He who attacks first loses? Vel?

[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.