Does Civ II favour the offence or the defence?

[Alexander's Horse]

Its probably been raised before but its something I still can't make up my mind about.

[shade]

maybe it just doens't favour one of them.and it's just your own playstyle that favours one of them.

Shade

[deity]

No doubt about it.

You can attack anywhere. You can't defend everywhere....

[-Jrabbit]

In my limited Civ2 experience, the best defense is a strong offense. It's f***ing difficult (well, for me) to take a pure defensive tack, while IMHO it appears that an offensive approach creates enough incidental defense to sustain itself.

That being said, I really think the strength of Civ2 is in its overall balance and the requirement to think and react to the situations presented.

[Scouse Gits]

Apart from the old adage "Attack is the best method of defence", the game favours conquest, which brings the rewards of plunder, science and real estate.

-------------------

SG(2)

[DaveV]

Given comparable units and competent defense, the attacker will lose more units. It's worth it, though, because of the zero-sum aspect of civ: each city you take weakens your opponent and strengthens you.

It's always better to have the war fought on your opponent's territory rather than your own.

[ColdWizard]

i would say offense. in the MP games that i've played, taking a defensive posture always resulted in a loss. going offensive still resulted in a loss, but i lived a lot longer

against the ai, my experience (limited to the lower levels) has shown that you need very little defense whilst using a large force to paste your enemies

[Marquis de Sodaq]

From a statistical point of view, CivII favors the DEFENDER, no doubt about it.

From a strategic perspective, the attackers have some advantages. The highest attack values are higher than the best unmodified defense values. Defenders sit and wait, the attackers actually determine what happens in the game.

[Smash]

It is defense.All the modifiers apply to defense.The only thing available to offense is the sneak attack.This is especially true in MP.

[-Jrabbit]

Reading through this again, it occurs to me that the right answer is -- it depends.

--On lower levels, you can do very well playing as defensive isolationist.
--On higher levels, the AI will tend to win unless you go on the offensive.
--In MP, it's all about your opponents. You do what works (or what you think will work) against them.

Probably most telling of all (to me) is that long-time players like AH, SG, et al. are still posting on this topic. This speaks volumes for the design of the game, which seems to accommodate a wide (endless) disparity of playing styles and strategic approaches.

[Ming]

Yeah... it all depends on the situation... as it should!
I think there is a great balance between offense and defense.

*I can't believe I voted a banana option*

[Alexander's Horse]

I think in single player it favours attack.

In multiplayer the defender has a big advantage.

[Smash]

Especially with those 2x multiplayers building on hills,forests and mountains

[ColdWizard]

i've had some decent success in the last two MP games i've played with early assaults on forest cities

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Reading through this again, it occurs to me that the right answer is -- it depends.

--On lower levels, you can do very well playing as defensive isolationist.
--On higher levels, the AI will tend to win unless you go on the offensive.
--In MP, it's all about your opponents. You do what works (or what you think will work) against them.

A nitpick: I actually find defensive isolationism the easiest way to win at deity; a rcent favorite stategy has been to secure a small patch of land and model my empire on a metropolis, with my SSC as my "city" and as many other cities as I can put down as "suburbs." Aside from defenders and a wall, the only thing the suburbs build are caravans. It's works wonders...literally!

But really, this thread should just be about MP (which I've never played); the AI is so bad at offense and defense that the SP answer to "what does CivII favor" is "whatever the human happens to be doing."

[rah]

It depends on the time in the game.

There are many techs that swing the balance. and it's a question of which MP player has what.
If I get crusaders before an opponent has feud I have fun. If not then I need math. If i can rush to cannons and muskets before they get muskets, it's romp and stomp time. EVEN if they're building on good terrain.

Real early on, defense rules except for a few small small tech windows. (I get bronze early 95% of the time, and the other 5% it's because I got warrior code out of hut and it screwed up my tech path)


But in the end, If you can continue. IT"S OFFENSE..

Howies and Nukes. There is no battlefield defense.

Rich

[debeest]

Defending a city or a piece of land is indisputably easier than capturing it. If you don't have superiority over your opponent, attacking is generally counter-productive. However, as several have noted, the overall game design favors capturing cities. In SP, you'll always have one superiority -- skill -- so you can usually find advantageous places to attack selectively even before you've built up technical and material advantages.

[rah]

I dissagree.

Sometimes it's easier to take cities in MP. There are more human players that defend with just warriors hoping to expand faster. If you can get a couple of elephants inside their outer defenses on surprise, you can devistate their core cities (game over). AGAIN, it just depends on the game situation.


Except for howies and nukes. There is no defense for those.


RAH

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Good question. I'm just speaking as a SP player, of course... and assuming the AI wasn't as completely useless on both attack and defense as it is...

Strategically, there's no question offense is better. Having more cities means more production, more arrows, higher score (population), as has been noted. You'll never get more cities by being attacked.

Tactically, defense wins until Flight, I think. Until then, you lose many, many units attacking cities - I've seen that said here so many times! For every good 2-move attack unit that comes along, there's a defender that trumps it available more or less concurrently (horse/phalanx, chariot-elephant-crusader-knight/pikeman, dragoon/musketeer, cavalry/alpine). On a 1:1 basis I find the attacker usually loses... and if walls or defensive terrain are involved... multiple attackers will usually lose!

Sure, you can knock down walls with spies, or use the 'instafort'... but those are pretty advanced attack methods, and require more and more units... if the defense has its own spies, or uses its own 'instaforts' on good terrain in the attackers attack route... defense seems to win.

Now, once rail is available, the cannon/artillery attack becomes easier to employ. Rail can be rushed right up to the enemy city without even needing preworked engineers. Fighters and especially bombers create a bigger advantage, due to range and that the SAM isn't available until Rocketry. And by this point, you have 3-move, decent defense units to hold newly conquered cities with.

Once the howitzer comes... well, nothing defends well against those.

STYOM

(waiting to get back to succession games)

[debeest]

Hey, RAH, I said defending is "indisputably" easier! Whattya gonna do, argue wit' me now?

But seriously, I think you haven't disputed my point. It would have been easier for the defenders in your example to put in some decent unit (phalanx, pikemen) and build walls than for you to sneak your elephants through their lines, if they were only paying some attention to defense, right? You're really saying that attacking can be advantageous (I certainly agree); but I'm saying that if someone defends as well as you attack, they'll pretty much kick your butt.

[rah]

In general, i agree with you 100%. I usually spend on defense and very rarely lose cities. (until later in the game)

But there are exceptions. And in MP they do happen more frequently than you'd think.

1. some don't defend that well and count on not being surprised.

2. the rare tech window advantage talked about.

3. Later in the game once howies are avail.

RAH

[geofelt]

Against barbarians, I find offense much more effective. I build some horsemen for defense first thing.

[War4ever]

yes , on deity its better to attack barbs especially with their bonuses...

as for the rest of the game.....the game rewards attacking.....so as long as your willing to send the young men in your empire to the slaughter, ATTACK AT WILL!

however , there are many times where the defender has the advantage and this game makes me shake my head (especially in MP)

sometimes the math is a little funny...anyone else see this as well

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by War4ever
sometimes the math is a little funny...anyone else see this as well

no

[rah]

AH

Yes sometimes it seems a little fuzzy, but that's probability for you. Some crazy things happen.

If someone could quantify the "Sneak Attack" bonus, I'd appreciate it.

In MP, If you're afraid to lose any units, you shouldn't bother attacking. The real judgement is risk vs. reward. Are all those shields that you used to create your attack force worth the prize. Or could they have been better spent building caravans, settlers and diplos.
Sometimes the defensive is more cost effective. Take 100 shields. 40 for a settler and 60 for 3 vet pikeman. Place city on gold in range of enemy capital. How many shields with your opponent waste trying to kill that city? He knows that if you can build that city up, you can harass the crap out of his cap. (especially after spys are available) That's a lot of caravans he's not going to be building.



RAH

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by rah
If someone could quantify the "Sneak Attack" bonus, I'd appreciate it.

Sadly, that's the one combat bonus that hasn't been figured out. Everything else has been tested thoroughly, but not the sneak attack. Maybe I can get around to finishing that one of these days...

(le marquis watching the 300th sneak attack in a test game)

[rah]

Based on years of experience. I would guess 50% attack bonus.

But I too have no desire to chart 300 sneak attacks.
Maybe I will. If my daughter would ever get off CHAT.

RAH

[Blaupanzer]

Offense supplemented with spies and lots of money (for bribes) wins the game. Defending well only avoids defeat. However, given that people win regularly with only one city (OCC), I can't see that it makes any real difference to the final outcome whether offense or defense is superior. Suspect MP is another story altogether. Has anyone ever won an MP game by getting to AC first?

[SlowThinker]

I tested it a half year ago:

I set hit points to 100 in rules.txt so that randomness is low.
I didn't mention any sneak attack advantage.

[Jac de Molay]

Defense, with lots of diplos, but keeping a small offensive force handy.

Dave