I was reading through the Strategy and Tactics thread and I found a quite compelling topic. Instead of resurrecting the thread, I decided to create a new one.

The thread was about the difference between defensive strategy and defensive tactics. I'd like to point out another difference here as well in that of a defensive position.

Now everyone knows in a war game that you must defend. The definition of defend is something like "trying to minimalize damage taken to one's person." That's how I think of it, anyway.

Now perhaps defense is not very prominent in battling, especially scenarios, considering the even makeup of troops doesn't encourage defensive warfare.

But the thread was more aimed at campaigning. And it said how ineffective a defensive strategy can be against an aggressive attacker.

Defensive tactics, IMO, is when you set up a defense to beat of an attack. Here is where tactics and strategy diverges. A defensive tactic now is dropped for an offensive one, meaning the defensive tactic has done its job.

Meanwhile if you stay on defense you'll find it very difficult to get a good position when the smoke clears, ie when the game ends. Some might argue in an LMS this doesn't apply. To me, this applies DOUBLY in an LMS.

Consider a hypothetical situation. You have a corner castle. Your same-terrain neighbour invades you. After the battle, the tiny remains of his army flee. You are left with a sizeable force.
A defensive strategy now would be to stick around the castle. A defensive tactic here is terminated while you attack.

Now, say it's an LMS and 200 turns later after lots of battles the same guy comes back, in control of 8 castles compared to your one. He has very likely got more advanced tech and troops as well as higher levelled veterans.

Anyone would know that in this situation you are downright screwed .

A defensive TACTIC sets you up for an OFFENSE.

Now changes into the characteristics of a defensive position. This is a position, that, if you fought a battle there, would give you an advantage.

Ie, if you had not enough melee to guard your archers in an open battle, in between mountains, if you outstack yout opponent, in an open plain to take advantage of this, etc.

This is obviously tied closely to a defensive tactic, but can be used in offense as well. I have focussed more on defensive value.

Any comments on my extremely un-tied-up post?

Seems like this topic is more about strategy versus tactics. Let me use another's definition:

"Military minds often think in terms of strategy and tactics.

Strategy is immutable; it is a Big Picture look at a problem that focuses upon the entire forest and not individual trees. Military concepts such as objective, offensive, simplicity, unity of command, mass, economy of force, maneuver, surprise, and security represent the timeless principles of strategy. Why do you think Sun Tzu’s The Art of War has been a best seller for thousands of years and translated into every imaginable language? Because it teaches strategy and the lessons of strategy are timeless. They are bound to our very nature as humans.

Tactics vary with circumstances and, especially, technology. If I were to teach you how to be a soldier during the American Revolution, you would learn how to form and maneuver in lines, perform the 27 steps in loading and firing a musket, and how to ride and tend to a horse. Naturally, yesterday’s tactics won’t win today’s wars – but yesterday’s strategies still win today’s wars… and will win them tomorrow and into the future.

So, tactics present a Small Picture perspective where individual trees are in focus but the Big Picture of the forest is not. Just as your eyes have to look up from this page to refocus on the larger room you’re reading it in, so strategy and tactics require a different focus."

-- www.alanemrich.com/PGD/PGD_Strategy.htm

I just find it funny to think this hypothetical guy can't beat you but apparently beat the game's 8 other players. Even more implausible is that all this time you had no interest whatsoever in any fighting in a game that scores you purely on kills.

Just needling your plans.

In the case of THIS game, offensive strategy is rolling war while defensive is anything else.

It wasn't based on anything I've played, every time but once I've gone on defence I've been pushed out of the castle... but perhaps in the hypothetical game you were just on more than him, etc. The point is if you hang around your castle, you might win a couple of early battles, but you'll most likely never win the game.

Actually, I've won wars a couple of times by using my castle as the means to reduce the other guy's troops in an otherwise even battle. But from what I hear across WOL I'm the freak exception.

what CTD means is that he is freakishly good and that is what makes him exceptional.

i think that I am agreeing with darkguy if he means to say that defence is often overlooked by players. I rarely see players retreat when they should. certainly the better players do tend to run away to conserve their forces which only reinforces the notion that defence is an integral part of the overall game.

however on the whole i would have to say that players are often better, or place more emphasis, on attacking than defending.

luckily for me

cheers
anyone

I wouldn't say freakishly good, although as all agree for some reason it's a badly under-rated skill.

Attrition is definitely a game plan, although it's much better for duels than campaigns, where the eventual winner faces a much-changed world where the survivors have 3 castles each!

It might also be why no-one considers it, because it's also percieved if you can't win here you won't win anywhere else. Or there's the famous old all-pervading arrogance that you are the greatest general in the world and it will all come out well in the grand scheme of things...

Personally, I would be happy with a couple higher places than I would otherwise get. I won't take the risk unless I think I can get away with it. The only thing worse than second last is dead last.

Suddenly, almost last sounds pretty good.

We're back to risk-taking vs reward again aren't we...

Well, yeah, I agree with CTDXXX. Attrition isn't designed for at least the early stage of camps, ie. any time while there are more than three people on the board .

Duels are almost perfectly designed for attrition, seeing as there are three central places to fight over. This is kind of similar to the later stages of a campaign when, instead of bunches of resource buildings, you fight over castles AND bunches of resource buildings! .