What do you think is better a good defense or a good offense?
In order to defeat multiple opponents of different abilities in any contest what would be the best strategy? Defeat the stronger of the two first or the weaker?
The stronger first, then you havent wasted any energy on the weaker.
A good offence or good defence. Real madrid are the kings of offensive football and the German football teams are well known for there defensive abilitys. Real over history have won more European championships then almost all the German sides put together.
i always want to say a good defence and then you can pick off the offensive people when the time is right. but as far as experience i have gained in just about every single real time strategy game is that is the easiest way to get killed.
The way I figured it… defeating the stronger would take longer so thats more time for both parties to do damage to you. If you defeat the weaker than your hindered by two people for a shorter period of time. Also two people are often so complimentary that they can compensate for the ones weaknesses. It’s a matter of would the stronger opponent be able to defeat you while your back is turned. One thing everyone says not to do is turn your back on an enemy and a strong one even more so.
I figure offense only because defense means you’re on your own territory which is never favored.
Real time strategy games are the most frustrating thing in the world. 3 hours just to lose is death to my brain.
Depends what context you’re talking about, if you gain something from defeating the weak one, that one first, but otherwise go for the strong first.
I agree with frighter, most of the time in RTS the offensive players win as you control the game. Basically if you are offensive you always have the initiative. It is the initative that is key, always fight a battle on your terms, never theirs.
The exception to this is when you gain a huge advantage from defending, in that case it is stupid to go on the attack but you must tempt the other side into foolishly attacking you, e.g. a feint making it look like you are weak (e.g. Battle of Hastings).
Then again most of this is wild speculation, it all depends on the situation. The saying “the best form of defence is offence” does hold a lot of truth in it though.
As an avid chess player i have to agree. Offence is more important than defence, but a good player should know both. In Civilization, going after the stronger opponents first makes more sense, otherwise you never catch up to them.
Big game hunter are 'ya, Marshall?
My man!
I used to play a section up in chess. Actions like that take major cahoneys, but you learn hard and well. You can either take your lumps in training or on the battlefield.
Offense first on the strongest has been true for most real time games. In the games where it’s mathematical formulas that decide what the outcome of a battle it’s always been the opposite. Games like rpgs moslty. You destroy the weaker so you’re not forced to take two opponents damage. You’re going to be doing the same amount of damage to both of them anyway. It just ends the battle faster and with smaller costs.
aaaaaah! if the shots fired from each opponent are of equal strength, but their respective defensive strengths differ, take out the weaker. Depends on the game.
On Civ2, all out offense is the best tactic (until they all gang up on you)
Civ3 is similiar, although you do have to think more about defence and science. On Civ3 im still only on Prince, so im not 100% (99% more like it) sure on the Offence/defense question.
Marshall have you played Medieval total war? Similiar to Civ but better.
I haven’t played 3 yet, Kesh. Does it have the same balance as the first 2? civ 1 got an unprecedented 97% from PC Gamer.
MTW is really good, though I think the balance is a bit wrong in a few places. What I like most about it is that there’s morale in it, if you can deal them enough damage quick enough or turn their flanks you can beat a vastly bigger army. However I do think it has a few limitations, the general star rating system seems a bit biased, you can’t beat a 5 star+ general with a 2 star one if you’re out numbered as your men tend to run away and the computer just has too many of the high ranking generals in the hardest gameplay mode to make winning battles of smaller armies against bigger ones a viable tactic. Which is a shame.