The initial maneuvres: Attack or Defend

[Prince_of_Macedon]

Generally-speaking...before the two opposing armies clash, do you prefer to open the fight with your own attack, or would you rather defend your position?

Is it better to attack or to defend?

Explain.

[Roshak]

A good offense is a good defense.

You can do a lot of damage by going on the offensive even in the circumstances of that you would normally go on the defensive.

[Roman Clone]

You would loose more men playing offense.

[Archer of Sparta]

Defence is my thing. The enemy will tire itself out trying to get to your men. You have the ability to abush by hiding in nearby wood. Generaly, the person defending does more arrow damage. The defender chooses where the battle begins by strategicly placing the army on a hill. Most of your army is not mobile which makes it easier to control your lines.

[Lucius Vorenus]

If I'm a hellenistic civ with phalanx troops, I defend. If I'm Roman, I'll meet them half way. If I'm an Eastern type with horse archers, I attack attack attack.

[Space Wolves]

attack, even when defending, as i learned through enough battles, is that the ai will try to flank you, so i dont see the point of wasteing time, and re-poistioning them, i do get annoyed that i have to do that, i miss vanilla rome, where they wont flank, just head on attack, but those got dull.


All those precious time postistioning them, and they do a hard left or right

[Kamos]

Defense unless I have horse archers then I attack.

[Hader]

I always try both, 90% of the time. The other 10% I dont either because I dont have the right units or not enough.

Im usually Armenia, Thrace, or Rome (in vanilla and many mods).

[Lord Romanus III]

Offensive. I will use whatever I have. I normally don't flank just to make battles bloodier.

Cordially, Lord Romanus III

[micromegas]

I can finally vote. And I voted for defend.

Although I use carthage a lot so I have to attack due to the short range of my skirmish units. I would prefer to do what I call an offensive defense.

What I mean is you let him come to you, and most of the time his marching army will go out of formation and you can also get more shots off while his archers walk. And then when the time is right you can attack the gaps in his formation or look for weaknesses, or counter attach right before your lines meet.

[LeonidasOfSparta]

I voted for defend.....why? Cause I'm much better at defending....it is easier for me. I just wait for them while they tire and when they come exsausted it is easy to rout them...

Leonidas

[Commander_Vimes]

Totally depends on terrain and units. I don't think anyones going to go offensive if they are greece. Whereas if you're parthia or armenia its very hard not to go offensive. If your on a hill and have got cav hidden in the woods then you are going to defend.

[Towelie]

Defend. But think it really mathers with who i play, and what kind of army i have..
With i.e. romans, i just love to attack barbarian villages.. with onagers ]:-] But attacking egyptians, and their chariots is not actually my style..

[Domitius]

I prefer to defend cause that's the way you get the fewest losses. I like the phalanx factions, with them I can lock the enemy's frontline and then attack them from behind with my cavalry. The phalanxes are easy to trust, cause they don't run away at first, and they get few losses when fighting an enemy in front of them. And the enemy cavalry? I often have such too, often better than the enemy cavalry. And there's another advantage: Your own missile troops does more harm to the enemy because you're fighting on a hill, they aren't. Their troops tire more easily etc.

Do I have to say more?

[_TubbZ_]

Attack, i like to dictate the enemies movements rather than sit and wait especially in vanilla as a battle can be over so quickly when attacking. Whereas in SPQR i do attack defense. Also online i just attack, no point sitting around (unless its a tourney game where i am the defender :tongue )

[][Xyphos][ - Lee]

id say attack, but it is a hard one lol, i do sometimes deside to defend but most of the time i like coming to the opponent.

[Gary88]

defending means you can often choose better ground and it prevents your units getting to far apart etc that can be exploited by the opposition. also attacking means you have more work on your hands micro managing things and as someone already said defending gives you more chance to use archers (foot)

[Scutarii]

I like both, but attacking gives me a challenge so I'll go with that.

[Subrosa Florens]

I prefer to attack. However, as Micromegas, I like to use cavalry as bait to draw enemy units out of formation, tire them out, and then annihilate them. Or I will feign a retreat and lead the enemy into an ambush. I am a steppe-nomad at heart.

[Roshak]

You would loose more men playing offense.

Depends if your successful in your attack you can actually lose less men and end the battle far more quickly than if you were defending.