How is this effective attacking?

[Starbuck]

You are fighting someone and sending 2 armies to every city you attack. You attack with the larger one and keep the smaller one in the city so that you can move on to the next city with the bigger army to go to the same.

So I am wondering what's the point in even fighting when you leave a city and occupy it with another smaller army? I have done this, yes, but am now realizing that it's silly. You want to make the other alliance spend geos otherwise what's the point?

I have to say NAOW have been very effective as they actually defend and are making us spend some geos. Some others are doing this small army in city to go on with larger army bit and I just don't see it working.

BTW this isn't pointed at anyone, I was just wondering what everyone elses thoughts was on this? I can understand when it's used sometimes but not every time you fight someone?

EDIT: oh just wanted to add, I am sure I will use this strategy (if you can call it that) again sometime but hopefully not anytime soon!

[LuckyLuciano]

This strategy works best if you are attacking somebody far away from your HB or if you are attacking a city that is close to your enemies HB

If it takes them 20 min or less to arrive, it doesnt make much sense to defend heavily, they can simply nuke you and if you have troops in the city its much easier for them to continue to send armys until you are defeated
and if your HB is far from the city in question you will not have time to back up your army

just my 2 geos

[mullet]

its preferable to occupy a city with an army that has a slightly lower maintenance cost than the total of city tax yes? other than the nuke/bank ability (or the few resource cities) it would be the only upside of holding a city. seems rather simplistic and straight forward to me,but perhaps i am missing something.......?

[LuckyLuciano]

I think the lovely Mari smoked her breakfast

[Starbuck]

I think the lovely Mari smoked her breakfast

I get it when you don't have a home base close or have to travel far.
For instance if someone wanted to attack South America right now and defend heavily it would be stupid, but I don't see how that isn't possible in other areas. North America is being defended coz NAOW have more home bases then us there.

Let's say AvP wanted to attack India, I don't see why not, you held it at the start of the round so you must have home bases their and enough people to help defend?

I get why it's being used, what I don't understand is why it's used so much... No one who is attacking is defending (except NAOW that I can see)

[LemonWarlord]

Because nukes are cheap and 100% effective. Defending isn't necessarily reasonable, as it's more effective to run a million army around (and guaranteed win every conflict basically), whilst holding the cities. You don't risk a nuke to the face, and you're guaranteed to win all your offensive attacks.

And why it's so effective? Because with vast hit and running or a similar strat, you focus on the 1 million troops. So in the case that I need to fight back said 1 million troops, I'd have to have at least 1.5 million troops to effectively and most likely conquer it. In the case I win, I win, but have maybe 400,000, hp, or more left in my city. It's costing me geos to support, and it doesn't have a target, and actually puts a target on my city. In the case I lose, I unoccupy.

Hence playing an inconsistent defense is not necessarily the best way to promote combat, but one of the best ways to save geos, and save yourself from devastating nukes.

[RagingMongoose]

In my opinion this is one of many strategies that can and should be used. Sometimes you want to force your enemy to spend, other times you want to inconvenience them. This strategy can be used to achieve both.

This tactic can force your enemy to spend if used right. For example, if you have attacked your enemy on say 3 previous occasions and trooped up the cities, on the 4th occasion of attacking them this is a good tactic to use. It is likely in this situation that your enemy will troop up to retake the cities, thereby spending geos, however when they attack they will find 100 troops in each city. This then costs them more geos as their troop upkeep will be higher.

Furthermore, at the very least then this tactic causes your enemy to spend time and oil on retaking the city. As Lucky said, if the city is far away from your enemy's HB, odds are they will have to troop up higher to ensure they take the city at the end of a long journey. Once again, this means their troop upkeep will be potentially higher, plus they have been inconvenienced as well.

This is a perfectly valid strategy and can be used to make your opponent spend geos unnecessarily or to frustrate/inconvenience them. However as with all strategies/tactics in GEWar, it is necessary to use a combination of all those available rather than one exclusively all the time.

[skotty]

So I am wondering what's the point in even fighting when you leave a city and occupy it with another smaller army?

Ask your leader why he is silly :

17:42:02 - August 26th, 2010 The city of Pueblo, United States of America was attacked by Giep. 1 defending army (902 troops) was killed in the battle. 234 attacking troops were killed. laevus lost the city.

Start trooping up in NA - or lose the city.

[Starbuck]

Furthermore, at the very least then this tactic causes your enemy to spend time and oil on retaking the city. As Lucky said, if the city is far away from your enemy's HB, odds are they will have to troop up higher to ensure they take the city at the end of a long journey. Once again, this means their troop upkeep will be potentially higher, plus they have been inconvenienced as well.

This is very true... But if you have enemy cities close to your base will you still use this tactic or troop up a little more?

I know this thread doesn't mean a lot to most of you but I have had numerous noobs ask me about this tactic so I am getting some opinions so they can read for themselves :)

There will be more threads like this, thanx for those that are responding :)

[RagingMongoose]

This is very true... But if you have enemy cities close to your base will you still use this tactic or troop up a little more?


I think my honest answer is that it depends. As I said in my other post, in my opinion this is one of many strategies that can and should be used. Sometimes you want to force your enemy to spend, other times you want to inconvenience them. This strategy can be used to achieve both. However, it needs to be mixed up with other strategies otherwise your gameplay becomes predictable.

For me, the best players in this game are the unpredictable ones. The best example of this that I've fought is Pitoh. When attacking or defending, his army could be 100 troops, 100,000 troops, or any amount in between. For me that is one of the signs of a good player and it makes them more difficult to fight against.

[Starchy]

I find that this tactic exasperates the enemy into giving up retaking the city. It forces you to remain active daily.

Furthermore, when fighting an opponent that is a lot larger than you are (in both members and geos), you cannot simply force them to spend geos or you will go broke before they do. The best tactic is to wear the opponent down using these hit n' run tactics along with defending lightly.

If I was in BoB's situation, I would be doing the same thing.

[HellCarrot]

WELL SAID STARCHY VERY WELL SAID
INDEED
;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;88;8 8

[Starbuck]

I find that this tactic exasperates the enemy into giving up retaking the city. It forces you to remain active daily.

Furthermore, when fighting an opponent that is a lot larger than you are (in both members and geos), you cannot simply force them to spend geos or you will go broke before they do. The best tactic is to wear the opponent down using these hit n' run tactics along with defending lightly.

If I was in BoB's situation, I would be doing the same thing.

Yeah, I agree with HC.. Nice post Tim :)