14 replies to this topic

[ChicO]

Help!


While trying to find a perfect defense for a city I found the following solution:

x divisions in the province. Delay (20% morale) or withdraw (5% morale) orders
y divisions in the city. Fortifications, deliberate defense.

x+y<=18

When the province is attacked the divisions in the field try to stop the attack, but retreat into the city after taking minimal losses . They now merge with the existing divisions there and take up deliberate defense positions. 100% use of fortifictions. Seems like the best way to defend a city.

Is this the best solution or are there better alternatives?


ChicO

[nfbeerse]

Hello Nico,

By far the best defence for your cities, is fighting battles offencively on your enemies territory.
This way you can put all your resources into the attack and not waste army divisions on defence missions.

Especially in normal games, resources in the beginning of the game are limited. If you split your attention between defence and offence, both will suffer.

Norbert

[ChicO]

Words of wisdom. The best defense is a good offense!

Don't worry. My crack divisions will not waste time in my own country. After basic training they will be sent off to die for the glory of their great leader.

But let's say I need to pull back and defend my cities. Would this strategy work? I can keep my divisions in the province while training. Just one AAA division (Deliberate Defense) in the city for example.

Let's be honest. You can defend a province this way, and still be able to attack...


Death or glory!

[nfbeerse]

Hello Nico,
If you have to pull back to your hometerritory, you are too late.

Build a new army to attack from your own cities to repel the threat.
As long as you can build new units, noting is lost. Keep fighting back.


Death or Glory!

[Grimor]

attack attack and kill

go for the first strike.. after that you will win or loose....

on the long term defence can be handy but at the beginning... they are like cheap upgradable infantry

[cd_ernst]

Chico,

The problem with defending a city under siege is the lack of supplies. If you haven't got enough stockpiled in your besieged city you will only last as long as your ammunition.

Defending a single city without proper stockpiles is a waste of time. Just go out there and harrass your enemy. If you don't have the strenght to attack him directly, try cutting his supply lines.


Donald

[Grimor]

point taken....

extra divisions have been sent to the front...

just to be sure

lol

[Kurassier]

These guys are correct, Victory! is designed such that it is much better to be on the offensive then on defense.
Now, to your original question, yes that is a good defense if you have to do so. I personally would never build a static division, frontier or AA. Resources are too precious to waste. and if you need to build a cheap unit to transport and upgrade later, use the AIR 39's.
Which reminds me, keep more than just one static division in the city in your above question. Otherwise, you might see a bunch of OMA TAS on your city, followed by a OMA AA. then you won't be able to retreat to the city.....

[ChicO]

Thanks guys!


My defensive strategy has been updated. Or should I say terminated? Offensive strategy is the way to go. Forward cannonfodder, forward.

More important, my plans for building new divisions have been changed. Frontiers were never planned for, but now my new divisions will be Mot or better.

Kill, crush and destroy!

(Oh, by the way: One of the few orders I remember from Vic! after all those years is OMA TAS. Made quite an impact...)

[Ronald]

tsk tsk Chico, would have expected you to have remembered OMA SB # day 3.

(my poor airplanes in xfaro)
even though long ago i'm quite sure that was you!

[ChicO]

Moi?

I'm trying real hard to remember. xFaro is Portugal right? That must have been that game when I was playing Algeria. I do remember American tech, nice battleships, some strategic bombers and a blitzkrieg against Morocco .

But bombing xFaro...

Could have been me though.

No hard feelings?

[Ronald]

hmmm then maybe i'm mistaken. since i played portugal twice and its long ago, kinda gets all mixed up. I also seem to recall in one game marokko and algeria both being my TA's and going to war with eachother.


ofcourse no hard feelings, thats what Victory is all about, isnt it? blowing the hell out fo eachother. would have done the same, airbases make too good a target to ignore.

[Krysia's Krusader]

Considering ChicO's original post; he would not be able to attack out of the city in his next turn, should he have lost the province. Since the retreating units would automatically merge with the force in Deliberate Defence, they would have to spend their entire next turn leaving that defensive tactic. This is all, of course, if I understand the rules correctly.

So then, using DD in the city would not allow you to attack out and retake the province. Correct?

Then this limits the use of using DD. Perhaps it would be better to employ this tactic in the outlying province and use HD (Hasty Defence) in cities (?).

[Ronald]

you are correct that armies on DD in a city cant imediately take the field again to retake the province.
However the only way to take full (100%) advantage of fortifications is when you are set to deliberate defence, in HD you only make 50% use of fortifications.

ofcourse it also depends on what units are in the city..
but from nico's example i assume he had statics or infantry in mind.
its never wise to put mobile units (smr 2 or more) on DD.. they are offensive units, use them that way.

but back to the example.
since you are forced back its safe to assume that the attacker is actually a lot stronger, which means you might actually not want to attack his army.. its little use to attack if you know you will suffer more casualties than that you inflict, it would only help the enemy to conquer the city quicker. (unless you are truely desperate ofcourse)
it could be better to hold him off until you can relief the city with another (stronger) army.

[ChicO]

Ronald, on Nov 18 2004, 02:37 PM, said:

you are correct that armies on DD in a city cant imediately take the field again to retake the province.
However the only way to take full (100%) advantage of fortifications is when you are set to deliberate defence, in HD you only make 50% use of fortifications.

ofcourse it also depends on what units are in the city..
but from nico's example i assume he had statics or infantry in mind.
its never wise to put mobile units (smr 2 or more) on DD.. they are offensive units, use them that way.

but back to the example.
since you are forced back its safe to assume that the attacker is actually a lot stronger, which means you might actually not want to attack his army.. its little use to attack if you know you will suffer more casualties than that you inflict, it would only help the enemy to conquer the city quicker. (unless you are truely desperate ofcourse)
it could be better to hold him off until you can relief the city with another (stronger) army.

The entire trick is to let the enemy waste his troops attacking a big FAT army behind legendary fortifications. Causing GREAT losses. Taking back the province is not of great importance. It's more like desperate last stand.

Maybe a mobile 'reserve' army would be a good idea?

One again, it's a method to defend an important CITY. And at the same time making sure the attacker is sorry he even thought of it. :lol: