Offensive Defense

[TheVancouverMan]

Many people I have talked to have bashed at my theory of cavalry as defensive units.
This may be viewed by some as, say, cotroverisial. In the early industriual revolution, before RepParts, Germany unloaded a galleon onto the shores of my island nation of persia. Most of my defensive units were still pikemen, and i didnt care to recruit citizens becuase the german unites were veterans. The germans were pretty far from any cities of mine, so i couldnt use fot soldiers. Becuase the germans landed on a road, my cavalry destroyed them on the turn they landed

 

[Snarkhunter]

Many people I have talked to have bashed at my theory of cavalry as defensive units.
This may be viewed by some as, say, cotroverisial. In the early industriual revolution, before RepParts, Germany unloaded a galleon onto the shores of my island nation of persia. Most of my defensive units were still pikemen, and i didnt care to recruit citizens becuase the german unites were veterans. The germans were pretty far from any cities of mine, so i couldnt use fot soldiers. Becuase the germans landed on a road, my cavalry destroyed them on the turn they landed

I'm having difficulty seeing this as a defensive unit. Surely you destroyed them by attacking, did you not? Or did you just sit the cav there & let the AI beat its head to death against them?

Cav defends at 3; it's as good a defender as any other def3 unit, but that's not saying much. So if I need a defender & haven't got one available, sure I'll stick it in. But it's wasted that way if there's any other good choice. For the same reason, infantry is wasted as an attacker if there are any cavs around: rather keep that def10 ready for the AI to beat heads against. This presumes veteran units; I'll attack with almost any elite at any time.

kk

 

[vmxa]

You do not say how the Germany units were dispatched, as was mentioned, attacking says nothing about defense. If your point is that fast movers are great to go attack invaders, I think all would agree.

The way it was presented made it sound like they are used to defend, that would be a poor use. They cost more than other defenders such as pikes and have more uses. So I would much rather loose a pike than a cav on defense.

If the invaders were swords, longbow and MDI, they are easy pickings for cavs. Just do not let them attack as their defensive values are 1 and 2.

Now if I am looking to build a unit to stick in a town on the coast for potential defense, I will not use a pike. I will use an attacker, like a knight or a cav. They cover more ground and can attack. I do not want to let them attack my towns or rip up my improvements. An MDI is better in that job than a pike for my tactics.

IOW most experienced players would prefer to have cavs to protect towns, not defend them.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

It seems to me that what is in question is vulnerablility. If I have a town or resource within attacking range of an enemy then I use defensive units. Any island or position out of range of the enemy I can repond with offensive units after the initial move. Of course the big variable is mobility, before railroads I distribute my best mobile attacking unit around any coasts, and I may or may not have defensive units in the towns. I have never seen the AI use an amphibious attack on a town, has anyone?

 

[Loki130]

I think it's a question of tactics vs. strategy. tactically, It's better to attack another unit with cav than let it be attacked. but strategically having a bunch of cav around can be quite useful for defending an area, especially if you're trying to hold down a large area with little defensive units or railroads. Personally I like to use this strategy-I pockmark my empire with forts containing offensive units (ai wont bother much with forts in initial invasion so I don't have to worry about defense) and, later in the game, use a mobile bomber force to protect far-flung colonies

 

[EvilConqueror]

I have never seen the AI use an amphibious attack on a town, has anyone?

Yes, the vikings will do it frequently.

 

[Spoonwood]

I agree with VMXA. Protection vs. defense makes for a good distinction. Thus it makes sense that one trains signficiantly more offensive units than defensive units (excluding AW, I guess).

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Yeah, Protection/Strategic Defense instead of Defense/Tactical Defense.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

Yes, the vikings will do it frequently.

It's probably a version and level thing. PTW, Monarch level, I've been playing for years and I have never had a direct amphibious assault on a town or unit. What version and level are you playing?

 

[da3dalus]

It's probably a version and level thing. PTW, Monarch level, I've been playing for years and I have never had a direct amphibious assault on a town or unit. What version and level are you playing?

I play Conquests, Regent level and when I play the Conquests Middle-Ages scenario I frequently get amphibious assaults from Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Perhaps it is a version/level thing. ^_^

 

[Meteor Man]

As a matter of fact, I created a mod that severely increased the attack of all units, and so made it a necessity to have a high offensive military force to protect against attack. An offensive defense. This is a very powerful tactic if the commander handles it well and proffessionally. In TheVancouverMan's case, that's almost exaclty what I would have done. Garrison around 15-20 cavalry along the cities on the coast (in the center of your empire if you have railroads) and attack any enemies that try to land on your island. This is only usually used for a game in which you are not planning to win militaristically, as the cavalry you are using to defend should be better off attacking some other civ.

Best,
MM

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Not to mention, if you increased the attack values but didn't increase any Defense values, defending would be a stupid idea - Cavalry can take out Musketmen fortified in Towns with no Walls, and if you've increased their attack (even just to 9, say), you've pretty much made it very possible for them to take Cities with Fortified Musketmen.

 

[Meteor Man]

Not to mention, if you increased the attack values but didn't increase any Defense values, defending would be a stupid idea - Cavalry can take out Musketmen fortified in Towns with no Walls, and if you've increased their attack (even just to 9, say), you've pretty much made it very possible for them to take Cities with Fortified Musketmen.

That's exactly what I did, ChaosArbiter. It seemes more historically accurate to me. No army in the world in any major wars i'm aware of just stayed in their cities and defended against an attack. It was always two armies facing each other on the battlefield.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

The American Civil War and World War One are two *very* good examples of times when the Attack was significantly outclassed by the Defense. In Medieval Europe, besieged castles were rarely taken by storm - either the defender was betrayed, surrendered, or a third army came to lift the siege.

Edit: And if you're going to do that anyway, why not just remove defensive units entirely?

 

[TheOverseer714]

I figured out my own version of defending with mounted units. I call it the zone defense, and it gets better as you go along. You need about twice as many mounted units as the largest transport the enemy can field. So 4 Horsemen can cover a zone of 5 tiles diameter in the age of Galleys, 6 Knights in the age of Caravels, and 8 Cavalry can cover a larger zone of 8 tiles diameter in the age of Galleons. Once you get fully railed, the whole empire becomes a zone, easily defended by Cavalry/Tanks and Cannons/Artillery. The only true defenders needed would be at border towns.

 

[Argetnyx]

Many people I have talked to have bashed at my theory of cavalry as defensive units.
This may be viewed by some as, say, cotroverisial. In the early industriual revolution, before RepParts, Germany unloaded a galleon onto the shores of my island nation of persia. Most of my defensive units were still pikemen, and i didnt care to recruit citizens becuase the german unites were veterans. The germans were pretty far from any cities of mine, so i couldnt use fot soldiers. Becuase the germans landed on a road, my cavalry destroyed them on the turn they landed

Cavalry should usually be used as offensive. If there is no other choice, use them for defense. Making them into your standard defensive unit is dangerous. The option of retreating is useful though...

 

[Meteor Man]

The American Civil War and World War One are two *very* good examples of times when the Attack was significantly outclassed by the Defense. In Medieval Europe, besieged castles were rarely taken by storm - either the defender was betrayed, surrendered, or a third army came to lift the siege.

Edit: And if you're going to do that anyway, why not just remove defensive units entirely?

What I mean is that opposing armies never stayed in cities and defended them like this, but sent their armies out to fight others. Like in WWI, the Eastern an Western fronts were not based on defending cities, but rather territory. If an army was defeated on the field, then there was (usually) not a secondary army defending the cities behind the front. The cities would be captured because the countrie's armies were defeated on the field.

I didn't want there to be only offensive units, I just wanted them to be more important to defense.

 

[Meteor Man]

Cavalry should usually be used as offensive. If there is no other choice, use them for defense. Making them into your standard defensive unit is dangerous. The option of retreating is useful though...

Sometimes I wish that normal infantry could retreat. It would make gameplay so much more realistic.

 

[ChaosArbiter]

Sometimes I wish that normal infantry could retreat. It would make gameplay so much more realistic.

Well, they technically are, if you believe that the HP of units isn't just the lives of the men, but morale and cohesion - so a unit that's redlined and recovers back to full HP isn't just bringing in replacements for men killed/taken prisoner, but resupplying and getting morale back to Regular/Veteran/Elite levels. For a lot of history, a force that routed/retreated would be run down by the opponents; only cavalry and similarly fast units could actually break away from an opponent quickly enough to prevent unit destruction.

What I mean is that opposing armies never stayed in cities and defended them like this, but sent their armies out to fight others. Like in WWI, the Eastern an Western fronts were not based on defending cities, but rather territory. If an army was defeated on the field, then there was (usually) not a secondary army defending the cities behind the front. The cities would be captured because the countrie's armies were defeated on the field.

Point taken - but Civ isn't a military sim, it's an empire sim. And if the enemy gets close enough to attack your cities, you're already in some kind of trouble in most cases (as you lose the productivity of the tiles the enemy units are on), so engaging away from the city is preferable. Also, at least in ancient times (my grasp of politics is rather fuzzy past the early MA), the destruction of the field army usually led to the capitulation of the losing side - Cannae, for example, would normally have led to the surrender of the Romans to the Carthaginians. The Romans, being jerks, however, decided to keep fighting. Up through the MA, you actually have the countries' major players on the field (the Harolds and William in England 1066, for example), so a crushing defeat would directly affect the losing side (and possibly the winning side as well), as their leaders would be dead/captured.

Essentially, the problem with your ideas is that they require things the Civ engine doesn't really take into consideration (for example, you can smash AI armies in the field the whole game, but if you don't take cities, you can't make them surrender).

 

[Meteor Man]

What you say is very interesting. Its the sad and sore truth that the Civ game engine has limitations. The AI does not leave their cities undefended and send all available units to fight at the front, (which I wish they did), but rather stays in its cities to defend against attack.

In a perfect game, if you defeated an army in a field, then it was a relatively simple order to go and capture cities behind the old front line. You can make the AI surrender of you smash up all units they send at you, as is evident in one of my games in my mod, in a game that unwillingly pitted the US vs. the Canadians. Though they had superior numbers and more tech (Infantry versus my Rifleman) they were forced to sign a one-sided peace treaty because everything they threw at me was destroyed without taking casualties on my side. This utterly destroyed their infrastructure becuase all their cities were focused on fighting me, versus just a fraction of mine. If they continued the war, they would have been hopelessly behind in tech and infrastructure.

It seemes to me that what you are saying is actually agreeing with my points; as you said, an armies' defeat in the field has direct consequences to both the losing and winning side (because the leaders would be dead or captured).

And I do see what you are saying about retreating. That makes sense to me.