem implausible...
I view Initiative as equally important in the defense and offense. The key is fighting on your terms. There are some well developed postings and War Academy articles on defensive tactics that maintain initiative; drawing the enemy into "killing fields", etc. Good stuff.
In my earlier "combined arms" posts, I touched on two of these principles - security, and economy of force.
Economy of Force should be looked at from two standpoints: Force Preservation, as well as the more classic "Don't take an objective with a Corps when a Division will do".
When I take those additional (not extra) infantry along with my Combined Arms Task Forces, I'm bringing them for Security. What I don't need to protect the stack and secure conquered cities, I can use to form picket lines to keep the enemy out of my rear area. Likewise, I don't fortify my central cities with more than one unit, I secure them by not letting my enemy anywhere near them.
Another important security consideration - I always maintain a reserve, in case the enemy's counterpunch is heavier than I expected, and I've suddenly got a stack of his horsemen/knights/cav outside one of my cities. It's also a royal pain if he manages to slip a transport near my shore and drop off a stack of something just as those core cities (finishing a troop's worth of tanks) slip into disorder...
For Civ war, I added Logistics because it is so crucial (since maneuver and other strokes of human genius are unavailable). It does little good to take his cities if I cannot reinforce them... and a continuous supply of fresh units is essential to maintaining the initiative. It is important to note that this should be a continuous process in peacetime... it's why the AI sees so many individual, empty transports out in the middle of the ocean, for no apparent reason...I may only have 8 tanks in my capitol, but if I can put them on any shore I choose on my very next move...
So there they are, my "Civ III Principles of War for Real Life Concientious Objectors"
...or something like that. Hopefully there's something in here that's useful to somebody.
Only about half of anybody's "Principles of War" apply in Civ War.
When I say "Principles of War", I'm not talking about "tactics" or "strategy", or the styles of fighting battles and campaigns. I'm talking about the timeless principles that were inked in the day of spear and sword, and hold true in the day of smart weapons and grunts who are better educated than yesteryear's generals. Here they are, more or less as they were taught to me:
1) Objective
2) Offensive (or "Initiative" or "Attack")
3) Concentration of effort (or "Mass")
4) Economy of Force
5) Maneuver
6) Unity of command
7) Security (or "Security and Reserve")
8) Surprise (or "Surprise and Deception")
9) Simplicity
To these I have seen other "principles" added, though I generally regard these as important, but not central, considerations. For example: Flexibility (fits w/ maneuver) Cooperation, Logistics, Morale. Though important, they are not the stuff of war-plans. (Though logistics is extremely important.)
(Digression: A recurring problem with military doctrine is that there's always some colonel who is trying to re-write it to make general. Rarely does one come along who is any more brilliant than a Patton or Rommel, let alone von Clauswitz or Sun Tzu. End digression.)
"Unity of Command" is a non-issue in Civ war, and "Maneuver" in gameplay is necessarily over-simplified. "Simplicity" goes without saying in Civ war to anyone who has studied the profession of arms. As much as I like maneuver, flanking and enveloping schemes are usually less effective than a straightforward attack. "Surprise" generally only lasts for one round in a Civ war.
So, for Civ Wars, I offer these "Principles of War" for your consideration:
1) Objective
2) Initiative
3) Mass
4) Economy of Force
5) Security
6) Logistics
Far and away the most important principle above is Objective. If you don't know what your warfighting goals are, the other principles won't help much.
I would give Mass a close second in importance - and add that the game favors "Mass" or concentration of forces in ways that sometimes seem implausible...
I view Initiative as equally important in the defense and offense. The key is fighting on your terms. There are some well developed postings and War Academy articles on defensive tactics that maintain initiative; drawing the enemy into "killing fields", etc. Good stuff.
In my earlier "combined arms" posts, I touched on two of these principles - security, and economy of force.
Economy of Force should be looked at from two standpoints: Force Preservation, as well as the more classic "Don't take an objective with a Corps when a Division will do".
When I take those additional (not extra) infantry along with my Combined Arms Task Forces, I'm bringing them for Security. What I don't need to protect the stack and secure conquered cities, I can use to form picket lines to keep the enemy out of my rear area. Likewise, I don't fortify my central cities with more than one unit, I secure them by not letting my enemy anywhere near them.
Another important security consideration - I always maintain a reserve, in case the enemy's counterpunch is heavier than I expected, and I've suddenly got a stack of his horsemen/knights/cav outside one of my cities. It's also a royal pain if he manages to slip a transport near my shore and drop off a stack of something just as those core cities (finishing a troop's worth of tanks) slip into disorder...
For Civ war, I added Logistics because it is so crucial (since maneuver and other strokes of human genius are unavailable). It does little good to take his cities if I cannot reinforce them... and a continuous supply of fresh units is essential to maintaining the initiative. It is important to note that this should be a continuous process in peacetime... it's why the AI sees so many individual, empty transports out in the middle of the ocean, for no apparent reason...I may only have 8 tanks in my capitol, but if I can put them on any shore I choose on my very next move...
So there they are, my "Civ III Principles of War for Real Life Concientious Objectors"
...or something like that. Hopefully there's something in here that's useful to somebody.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
scoutsout: Perhaps something for the Strategy Articles Forum, that?
As far as Civ war goes, I find I can usually get by without much in the way of a reserve in a modern war - each turn my cities turn out a substantial number of new units, which, thanks to infinite rail movement, can instantly be sent to any point requiring reinforcement.
We've drifted somewhat OT, but I think I've said what I have to say on Inf/Cav/Arty tactics. Except perhaps this: Mech Inf is really tough! Even redlined they typically kill off Vet Cav, so unless you're prepared to pay some major amounts of blood, wait for Tanks.
As far as Civ war goes, I find I can usually get by without much in the way of a reserve in a modern war - each turn my cities turn out a substantial number of new units, which, thanks to infinite rail movement, can instantly be sent to any point requiring reinforcement.
We've drifted somewhat OT, but I think I've said what I have to say on Inf/Cav/Arty tactics. Except perhaps this: Mech Inf is really tough! Even redlined they typically kill off Vet Cav, so unless you're prepared to pay some major amounts of blood, wait for Tanks.
scoutsout
Minstrel Boy
yah - we've drifted OT, but I for one have enjoyed it! 
...as for the reserves, I usually don't maintain a large one, maybe a small stack of Arty, a handful of infantry, and 8 units decent on the attack. Enough to redline and/or destroy one transport load of something, and reinforce the only cities within reach of any redlined units left...
It never ceases to amaze me when the AI goes to the trouble to sail a transport all the way over to my shore, only to drop off a warrior, a longbowman, maybe a knight or cav, and a single infantry...
Another time I had infantry, loads of cav, destroyers, etc., and this little russian galley dropped a knight and a warrior on my shore, next to a city. "Gee, what do you suppose THEY'RE up to?!?!"
With only 1 city in range of attack, I reinforced that city with 2 Arty and 3 infantry...no way she takes it even if his warrior has the luck of a lottery winner and beats an infantry after an Artillery volley. I didn't TOUCH the units, didn't tell Catherine to remove them, or anything. I simply signed a mutual protection pact with every other country on the planet, and let the fun begin!
...as for the reserves, I usually don't maintain a large one, maybe a small stack of Arty, a handful of infantry, and 8 units decent on the attack. Enough to redline and/or destroy one transport load of something, and reinforce the only cities within reach of any redlined units left...
It never ceases to amaze me when the AI goes to the trouble to sail a transport all the way over to my shore, only to drop off a warrior, a longbowman, maybe a knight or cav, and a single infantry...
Another time I had infantry, loads of cav, destroyers, etc., and this little russian galley dropped a knight and a warrior on my shore, next to a city. "Gee, what do you suppose THEY'RE up to?!?!"
With only 1 city in range of attack, I reinforced that city with 2 Arty and 3 infantry...no way she takes it even if his warrior has the luck of a lottery winner and beats an infantry after an Artillery volley. I didn't TOUCH the units, didn't tell Catherine to remove them, or anything. I simply signed a mutual protection pact with every other country on the planet, and let the fun begin!
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I guess my AI invasion story award goes to Isabella. After declaring war for no particular reason, she sent a solidary transport, which unloads two Cav and six Conquistadores next to my stack of Modern Armour, which just took out the Iroquois Empire, which was 5-6 times bigger than Spain! Exactly what was she expecting? Killing off the "invasion" force didn't cost my troops even one HP.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
ive seen those before when the AI sends weak units, its real funny. people undersetimate AT on the offensive.
rilnator
Emperor
As long as the AI is overseas you are usually safe. I always make sure I hav some artillery arund to deal with their initial landings.
Hunter
Civ Addict
I just finished a war in which I used a planned "week point" to trap the AI. I advanced using interlocking firebaces with one undefended hole in the line that lead to one of my cities and a worker in the open. this corodor was allways where the AI would send its troops and I could always close it around him and bombard his armies into dust. May have just been a glich but it sure was fun.
Bombard the AI on the way to the corador and crush them inside it.
Bombard the AI on the way to the corador and crush them inside it.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
i also usialy have carrier grouos all over the wolrd along with transports filled with MA's
I have used inf/arty in a few different approaches. Depending on which civ you play, I may go with an infantry stack of 20inf/20arty while building a second stack. An inf stack like this would actually assult a city. The ai won't touch this many units and once the city is taken, I will take a full turn to garrison and resupply. This type of offensive is really hard on WW but if you use the "attack cities" then you can minimize WW.
Another alternative is to use 20 arty(this seems to reduce a city in a turn) and 10 inf. The inf do not attack but I bring up cav the turn before I want to use them. So, the inf defend the arty which bombard and the cav finish off the wounded units. Again, this is slow but works well during the early part of a war which is before you build up your cav.
The last approach would be to encircle your land with infantry which are fortified and then bring up 40 or so cav to assult a city. The ai tends to not know which infantry to attack and if it does attack then you can replace that lost inf with two next turn. The arty would be in reserve with a few infantry which can be moved via rail.
A variant is to open a hole in your line of infantry. The hole has to meet a few criteria. first, the land near by has flat land with no hills or trees or mountains. Second, you do not need the land that an enemy cav unit can move on to. Then just obliterate the ai as they foolishly move into the gap time and time again.
Another alternative is to use 20 arty(this seems to reduce a city in a turn) and 10 inf. The inf do not attack but I bring up cav the turn before I want to use them. So, the inf defend the arty which bombard and the cav finish off the wounded units. Again, this is slow but works well during the early part of a war which is before you build up your cav.
The last approach would be to encircle your land with infantry which are fortified and then bring up 40 or so cav to assult a city. The ai tends to not know which infantry to attack and if it does attack then you can replace that lost inf with two next turn. The arty would be in reserve with a few infantry which can be moved via rail.
A variant is to open a hole in your line of infantry. The hole has to meet a few criteria. first, the land near by has flat land with no hills or trees or mountains. Second, you do not need the land that an enemy cav unit can move on to. Then just obliterate the ai as they foolishly move into the gap time and time again.
budweiser
King of the Beers
The infantry line is good, but it costs money. Its nice to be able to afford to put one infantry per tile along your entire border and advance inline if you need to go to war. It keeps all the pesky enemy troops in front of you and you dont need to worry about anyone getting past your lines.
scoutsout
Minstrel Boy
So true!
If I border a Civ that tends to be agressive (ANY militaristic or expansionist Civ) then I look hard at defending my frontier. I let the terrain dictate whether it's feasible to build a "Maginot Line" or use a "Picket Line". A picket line is a Maginot line without the forts....
Generally speaking, I won't build a Maginot Line if I have more than 4 frontier cities. It simply takes too much worker effort that is better utilized elsewhere.
In constructing a "Maginot Line" I will build a line of fortifications that generally connect my border cities. This tends to work especially well on a narrow isthmus that only has room for 1-3 cities.
My frontier cities are well defended with 3-4 of my best defenders, plus 2-3 cannon/artillery. If I have infantry armies that I plan to use for a subsequent invasion, they are garrisoned in these cities. Once I get my 4th defender in there, I start piling Cavalry in these cites. While they don't defend that well, there's an "economy of force" issue here. If the AI hits me really, really hard, and beats 4 infantry and 3 artillery, he'll still have 10-15 Cav to contend with, which should buy me the one turn I need to reinforce the city in earnest...and counterattack his weakened units with healthy Cav...
If possible, I'll put 2 defenders and a cannon/artillery on the forts flanking a city. Once I had a maginot line along the Greek frontier. I had just constructed my Forbidden Palace in a frontier city (Gee, who do you think I'm gonna invade next?) Alexander attacked me out of the blue (just before I had tanks). That first cavalry took 3 simultaneous Artillery volleys, and immediately retreated. It was neat. It would have been especially useful if that had been a cavalry ARMY in that initial assault...but I digress.
The idea is not to keep the enemy from getting TO my frontier cities, but to keep him from getting PAST my frontier cities.
If I have a large frontier, I forget Maginot/Picket lines. I'll put 2-4 good defenders in the frontier cities, and start stacking fast units. If attacked, they should be able to hold the frontier city for that one turn needed for me to reinforce, even if I'm just reinforcing with the Horsemen/Knights/Cav from the adjacent cities. The idea here is to use the fast units to buy the time to reinforce the beseiged city...by defending it directly and/or skirmishing.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I have a somewhat different approach to border defense. I fortify any cities (and crucial resources) an invader can reach in one turn, but never build any fortification lines. The chief component of my defense is big stacks of artillery and mounted/mechanized units that are ready to leap on and destroy any invading force.
When I've got a long border, and the border cities are corrupt, usually captured, hell-holes, I often don't even try to keep credible garrisons in all border towns, figuring that I'm better off getting more Cav/Tanks and recapturing any lost towns (which will be open targets with one-tile cultural radii).
I guess this would be a text-book example of what I mean by that destroying enemy units is more important than short-term territorial control.
When I've got a long border, and the border cities are corrupt, usually captured, hell-holes, I often don't even try to keep credible garrisons in all border towns, figuring that I'm better off getting more Cav/Tanks and recapturing any lost towns (which will be open targets with one-tile cultural radii).
I guess this would be a text-book example of what I mean by that destroying enemy units is more important than short-term territorial control.
scoutsout
Minstrel Boy
IMHO, you are (almost) never wrong to make destruction of enemy units a priority in war.
The notable exception is if doing so would expose weakened unit to desctruction in a counterattack. (swapping losses=war of attrition)
Also agree 110% that short-term territorial control is useless, and wasteful. I'd rather take the enemy city that HAS the rubber, rather than sending a stack in to pillage that square.
The goals of my "Order of Battle" in the offense:
1) Take, and hold enemy cities, accomplishing 2 things:
a) destroying units in the process, and
b) denying the enemy the ability to build/draft units in that city
2) Destroy any and all enemy units that enter my homeland
3) If possible, destroy enemy units that venture into the open
4) Capture enemy workers.
jeremiahrounds
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Messages
- 404
I wont destroy enemy units that arnt a threat to my goals. When im just going for improvement destruction/resource denial ill just pass by defensive units.
I dont know if the above thinking applies. Since improvements are destroyable your not really "holding ground". Your just inflicting damage.
This is something you learn in chess:
why make a move your opponent will make for you.
If a defensive unit attacks an offensive unit the odds are basically the same as an offensive unit attacking the defensive unit. Why waste my turn on something the computer can waste his turn on?
Also you can simply outrun alot of the slower threat. Why stop and engage what you can out run. Here this assumes you can do damage by getting somewhere.
Again its not really "holding ground" its simply prioritizing targets. In alot of scenarios if you get the saltpeter or whatever there cant be a war of attrition.
You see this in war doctrine. Big units will fix and bypass. For example if im in a division with a movement instruction and i encounter a battalion ill push off a few troops to fix that batalion but i wont stop the division to engage the batalion. The batalion prolly has instructions to create delay. I would just be doing the enemy a favor by giving into the lure of destroying the batalion.
And why would you do that? Maybe your trying to kill an entire army with that division =)
Again its not about holding ground versus killing units its about KILLING THE MOST POSSIBLE STUFF/ DEBILITATING YOUR OPPONENT THE MOST.
Killing the most possible stuff doesnt run through engaging everything you see. Debilitating your opponent the most doesnt run through engaging everything you see.
I dont know if the above thinking applies. Since improvements are destroyable your not really "holding ground". Your just inflicting damage.
This is something you learn in chess:
why make a move your opponent will make for you.
If a defensive unit attacks an offensive unit the odds are basically the same as an offensive unit attacking the defensive unit. Why waste my turn on something the computer can waste his turn on?
Also you can simply outrun alot of the slower threat. Why stop and engage what you can out run. Here this assumes you can do damage by getting somewhere.
Again its not really "holding ground" its simply prioritizing targets. In alot of scenarios if you get the saltpeter or whatever there cant be a war of attrition.
You see this in war doctrine. Big units will fix and bypass. For example if im in a division with a movement instruction and i encounter a battalion ill push off a few troops to fix that batalion but i wont stop the division to engage the batalion. The batalion prolly has instructions to create delay. I would just be doing the enemy a favor by giving into the lure of destroying the batalion.
And why would you do that? Maybe your trying to kill an entire army with that division =)
Again its not about holding ground versus killing units its about KILLING THE MOST POSSIBLE STUFF/ DEBILITATING YOUR OPPONENT THE MOST.
Killing the most possible stuff doesnt run through engaging everything you see. Debilitating your opponent the most doesnt run through engaging everything you see.
scoutsout
Minstrel Boy
A 6/3 Cavalry attacking a 6/10 infantry is not the same thing as an infantryman attacking a cav... plus the wounded Cav might retreat to an exposed position, allowing it to be destroyed by an enemy Cav (who can retreate to a city with a barracks instantly on his own rails). Idling a unit on your turn runs the risk of letting your enemy seize the initiative...a dangerous thing. If you have a unit stand pat for a reason (infantry stand pat to protect my stack) that's one thing, but if combat between units is inevitable, I prefer it on my terms.
You can just as easily get into a war of attrition if you are losing units to riflemen, and your enemy's production is on par with yours.
The weakness in this thinking is that it pertains more to real war than Civ war. In real war, you can bypass enemy units in favor of pursuing a more important objective. In Civ war, the units are ON the only objective worth seizing (if conquest is your goal). If conquest is not your goal, what are you doing in enemy territory?
Furthermore, in Civ war:
1) Healthy troops aren't rendered ineffective by running out of ammunition
2) You can theoretically starve a city, but not the units defending it.
3) Civ units do not surrender, no matter how hopeless the battle.
4) Civ leaders do not capitulate, no matter how hopeless the war.
I'm not saying your thoughts are bad thoughts, just that they don't consider some of the important distinctions between Civ war and real war.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I agree with pretty much everything scoutsout says in his post immediately above. A couple more points:
It's practically impossible to outrun anything in enemy territory, Civ3's roads and railroads system being what it is.
The cost effective method of denying the AI a resource is, IME, usually taking the city within whose culture radius it falls.
Pillaging/bombing normal tile improvements is a sensible strategy only when you're too weak to actual conquer the area, but not so weak as to be forced to a defensive stance, and still not in position to secure a peace treaty to rebuild your strength. I very rarely find myself in a such situation.
It's practically impossible to outrun anything in enemy territory, Civ3's roads and railroads system being what it is.
The cost effective method of denying the AI a resource is, IME, usually taking the city within whose culture radius it falls.
Pillaging/bombing normal tile improvements is a sensible strategy only when you're too weak to actual conquer the area, but not so weak as to be forced to a defensive stance, and still not in position to secure a peace treaty to rebuild your strength. I very rarely find myself in a such situation.
