is Offensive absolutely necessary for your playstyle?
- Thread starter loveslater
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not so far. Actually, it seems to be back-firing on me a lot, so I've become more defensive and taking smaller bites rather than trying to take on large wars. I've been playing as England. Of course, I can only play a few hours on weekends, maybe, so results are never immediate in my games.
Do you mean the Idea group Offensive? Cause that Forced March is amazing. Offensive was the first idea group for my first game and I haven't taken it since. It drastically changes my strategy and forgetting that I don't have it has cost me several battles.
I don't need it, but Forced March is great to have, in my experience it greatly accelerates early to mid-game wars through stack wiping. And I try to take it as my 3rd idea group at the latest depending on who i'm playing.
Forced March has become almost a required prerequisite to have. If you're waging wars and you don't have forced march and your opponent does... jeez.... sucks to be you
I tend to take it, but mostly because I enjoy having half my ideas be military. And against humans it's ... advisable 
Non-military groups -- namely Religious, Admin, Diplo, Expansion, and Exploration -- tend to be so powerful that I can only indulge in a single military group over the course of a SP game. Pound for pound, nothing outshines Offensive.
I never take Offensive. Ever. In my longest game I took aristocracy for the diplomat and because I am Poland. Mostly I take defensive which is a requirement in the East because attrition and I mostly play the East or the far North.
I suspect as many have noted that it only matters for fighting humans.
I suspect as many have noted that it only matters for fighting humans.
I feel this thread might spiral into the "Offensive is OP" thread debate...
But is it necessary for my playstyle? Absolutely.
First off, without military ideas, I find I quickly start capping on military points. So, in my first two ideas, I try to grab offensive. It's a great "jack of all trades" idea, with the manpower, force limits, general stats. It is also the "master of one", namely, strategic maneuvering. As others note, it's great for forcing stack wipes, but where it shines for me is it allows me to force battles early in the game. A medium stack (say, 15-25% of the enemies force limit) is separate from the rest of the enemy army by a few provinces? Force march in, kick it around, force march out. Easy victory, and it forces the enemy to stack their armies together, increasing their attrition.
It's my favorite idea group.
But is it necessary for my playstyle? Absolutely.
First off, without military ideas, I find I quickly start capping on military points. So, in my first two ideas, I try to grab offensive. It's a great "jack of all trades" idea, with the manpower, force limits, general stats. It is also the "master of one", namely, strategic maneuvering. As others note, it's great for forcing stack wipes, but where it shines for me is it allows me to force battles early in the game. A medium stack (say, 15-25% of the enemies force limit) is separate from the rest of the enemy army by a few provinces? Force march in, kick it around, force march out. Easy victory, and it forces the enemy to stack their armies together, increasing their attrition.
It's my favorite idea group.
It's nice to have, but I generally make do without it, because I've been playing nations that benefit from lots of diplomatic ideas (or that need to tank Dip tech to Westernise on time, eg Ottomans), and I tend to prefer Defensive and/or Quality. The bonus morale and military tradition from Defensive are really good, and although the attrition reduction isn't quite as powerful as it originally was (when it reduced the effective size of your army for the purposes of attrition, rather than reducing the percentage of attrition that you take) it's still quite valuable. Quality's morale recovery speed bonus is good, as are the naval bonuses when I'm relying on a strong navy. I realise that Offensive also technically provides naval bonuses in that the extra fire and shock pips apply to admirals as well as generals, but I rarely use admirals.
I would usually aim to take Offensive at some point I think, but sometimes not until the 6th or 7th idea group, so it's pretty much the same as not having it. It barely makes a difference that late in the game.
I would usually aim to take Offensive at some point I think, but sometimes not until the 6th or 7th idea group, so it's pretty much the same as not having it. It barely makes a difference that late in the game.
I personally prefer quality, but I usually pick up offensive sooner or later. Particularly as a western nation as i usually find myself drowning in military power so I take lots of military ideas. On the other hand, I rarely ever take offensive except for in the late game as most of the Indian and below tech levels as I find if i devote military power to much else other than tech I fall behind too much and die, so I usually focus on diplo/admin ideas.
As a Western power, you'll want to get offensive sooner or later... because the AI will get them eventually too. I remember quite a long time ago that I had defensive, quality and quantity but didn't bother with offensive only to find that in later game when fighting against a coalition I would get wtf-ambuxed when AI armies teleports/forced march from the fog of war and instant wipe my carpet siegers or I'd try to catch a small AI army in a offguard in a battle and few seconds later BOOM the small army quintuples in size thanks to AI use of forced march. Oh, and since the AI likes playing tag with their armies sometimes, it is reaaallly hard to catch their tiny armies when they have forced march on.
Forced March is also generally strong at any point during the game, in the early game it's useful for stackwiping, in the late game when morale is high and it generally comes down to all forces being pulled into a single 100+ vs 100+ battle having your troops use forced march to enter the battle days ahead of the opponent is absolutely devastating, which then allows you to repeatedly engage the enemy. A 6 Maneuver Forced March army's is absolutely amazing at having the impact you want it to.
On the contrary, set up a war with your AI-rival like this: Put all your troops to the border provinces that are closest to their stacks. Declare war with full maintence and morale. Use forced march to eliminate all the enemy's stacks in ascending order, unless they have a doomstack bigger than your hunter armies - then take out that on day one and (with superior numbers) you'll instakill that if you get there quick enough - war won. Without offensive you can use several years or even decades to fully eliminate the armies of your enemy, with offensive you can always make the better strategic moves (even if severely outnumbered by coalitions so many have been whining about).
Only against player or against large (as in, many) coalitions. Against 'normal' (aka, single, large) AI opponents, you are better off luring them into attacking with splitting your stack anyways.
Meh. I never have issues with this. I do get a lot of day 1 slaughters even without it.
I take it over Defensive any session these days. I used to take Defensive to conserve manpower but have since switched to the large use of mercs in wartime. I'm really content of the bonusses of Offensive, fantastic generals, DAT discipline and Forced March really makes me decisively end enemies war potential, perfect for ITS A TARP tactics as well. Ackbar approves. I tend to take Defensive further in the game cause battles last longer and morale becomes important then.