Thank you. You very well may have saved me from Total annihilation ahhaha.
The Art of Defense
-
@Bunnies:
one applaud to IL, one smite to Bunnie
Yeah baby, hit me.
-
I took Switches thoughts as an expansion of Don Rae’s philosophy rather than an solitary end-all methodogy. Don’s many papers focused primarily on the defense aspect of infantry (IPM) since boots are arguably the most cost effective defense unit for the warbuck. But the premise here is very similar: the oft overlooked power of defense. Switch is simply applying it across the board (get it?)
Even in an abstracted wargame such as A&A, one must admit that much of the thrill of the game is found in the attack, the smash! Not as often well developed a skill is knowing when and where to set up dead zones, when to build in place and allow your opponent to stretch their supply lines thin as you smile and say “come to papa”. I still find myself wanting to go for the throat at times instead of playing the probably better, patient defensive game. Why? Cause smash is a lot of fun.
And the damn (hate it but love it) 3/3 tank put a spin on the whole game the likes of a tsunami! Mike Selinker said the 3/3 tank was designed to put more combat fun into the game. Oh, in spades! That and the tank/dude capable transport. Poof! Units revamped for smash play. Completely different game imho actually.
But I digest. So I agree with DM in that I think this was all Switch was really trying to say. Defense is Russia’s primary game but the lessons can be applied elsewhere as well. The caveat with any gaming philosophy is that no one single thing works emphatically well in all situations. If we can generalize and agree on no other single thing it’s that A&A is a game of balances. ~ZP
-
I do agree with bunnies on this. SZ 5 is not a strong point. In fact, I believe any money spent by Germany on SZ 5 is a gift to the Allies.
Also, I believe the game was originally designed around attack. Look at classic. Tanks Attack > Defense, Bombers Attack > Defense And the difference is much greater then Fighters defending better and infantry defending better.
Combined land defense value increase was 1 for fighters, 1 for infantry. Combed land attack value increase was 4, 1 for tanks, 3 for bombers.
Now in Revised, I realize that the tanks got a boost in defensive value and Artillery were introduced.
Another point, name one game that was won by defense? Every game I have ever seen required the winner to attack the loser.
-
I think you might be looking at it too narrowly, meaning at a specific battles, but I think Switch might be trying to get at overall Defensive Tactics.
@Cmdr:
Another point, name one game that was won by defense? Every game I have ever seen required the winner to attack the loser.
I could argue that a good German Defense, allows Japan the time to take Moscow.
Would it be eaiser to just blitz your way to Moscow with both powers? Sure. But in many games Germany is boxed in by say rd 6 or 7 and requires a good defensive strategy to stay alive long enough for Japan to try and take Moscow, likewise with the Allies and Russia. You better know how to play Def with Russia or you’re going to lose, b/c they are not blitzing their way to Berlin.
It is still cheaper to defend, so if you (as the Allies), have the IPC lead and the Axis can’t reverse it all you need to do is keep buying infantry round after round. Eventually you will have so many more units that it won’t matter and you can attack at will. This prospect could force the “attacker” to take gambles or riskier and risker battles knowing time isn’t on their side and this works to the advantage of the defending player.
-
I feel that as the axis, you should be in attack mode with both countries. At all times if possible. Once you take a defensive posture, you are doomed. You may have individual territories you strategically or tactically need to own (Capital, ICs, Canal Crossings, etc.) but other than that, its balls out fighting. I would much rather lose in a blaze of glory than be whittled away at for 6 rounds sitting on a stack of chips 2 inches high. Even as the allies I try to attack more than defend. I like to force the action when possible. I admit with Russia you do have to play give and take, but even then I try to steer axis forces into attacks by my teammates. I play defense by trying to out attack the enemy and hope they blunder with purchases and unit placements/movements. It doesn’t always work, but you’d be surprised how hard it is to play/win when you are reactive and not proactive.
In conclusion defense is an important, but sometimes boring dynamic of the game. -
You could argue it, DM, but I think it is an invalid argument. A good German defense may hold off Germany from losing for a good Japanese OFFENSE to win the game. But it’s not the defense that is winning the game for you, it’s the offense of Japan.
If Germany and Japan make no attacks the entire game, they cannot win.
If Germany and Japan make no defenses the entire game, they can win.
Of course, that’s the absolute most extreme views, but it helps to demonstrate my point. No turtling method in the history of games has ever won the game. Only offensive strategies have won. Even the Pawn Defense in Chess requires you to plan some sort of attack route to win the game.
-
@Cmdr:
Another point, name one game that was won by defense? Every game I have ever seen required the winner to attack the loser.
Some games have been won because the defender’s defense prevented the attacker from attacking.
@Cmdr:
You could argue it, DM, but I think it is an invalid argument. A good German defense may hold off Germany from losing for a good Japanese OFFENSE to win the game. But it’s not the defense that is winning the game for you, it’s the offense of Japan.
A machine doesn’t work if even a single part is broken.
@Cmdr:
If Germany and Japan make no attacks the entire game, they cannot win.
If Germany and Japan make no defenses the entire game, they can win.
Of course, that’s the absolute most extreme views, but it helps to demonstrate my point. No turtling method in the history of games has ever won the game. Only offensive strategies have won. Even the Pawn Defense in Chess requires you to plan some sort of attack route to win the game.
No one is disputing that offensive strategies are necessary to win. But I think switch’s original point was that, in A&A, most successful attacks are possible because of a defensive failure on the part of your opponent. But it is impossible to defend against every attack, hence the “art” in the title of this topic.
As switch said it:
ultimate victory comes down more to what you choose to DEFEND with… and WHERE you choose to defend. As the defender, economics of combat value are on your side… all you need to do is figure out how to coerce the Attacker into combating you at your points of STRENGTH.
-
I see folks are getting away from several initial stipulations that I stated in order to further their arguments; and taking the concept to an extreme that was never intended.
I am not going to travel that road however. I leave my original post as stated.
Folks who read what is written and think it through will gain a kernel of insight from it that will aid their game play (if they have not already discovered the core concept being presented themselves). Those who choose to ignore it out of hand are of course free to do so.
And thank you Complexity for your reply while I was typing this. You did indeed get the point I was making.
-
…, in A&A, most successful attacks are possible because of a defensive failure on the part of your opponent.
unless it’s a trap or the opponent is leaving 3-4 units for you to risk a straffe or sacrifice the territory. This is a very key aspect to being able to advance on the allies with Japan against a competent allied player.
-
I like the initial idea. Didn’t Robert E.Lee use much this “strategic attack through tactical defense” using the advantages of both ?
In A&A, tactical defense is either an economic attack (say, Axis holding Caucasus) or a positional attack (in a ‘light KJF’ an Allied fleet have only to survive in Solomons) setting up a dangerous ‘fork’ between deeper targets (Borneo, Dutch East Indies).
Technology (intrinsic in unit ratings) is only a small part of defender’s advantage in A&A. On land, that’s ~1.15x for optimal attackers (6inf 3art 1tnk = 35 IPC slightly better than defending 10inf = 30 IPC). At sea, it can be more, between the ‘pure defensive fleets’ of sets of (1car 2ftr). They still benefit from some ‘attack-oriented’ submarines added.
Multi-power defender’s advantage is more important - up to 1.41x for two countries or 1.73x for three, if they are equal. Even if unequal, a few British with minimal attack on their own still help US fleet survive in Solomons.
Often the Allies have some economic advantage in a KGF, but not enough to overcome the 1.41x 1.15x of Germany defending against UK+US. Then it’s better if one of the powers switches to another domain of force (say, fleet, or strategic bombing) letting the other alone to do an easier land offensive after the economic imbalance increases.
-
The original post was exactly like one of my first. You oversold the value of your advice. Unlike Bunnies I think it is ok to start a discussion just to get the dialogue going. This game is absolutely set up for attack. If you are the axis you must attack. As the Allies you must counter attack. Russia is one of the few places where you can just plan an elaborate defense, but still you need to counter attack from time to time. A key historical point regarding this game is that these countries did not start out with much of the natural resources they needed to wage war. This was why Japan started in Manchuria and the Nazis made such a push for the caucus oil fields. Similar to history Axis and Allies forces countries to expand in order go gather these resources in the form of IPCs. The only country that is somewhat self-sufficient is the US. All defense in this game should be geared towards devastating counter attacks or to intimidate your opponent to not attack somewhere.
-
I disagree completely. The basic defense premise being touted here is static defense. Once that point is reached the only thing the defending player is hoping to do is try and last an extra turn or two. If Russia is holed up in Moscow that player better have his team mates at the gates of Berlin.
No the best defense in A&A is mobile defense. Basically what an attacking player is trying to do is swap his cheap inf boys for the defenders hard assest, fighters and tanks. A decent player should always being aiming to defend from a counter attacking/smack position. Leave a territory with a couple of inf but be prepared to go back in hard if neccessary if lost.
p.s. That is why fighters are superior to tanks;
Hmmm
Heres a scenario.Russian player A:
Attacks 2 Jap inf with 6 inf and 1 fighter. Gets on average 2 hits. (Jap player gets none on defense)
Jap player counter attacks and lands 6 hits to kill the inf. The russian player lands 2 hits on defense.The russian player killed 12pt but lost 18pt.
Russian player B
Attacks 2 jap inf with 3 inf + 1 art and 3 tanks. Gets on ave 2.5 hits. (Jap player gets none on defense)
Jap player counters and lands 6 hits first round. The russian player lands 3 hits in total.The russian player killed 15pt but lost all 28pt.
Which Russian player would be in the better position to do yet another counter-smack?
-
@Bel:
I disagree completely. The basic defense premise being touted here is static defense.
You may want to go back and read the first post…
-
allies win by defending well and axis win by attacking well - just my opinion
I dont find it hard to defense - the tricky point is to make the right attacks.
i dont think sz5 is strong like bunny and the only chance off keping some defense power is to buy a carrier but it seems like a waste off money
The only right thing to do is play with LHTR NA that gives Germany an alternate attacking force with fighters and armor - otherwise it gets pretty boring and most veteran players can play defense with one strong area and areas that almost isnt covered (often it can be an advantage by making a area total clear - example western europe when the allies declare joint strike or if uk/US have a solid stack ready to goand by the way you cant win by defensing without attacking and i really think that is the interesting part of the game
kind regards
niels -
I think theres an other point that has been left out, but is worth mentioning.
You pointed out options for the attacker:
The only problem with DEFENSE is that the ATTACKER chooses where to attack, meaning that they can opt to bypass your defenses.
But you didn’t mention the option of using massive air support, and attacking one area from multiple areas. I usually find my self in positions, specially in naval battles, were i wold rather be the attacker. In the east front, heavy air support can also make attacks very profitable.
Overwhelming the defender, and massing in areas were the defender placed valuable units is often very profitable.
-Skel-
-
This is absolutely right and not new discovery. In the very beginning several chapters of On War, Carl von Clausewitz has concluded the defense is stronger than attack in general. That’s why a war, although its nature is to use violence unlimitedly, can last for a long while and sometimes shows a medium-to-long-term stable status. The point is the defense itself can’t win a war. The purpose of defense is to dwarf off enemy’s force and to choose correct opportunity to launch counter attack.
Suggested Topics
