Manual says it's not good to defend in a depot or indian village it would be better to do it outside and that this would also count a bit for cities.
So which cities are good to defend in it and which not?
Defending inside or outside a city?
Moderator: Pocus
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
It is always best to defend in front of a city. Geht the trenches up and it will be very bloody for your opponent.
Only during wintertimes and when i am far weaker i fall back in the towns. This way your opponent has either to assault you or lay siege to your city. If you are in the town it is possible that your enemy destroys your depot. Not something you realy want
Only exeption from above are forts. These can be hard nuts to crack with a strong garrison.
Only during wintertimes and when i am far weaker i fall back in the towns. This way your opponent has either to assault you or lay siege to your city. If you are in the town it is possible that your enemy destroys your depot. Not something you realy want
Only exeption from above are forts. These can be hard nuts to crack with a strong garrison.
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
I think this can depend on the size of the force you have. You offer a smaller frontage when fortified inside a town.
If you only have a small force you are probably better of fortifying inside a structure.
Chris
If you only have a small force you are probably better of fortifying inside a structure.
Chris
-
Richard III
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:16 pm
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
ORIGINAL: hobbes
I think this can depend on the size of the force you have. You offer a smaller frontage when fortified inside a town.
If you only have a small force you are probably better of fortifying inside a structure.
Chris
Are you guys sure about that...?
When I have units inside the city I notice they still increase their entrenchment level ( symbol on the unit panel ) over turns.
“History would be a wonderful thing – if it were only true.”
¯ Leo Tolstoy
¯ Leo Tolstoy
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
I've tried both and come to the conclusion that it is generally better to defend on the outside of towns and cities (not forts).
The key point is that it takes a while to build the fortifications which can reach level 7 if the unit has been there a long time. This gives a massive boast to defence and also whether or not the unit routs. Also when an enemy enters the area it often has the offensive positioning meaning it will attack your unit and this is usually at its weakest since it might have crossed a river or be at the end of a long march and so lacks cohesion.
When the unit is in a structure the enemy will not attack unless it has the assault command so instead it will seige the structure. This has three disadvantages since next turn the river crossing penalty will not exist, it would have recovered some cohesion and it might have shelled your position causing casualities or cohesion loss.
The flip side is that if you lose the initial battle then you will probably lose the structure unless the unit retreats into it but usually I find it makes a bolt for it to another area.
The counter attack policy is still valid with outside defence since if you have a "fire brigrade" defence where you counter attack to reclaim areas it is better to counter attack against an enemy which had to fight the turn before since it would have lost more cohesion and possibly casualities as well. In other words it will be weaker.
The issue of losing an important depot is only the case when you can not counter attack the following turn since it takes five days to destroy a depot, assuming an attacker would destroy something that is valuable to them. This obviously depends on the strategy of the attacker.
The worse thing you can do is change your mind a couple of turns before an attack and move the unit from one position to another since you lose that important entrenching.
Weather does not affect a unit in an area where there is any structure as long as you have at least 25% military control which would be the case if your unit has spent a turn there as opposed to moving through an enemy contolled area. Whether the unit is inside or outside is irrelervant. To avoid micro management it is assumed that a unit which has no defences built would seek shelter during extreme weather and if it has defences then these offer protection against the weather.
That's my take on it anyway
The key point is that it takes a while to build the fortifications which can reach level 7 if the unit has been there a long time. This gives a massive boast to defence and also whether or not the unit routs. Also when an enemy enters the area it often has the offensive positioning meaning it will attack your unit and this is usually at its weakest since it might have crossed a river or be at the end of a long march and so lacks cohesion.
When the unit is in a structure the enemy will not attack unless it has the assault command so instead it will seige the structure. This has three disadvantages since next turn the river crossing penalty will not exist, it would have recovered some cohesion and it might have shelled your position causing casualities or cohesion loss.
The flip side is that if you lose the initial battle then you will probably lose the structure unless the unit retreats into it but usually I find it makes a bolt for it to another area.
The counter attack policy is still valid with outside defence since if you have a "fire brigrade" defence where you counter attack to reclaim areas it is better to counter attack against an enemy which had to fight the turn before since it would have lost more cohesion and possibly casualities as well. In other words it will be weaker.
The issue of losing an important depot is only the case when you can not counter attack the following turn since it takes five days to destroy a depot, assuming an attacker would destroy something that is valuable to them. This obviously depends on the strategy of the attacker.
The worse thing you can do is change your mind a couple of turns before an attack and move the unit from one position to another since you lose that important entrenching.
Weather does not affect a unit in an area where there is any structure as long as you have at least 25% military control which would be the case if your unit has spent a turn there as opposed to moving through an enemy contolled area. Whether the unit is inside or outside is irrelervant. To avoid micro management it is assumed that a unit which has no defences built would seek shelter during extreme weather and if it has defences then these offer protection against the weather.
That's my take on it anyway
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
I'm not sure what would happen if an enemy force entered a region with the enter structure order and offensive stance then lost in battle to a force defending outside the structure - if the structure was empty could the attacking force retreat into it? If defending with a large force outside a structure it might be wise to at least garrison the structure with 1 unit as well. Any ideas?
Cheers, Chris
Cheers, Chris
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
You can't enter a structure in enemy contolled areas without first defeating the enemy by getting them to rout etc.
The main difference is whether an enemy can attack you without having the assault positioning which is awful on cohesion if you move at all. In certain situations it is better to be inside but what puts me off is that an enemy can move into the area with an offensive positioning and lay seige to your structure. In the following turn he will be stronger because he would have regained some cohesion and might have even caused damage to your unit by bombment.
This cannot happen if your outside and your entrenchment level will be just as good. There is no bonus for being inside that I have noticed or read about in addition to the entrenchment level. Being inside does aid your recovery and the has a higher replacement level but these factors are not available if you are under seige, you just get weaker.
The exception to this is of course forts where being inside gives you a large benefit.
If anyone has good reasons for placing troops inside please post since this is just based on my observations and not official guidance or anything like that.
It's just that I've found that if an enemy is capable of blowing you away when your outside they will have no problem reducing you by seige and you will have to counterattack or at least reinforce the position by moving in with a defensive positioning and hope that the seige is not resolved on the first day.
The most important point is don't make the mistake that I did at first which was to move my troops inside when the enemy approaches and hence lose their entrenchment levels as they have to start again.
Also if you are reinforceing a position the troops which are newly arrived should be combined with the troops already there since they acquire the formers entrenchment level, don't move the entrenched troops to the newly arrived as they will lose their entrenchment. I think this is the same whether inside or outside of the structure.
The main difference is whether an enemy can attack you without having the assault positioning which is awful on cohesion if you move at all. In certain situations it is better to be inside but what puts me off is that an enemy can move into the area with an offensive positioning and lay seige to your structure. In the following turn he will be stronger because he would have regained some cohesion and might have even caused damage to your unit by bombment.
This cannot happen if your outside and your entrenchment level will be just as good. There is no bonus for being inside that I have noticed or read about in addition to the entrenchment level. Being inside does aid your recovery and the has a higher replacement level but these factors are not available if you are under seige, you just get weaker.
The exception to this is of course forts where being inside gives you a large benefit.
If anyone has good reasons for placing troops inside please post since this is just based on my observations and not official guidance or anything like that.
It's just that I've found that if an enemy is capable of blowing you away when your outside they will have no problem reducing you by seige and you will have to counterattack or at least reinforce the position by moving in with a defensive positioning and hope that the seige is not resolved on the first day.
The most important point is don't make the mistake that I did at first which was to move my troops inside when the enemy approaches and hence lose their entrenchment levels as they have to start again.
Also if you are reinforceing a position the troops which are newly arrived should be combined with the troops already there since they acquire the formers entrenchment level, don't move the entrenched troops to the newly arrived as they will lose their entrenchment. I think this is the same whether inside or outside of the structure.
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
I think this is correct:
If a unit enters a region in which its control is 10% or less (I think that's the percentage), it will automatically switch to Offensive posture. (You can't Defend in a region you don't control.)
So, what does that mean about the best place for the defender?
If you are outside the city, the invader will be forced to attack you. You get the entrenchment bonuses.
If you are inside the city, the invader will beseige you. Battle will occur only if (a) the attacker assumes Assault posture or (b) you sortie out and forfeit the entrenchment bonus.
So it seems to me that you are better off defending outside a city if you have a large, well-entrenched force. Otherwise, you're probably better off inside the city, where you can at least hope to wait out a seige.
Again, I THINK this is how it works.
If a unit enters a region in which its control is 10% or less (I think that's the percentage), it will automatically switch to Offensive posture. (You can't Defend in a region you don't control.)
So, what does that mean about the best place for the defender?
If you are outside the city, the invader will be forced to attack you. You get the entrenchment bonuses.
If you are inside the city, the invader will beseige you. Battle will occur only if (a) the attacker assumes Assault posture or (b) you sortie out and forfeit the entrenchment bonus.
So it seems to me that you are better off defending outside a city if you have a large, well-entrenched force. Otherwise, you're probably better off inside the city, where you can at least hope to wait out a seige.
Again, I THINK this is how it works.
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
The frontage is definitely a factor as well. If you are defending outside a city with a large force you can hit each other harder. If he decides to assault a small force entrenched in a city he will not be able to bring as many troops to bear.
RE: Defending inside or outside a city?
The frontage is definitely a factor as well.
This is true and mentioned in the manual. In this case a small force verus a larger would be better off in a town. I have actually noticed this when assaulting a a small force holed up and myself having a large force. The losses are large and very demoralizing.
Frustrated with the AI's ability to wreck havock behind my main front with low strength cavery units I at first developed a counter force which chased them down. This worked well but I found I became too distracted by the chase instead of the war. So the next strategy was to garrison all the structures and deny the raders any supplies. From experience I noticed that being out of supply was devastating to my forces and since most cavalry needs supplies every two turns it limited the deep raids. The outside defence has a better chance of engaging the cavalry although of course it is still rare to accomplish this.
When envisioning the inside/outside abstraction I see my troops as taking up positions in a strategic place in front of the town not camped 60 miles away in a remote wilderness.
I guess if you wanted to slow down an advance, inside would be better since in forces an assault/seige which is either expensive in casualities or time.
Its these varying strategies which for me are making the game an enjoyable one.
This is true and mentioned in the manual. In this case a small force verus a larger would be better off in a town. I have actually noticed this when assaulting a a small force holed up and myself having a large force. The losses are large and very demoralizing.
Frustrated with the AI's ability to wreck havock behind my main front with low strength cavery units I at first developed a counter force which chased them down. This worked well but I found I became too distracted by the chase instead of the war. So the next strategy was to garrison all the structures and deny the raders any supplies. From experience I noticed that being out of supply was devastating to my forces and since most cavalry needs supplies every two turns it limited the deep raids. The outside defence has a better chance of engaging the cavalry although of course it is still rare to accomplish this.
When envisioning the inside/outside abstraction I see my troops as taking up positions in a strategic place in front of the town not camped 60 miles away in a remote wilderness.
I guess if you wanted to slow down an advance, inside would be better since in forces an assault/seige which is either expensive in casualities or time.
Its these varying strategies which for me are making the game an enjoyable one.