He who attacks first loses? Vel?

[Garth Vader]

You said this in your interview. That with evenly matched military he who attacks first loses, even in other war games.

This is the exact opposite of what I have experienced in SMAC and in basically every other war/stratedy game I have played MP.

In my way of seeing it the defender has 3 main disadvantages.

1. Spread defence. The attacker can attack at any point with as much or as little force as they want, meaning the defender has to be spread out.

2. Fighting on own turf (also an advantage). Bases get taken, lose pop, terrain improvements, or get destroyed. Lose formers and crawlers. The advantage is faster reinforcements. In any game with resource management I would much rather attack and fight on the other guys land.

3. Lack of initiave. The attacker decides where and when to attack. What the initial and secondary goals are. With proper information the initial goals should always be met because if you can't even do that you shouldn't be attacking. After that it's a matter of attack plan vs defender reaction. But even if the entire attack force is wiped out the attacker still has an untouched homeland and has done signifigant damage to their enemies economy and should be able to regroup faster for another attack. Or has forced enough of a lead to be able to sit back with a tech advantage.

I was just wondering what your thoughts on this were!

[bondetamp]

The problem comes when someone attacks you when all your unit are out fighting somewhere (and someone) else.

In a three player game, if a attacks b, c will probably have a big advantage.

[Evil Twin]

Actually, in a war between two equally matched forces, the attacker is at a big diasdvantage.

1> They dont have any defensive positions to fall back to when damaged.
2> The defender can choose where to defend and where to run and can harass the attacker before retreating to defensive positions.
3> The attacker has to commit to an attack plan whereas the defender can make it up as they go along which makes it easier to react to changes.
4> If the armies are evenly matched then the attacker will need multiple units to dislodge a single defender which means the defenders have more units to move around and attack with.
5> The defender can rush build new units and get them into the field faster and so will build up a local numerical superiority. Once they have this, the attacking force will be crushed and the defenders will have enough forces to go on the offensive.

The attacker can only win if they have superior numbers or superior firepower. Preferably both.

[Ned]

With evenly matched forces, the attacker will always win. He can choose the time and place, to the extreme disadvantage of the defender. He will concentrate his forces while the enemy is disbursed. A local bridgehead can be expanded. All the while, the bridgehead base acts as a platform for strategic carnage to the defender's infrastructure.

Attack first!

[theohall]

With evenly matched forces, the attacker can choose the time and place.

However, defending is always easier than attacking if both sides have tech. (ie evenly matched forces).

In SMAC/X it is easy to "hide" units using fungus and bunkers creating a serious disadvantage for the attacker if he chooses to strike without executing adequate reconnaisance.

The catch - the defender should be able to take out "recon" units without revealing his true defensive strength.

An axiom of most strategy games - if you don't have greater than 2-1 odds or greater, attacking is a mistake. This tends to be true in SMAC/X as well. The only exception I'm aware of...the early game rover rush when you find Unity Rovers and no one has developed a significant defensive tech.

[JAMiAM]

You have to forgive Vel...

He's a superb and prolific writer, but...

He really needs to get out more often, and hone his skills against real opponents (i.e. humans).

[Kirnwaffen]

I'd have to say I'm in agreement with Vel. Sure, the attacker can choose time and place and all that, but with evenly matched armies, hitting those hardened positions is going to be tough.

In addition, the attacker can actually only choose time and place to an extent. You don't really think that:

A. I'm going to sit there and let you march units right up to my core bases and launch a "surprise" attack do you?

B. Even if for some incredible reason, I do let you, you don't really think that I haven't shifted a few units around to accomodate new circumstances (yes, even if there is a pact).

Most players can afford to lose some of their fringe bases without serious consequence.

Heck, why should I even bother to respond to an attack on border bases (unless I hold the base, which is unlikely to happen against concentrated forces) immediately. I just reinforce the new border with extra (cheap) defenders, and let you pound away all you want. Then, when you've lost enough units I can hit back at you with my slightly bruised army against your severely beaten army. Even if you have drop infantry, you can just keep droping them, since they attack at 50% penalty.

The one opportunity I see for the attacker is with marines, which are capable of taking important coastal bases. But now what you have is a base with limited facilities, lots of drones to control, and a major liability for defense and reinforcement. Now we get back to the fact that you're on my turf, and my reinforcements are much closer than yours.

So think about it. Vel might have a point here (Not that that happens very often, or anything) .

[Basil]

Re: He who attacks first loses? Vel?

Originally posted by Garth Vader

3. Lack of initiave. The attacker decides where and when to attack. What the initial and secondary goals are. With proper information the initial goals should always be met because if you can't even do that you shouldn't be attacking.

If the attacker can set useful initial and secondary goals and be sure to obtain them, then the attacker probably will do well even in a situation of military parity. But that situation would be much more rare in a situation of military parity than when the attacker has the advantage in military strength.

Both Garth Vader and Vel say that what they are saying is true in their experience. I suspect that a lot of the people who lost by attacking at parity (in Vel's experience) shouldn't have attacked (by Garth's standards).

I have yet to see a war break out between 2 human SMAC players in a situation of military parity. Of course, I haven't played that many games!

[Ned]

Basil, I think in most wars with military parity, the attacker, having he surprise, will take the first objective. Then there will be a long, protrated struggle while the one attacked marshalls his forces to retake the base. Regardless of the outcome, the one attacked will have a major setback in the game. This is not necessarily the case with the attacker. He may only have lost his invasion force while his homeland bases continued to build infrastructure. Ned

[big_canuk]

I think you guys miss Vel's point.

With 2 evenly matched sides, the side which decides to attack, must divert resources from build to military. He then must take the time to get that force to the target. Provided that the defender has infiltration, he will have time and extra tech to respond.

This is a fine line, and you are right, the attacker will probably inflict more damage. But the lead the defender has gained will probably not be overcome, unless he has underestimated the attack.

Of course, on a tactical level, the attacker has the advantage. But on the metagame level, it would be the sharp defender who would prevail.

[Velociryx]

Good thread and good discussion! As to what I meant, much of that has already been addressed here, but I’ll add my two cents as well.

Two main reasons I made the statement:

First, consider a multi-player game with three or more opponents, all more-or-less equally matched. Player one launches an attack against player two, and they wear themselves out on each other. Player three, who did not participate in the attack in any material way has an enormous potential advantage, now being able to strike at either one or both significantly weakened opponents. In this case then, the advantage clearly goes to he who does not attack first.

Second case, a one on one match. Note here, that I said “he who attacks first, loses.” Thus, the discussion is not so much one of the supremacy of attack vs. defense, but rather, a discussion of timing. By maintaining a watchful eye (amounting to infiltration and constant patrolling) it is possible to see the attack force building up by watching your opponent’s queues. Do this, and you will know the exact composition of that force—and thus, design a counter for it). One simple way to counter the attack at this point is to simply launch one of your own, now that your opponent has put his cards on the table.

Your opponent who launched his attack first now has two unpleasant options. First, he can send the attack force back home to deal with the threat that your force presents—assuming he’s paying just as much attention to your build queues. If he does, then you don’t have a problem. You’ve mucked up your opponent’s game and cost him turn advantage since he now has to spend several turns backtracking. Or, he can proceed with the attack and hope for the best. If he chooses this option, keep in mind that the attack force en route is of a static size. It’d be cool if transports could build units en route to the battle, but since they can’t, you know with absolute authority that the number of units heading your way is a fixed quantity. Further, you have at least some time to augment your existing defense force while he’s travelling to your lands, and with a proper base defense model in place, you can track the attack force’s progress and get a good idea of where it will be landing, shifting resources as needed to deal with the threat. Further still, since you’re aware the attack is coming, you might find yourself in the position of being able to deal with it before it lands and while it is vastly more vulnerable (by sinking the transport, for example).

Finally, there is the structure of an empire to consider. Now, I don’t know about you guys, but my “core” bases are damnably hard to even get to! How’s that, you ask? Simple: Fringe bases. Newer, more marginal bases, put in place specifically to serve as way points and lookout posts. They’re garrisoned, and their very existence means that an attacker will need to conquer them first to keep his forces from getting surrounded/give my jets and choppers a landing site behind the battle. So…the attacker marches in and (maybe) takes a cheesy base on the fringes of my empire. Did that hurt? Nope. Did he totally tip his hand? You bet, and what’s the next step?

Does he divide the force, leaving a garrison at the new base and sending the rest toward another objective. That’s no good, because at that point, he’ll almost certainly be outnumbered at the next objective.

Does he hole up in the base? Also not viable….he’s right next door to my entire military apparatus. Not much hope of keeping the base.

Does he burn it down? No loss there, the base didn’t really have anything in it, and by doing so, his troops are again vulnerable since they burned down their rest and repair station.

Ahhh, and one final thing before I head outta here to work on the next segment of “Break-Away” in the SMAC fiction section.

JAM makes a valid point. It’s true that these days I don’t spend a lot of time on computer games in general. It’s also true that what time I DO spend on computer games is usually limited to SP, with a once-in-a-while hot seat game tossed in for grins—spent three hours playing the Spartans in a hot-seat game against my buddy Greg last week….awesome! I leave it to each person reading my rambles to decide if those facts diminish the truth and validity of the things I write here. Personally, I don’t think so, but in the end, it is for each person to decide. Mostly, that’s a matter of priority. Death will do that to a fellow and I feel as though I have been given something of a second chance at life. The question then, becomes what do I really want to do with the time given to me.

For me, the answer is writing. I love it. Eventually, I hope to “make it” as an author. Given that, my choice is an easy one. I’d simply rather devote more time to writing, thinking, philosophy, and the arts in general than to honing my skills against human opponents in a game, regardless of how fantastic that game is. One thing that dying young taught me….there’s no predicting when the big guy with the scythe will come ask you to dance. Well that and, when you come back, LOTS of people make cookies for you….



-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel, Building up an army, putting them on transports and sending them forth is a legacy of CIV. SMAC is a game about airpower, and to a lessor degree, seapower. If I loaded a bunch of high cost military onto transports and sent them into hostile seas, I consider myself nuts.

No, the way operations can and should be conducted is by taking a base by any means possible, e.g., probe, or landing one or more garrisons off a transport after the airforce has cleaned out the defenders. Then one rush-builds 1-1-1 trained scouts and upgrades them to the best defensive units in order to hold the base while the airforce does its job. Eventually, a second base may be taken. If it is, the rest is history.

Ned

[Velociryx]

Ned, excellent point re: using air power as the prime-puncher of your attack, but in my mind, that does not change the equation to any great degree. This is simply because there are so many ways of dealing with the air power threat. Here, with the range of aircraft having to be considered, the first, best defense is the fringe base, and active patrolling. If an opponent begins launching an attack toward you that is aircraft heavy, it is EXCEEDINGLY easy to spot, as it will take on one of two forms:

1) The opponent will be using a “jet heavy” force, meaning he has to build sea colonies “toward” your empire in order to set up way points for his jets. Barring that, he must wait until he acquires the tech for carrier deck. If he opts for the latter, we’re talking about late game, and if we’re talking late game then we’re also talking tachyon fields which, when combined with AAA tracking means that a single defender can mess up something like half a dozen attack jets, making an air strike counter productive in terms of cost vs. potential gain.

2) The opponent will be using a “chopper heavy” force, meaning they can come from further away and without way points, but also meaning that they will be damaged 30% or more when they reach their objectives. In this case, it’s vigilant patrolling that will serve you well, as a SAM capable chopper can pretty handily munch the daylights out of a bunch of damaged enemy choppers designed to shoot ground pounders. In any case, queue monitoring will reveal much about the opponent’s intentions. Why build a fleet of assault choppers unless you’re planning to send them toward your opponent? 3-4 of them posted at each end of your empire is more than enough to handle a truly VAST attack force if it gets close….any more than that and you’re blatantly advertising your intent, yes? And if you’re blatantly advertising, versus an opponent who is watching your queues, of course he’ll be ready!

On the notion of sending out expensive attackers on transports….it depends. With proper cover it can be a useful thing, but if I’m loading out a transport, very likely it will be with 2-1-1 shell units(with a 1-best-1 defender along for the ride) that I can upgrade just before they land. That way, if I lose the trannie for any reason, I haven’t lost much, but it’s still a threat because they can be upgraded to any configuration or combination I’ll need when they get closer. Also, if an opponent is watching my queues, it won’t be nearly as informative. He’ll know I have lots of shells….::grin:: This brings up one final point which is something of a tangent. Loading out a transport with shell units is MUCH more deadly if you’re playing a game which allows for upgrades from the design workshop! If so, you can upgrade them to deadly configurations and attack the same turn….OUCH. OTOH, if you’re opponent is careless enough to allow said transport to get that close to one of his bases, he kinna deserves what he gets….

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

Good points from all.

I would like to add that most of my experience is from wars in the 2150-Air Power time frame. I don't know if this is still considered a rover rush. Plus I usually played 2 players with 5 AI's. That's where I was coming from in my initial post.

With the limited units available it's quite easy to sneak your transports undetected, and an initial force of 4-6 units can do a whole lot, so even if you are infiltraited an attack is not obvious, especially if the AI's or worms are especially bad. At this stage luck is huge, if you happen to locate your opponent before they locate you surprise can be complete. But if their one naval unit happens to find your invasion fleet it's all over!

My few games with a higher tech war lead me to the conclusion that it is often suicidal for the attacker.

[Avenoct]

I was going to post straight away to this topic, but I'm glad that I waited. What an excellent discussion! I think Theohall has the crux of the issue. If you are going to attack in a strategy game, you make damn sure you have 2:1 odds or better! Evenly matched opponents do NOT attack one another successfully.

To simplify further, assume a 2-player + AI game. Evenly matched opponents might mean 9 rovers, 5 attack infantry, 10 defensive infantry. Imagine that is your force, plus transport. Anyone who tells me they are going to send those 14 attacking forces against me is surely loony. On the simplist level Vel's statement is a tactical truism. Whoever attacks first loses, b/c those 9 rovers are now gone and I have at least half my army left to respond. Why? Attacking units don't 'Pair Up' with attacking units for the most part. Attackers pair up with garrisoned defenders, ie. Expensive but mobile units face odds with cheap stationary ones.

Expanding...of course there are notable exceptions. On the strategic level the defending force may not be well placed and/or the attacker may succeed in a 'roll-over' type offensive where fast units take bases and slow units follow up to mop up or garrison. Furthermore, a lack of information on the defenders part might let them be taken unawares, perhaps while they are launching their own offensive (ouch!). Thirdly, the attack might be limited in scope, ie take a strategically important base and reinforce it, going no further. There are many variations of the successful 'Even-odds' attack, but the point is that they are exceptions. This is of course without taking into consideration 'Onlookers' better known as 'Vultures'. War is expensive....



I was going to post about Risk, a vastly simpler game that works on the same basic principles. What makes it so hard to make war successfully is that it is never, till the end, a 'Me vs. You' proposition. Experienced players will not allow an agressor to roll over their enemy unless they stand to lose in the long run (their backside is mooning). Even with superior firepower on the tactical level, which you need in SMAC just like in Risk, it is only subtle tactics that win the overall strategic battle. A very dumb person quoted G.I. Joe on her yearbook page way back in 1988. It always bothered me that she quoted G.I. Joe, and what I thought was a very dumb quote: 'Winning is only Half the Battle'. It just bothers me no end. Maybe you see why?

Anyways, I have to say that I disagree with Ned in theory but not in practice. Attacking first almost always works, but this is because of inequal dispositions and the 'roll-over' effect. When sides are balanced, which is so rare as to just about be never, the attacker loses invariably. On the other hand, the longer you let a hostile enemy build up defenses, the harder it will be to finally engage them. Oh I have lost my track, maybe it's this Tawny Port?

-Smack