Offensive or Defensive DP setting in MP?

[Jens Z]

I would like to know what offensive/defensive settings do you use in MP-games. As far as I know we can summarize the differences as follows (pls correct me if I missed something):



Max Offensive:
- bonus in moral (also apply to garrison troops)
- bonus for default-leader shock value
- malus while besieged *
[- malus for leader siege value (not working)]


Max Defensive:
- bonus for default-leader siege value
- bonus while besieged



So far I have always tried to max out offensive as I was of the opinion that field battles are the most important element in MP games. However, considering the boni of "max defenisve" for defensive and offensive siege activities I am not sure anymore…





*Max offensive has a negative impact when defending against a siege but it also makes it harder for the enemy to assault so I guess it evens out.

/dev

 

[BiB]

Just noting that offensive gives 3 shock value, not fire value.

 

[ulver]

To my mind max offensive is great when the shock based cavalry armies rule the battlefield early while defensive works wonders with cheap artillery later. The fire rating of Artillery in the endgame will blow cavalry armies away. And obviously the fact that forts get the +1 siege makes them a lot harder to take.

 

[Jens Z]

Thx BiB. You're rightof course...

I better edit my posting.


@ulver
That's indeed a good point. If you have max offensive your artillery costs are extremely high so you cannot take so good advantage of artillery as a max defensive player

 

[Prince Eugene]

Offensive. You shouldn't care how long a siege takes if you annihlate the enemy army.

 

[Damocles]

Going max defensive as Russia has it's advantages. It is fun to watch armies waste away while trying to siege your provinces. For some reason, having 0 defensive seems to REALLY make your provs last longer.

Also, I've seen two people go max defensive and actually, have it work real well for them. Though, both times, it was past land tech 18 and they had max quality. If you got the firepower, the income, and the funds to build up large provinces in inhospitable places, and have no particular desire to make any sweeping invasions, Defensive can be just fine.

It depends on the country really. France is better defended by a nice large cavalry army then any keep...Seeing as how it is comprised of rich, high supply, plains provinces.

 

[Damocles]

BTW. I know that being 0 defensive adds to your prov's siege value, but it just seems to be a bigger boost in practice then one might deduce with a glance at the numbers.

 

[ulver]

Originally posted by Prince Eugene
Offensive. You shouldn't care how long a siege takes if you annihlate the enemy army.

Yes but in the endgame the moral bonus doesn’t matter anymore, once everybody have tech 40+ armies tend to fight to the death anyway. By then the sheer murderous killing power of artillery in the fire phase will decide battles by simply eliminating the enemy, making the shock bonus pretty much irrelevant. As a general rule the importance of shock decreases and fire rises as techs progresses.

 

[unmerged(10252)]

Playing fully defensive as a country like Russia or Sweden might have great advantages. The longer it takes others to siege your provinces, the more they attrition. Also, the shorter it takes you to siege theirs, the less you attrition. I will have to try this out sometime. Any country with mountainous or winter provinces might benifit a lot from an all defensive policy as time goes on.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Sweden is the best country for max defensive. If it's rules the Baltic sea, it's winter provinces, with unblockaded ports, and poor support values are almost impregnable to anything but assault. And since it also get good generals, default 1 shock isn't that bad actually.

Pretty much everyone else, maybe except Spain, should go for offensive, IMHO.

 

[Jens Z]

The problem of max. defensive is that in the early game your armies are weaker than a max. offensive army (all parameters the same). How strong this disadvantage is I dont know though.

Anyway, assuming I max out OFFENSIVE in the early game phase. When should I begin switching towards max DEFENSIVE?

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Jens Z
The problem of max. defensive is that in the early game your armies are weaker than a max. offensive army (all parameters the same). How strong this disadvantage is I dont know though.

Anyway, assuming I max out OFFENSIVE in the early game phase. When should I begin switching towards max DEFENSIVE?

Artillery begins to gain it's firepower after tech 20, IIRC.

Tech 21 set date is 1600, or something about this.

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Jens Z

@ulver
That's indeed a good point. If you have max offensive your artillery costs are extremely high so you cannot take so good advantage of artillery as a max defensive player

the cost advantage to artilleri of being relatively hign on the defence is higly influenced by your setting of the navel-land slider....since the percentage cost reduction/increase of artillery will be much greater if playing with high "land"...whereas a nation high on "navel" will be much less influenced by the cost modifier.....which leads to the conclusion that it is relatively more attractive to be high on "defence" when already high on "land"....

claus

 

[JohnMK]

It's unfortunate that the way this slider is designed, only max or min seem to interest most people. For most nations, I would pursue offensive == 10. That's my bias. As Damocles pointed out, it might make sense if you're a reclusive country with harsh winters. I guess the only country that satisfies that would be Russia.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by JohnMK
It's unfortunate that the way this slider is designed, only max or min seem to interest most people. For most nations, I would pursue offensive == 10. That's my bias. As Damocles pointed out, it might make sense if you're a reclusive country with harsh winters. I guess the only country that satisfies that would be Russia.

OTOH, Russia have loads of plain provinces, and with 1 shock, their armies would be slaugtered by cavarly leaded by 3 shock leader (with cav superiority, it would mean totally deadly +3 modifier on CRT table. Without historical general....)

 

[Jens Z]

Actually, as a more defensive Russia you dont need to fight your enemy on your territory. Just wait for General winter and let him kill the enemy. With that strategy a bonus on your fortification (DEF=0) comes in handy...

 

[JohnMK]

Indeed, that was my strategy in the sole single player game I've played as Russia. Never played them in MP before. Perhaps it's abouto time . . .