When to attack

[Stone Mill]

Objective

What is it that you hope to accomplish with your attack?

Is it for the sheer fun of your bloodthirsty race? If not, it's best to have a strategy behind it.

Pre-emptive Attack: Attacking with the purpose of eliminating a threat. An enemy is massing troops at your border, and you have the ability to strike with an advantage with a high probability of winning. Outcome of the battle is reducting enemy's ability to wage war. See Offensive.

Attack with the purpose of gaining and HOLDING ground. If you overextend and do not establish adaquate security, your new gains are vulnerable. If this is your purpose, go big or stay home. See Mass.

Attack to distract / divert enemy forces away from a primary target. See Economy of Force.

Attack to disrupt the enemy's economy and reduce his ability to wage war. Burn planets, cause riots, reduce his production and maintenance capabilities. Important!!!

Defensive Attack: Counterattack to stop an enemy threat. In this case, delay as much as possible until you can compile a fleet that will win or severly damage the attacking force. Until then, accept planet losses while you form up at a point to your advantage. Don't waste your forces by sending them in piecemeal. Waiting one more turn for a few critical ships to join your counterattack may make the difference.

Attack when the advantage is yours. This means when your economy can support it, and when you have better forces.

Attack rather than defend. You must prepare for war from turn 1, and the eventuality that you will be at war with everyone (unless your game has different parameters). This means that you will have the dirty job of backstabbing many people. But don't feel bad about it. They were eventually going to do it to you. The way SEIV is built, the advantage always goes to the attacker (if he/she is a good player). If you are attacked by a player while you are building your economy and expanding, your attacker is smart. You should do the same, and take advantage of opportunity. See Surprise.

Timing
Early game wars just stink. Avoid them whenever possible. They stunt your economic growth and expansion.

Mid-game wars are tolerable with the conditions noted above. But the absolute best position to be in is to not be at war while you are expanding/growing. When your planets/systems are developed, your economy is strong (minus the resource loss from treaties you will break). Attack when there is no where else to expand but at the expense of the enemy.

Late game war is the prime place to be. This means you have built up and avioded conflict through successful political action, while letting the other players bash themselves to bits as much as possible. You have underplayed your true hand (Eastern philosophy) and now you are ready to reveal and execute it. At this point you have a solid change for winning the game.

[Puke]

holding ground should not always be your goal. the Russian army (until the end of WWII) held the doctrine that anywhere they marched became Russian soil. Thus, they fought to the man and bullet defending their positions. This wasnt always a good thing.

If you are fighting to destroy an enemy, and cripple their ability to make war - rather than to gain territory and bolster your industrial base - then you may not need to wory about holding ground. The defender must hold ground, but you can raid systems, destroy colonies, then pull out. sometimes you cant afford to hold worlds, but you can afford to continue an offensive untill you can recolonize them later.

Other times, holding teritory is crucial, because you need their production, or their resupply depots, or need them to slow down a counter attack.

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Puke:
The defender must hold ground, but you can raid systems, destroy colonies, then pull out. sometimes you cant afford to hold worlds, but you can afford to continue an offensive untill you can recolonize them later.

Very true. I'm playing a TDM Modpack game. I'm the Ukra-Tal, and the Aquilaeians took an instant dislike to me. Same atmosphere. I've got my core systems fortified, and I raided their territory, conquering two systems and then losing them again, twice. At the same time I've gained, lost and now regained two fringe systems. And so it goes.

They are a dying race. I will let them be. I must prepare for the coming storm. The Vikings refuse all treatys, and the Cue Cappa and Albion have dreadnoughts everywhere. I don't have the mineral resources for master computer ships. Yet.

[ October 12, 2002, 00:12: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[Stone Mill]

If you are fighting to destroy an enemy, and cripple their ability to make war - rather than to gain territory and bolster your industrial base - then you may not need to wory about holding ground. The defender must hold ground, but you can raid systems, destroy colonies, then pull out. sometimes you cant afford to hold worlds, but you can afford to continue an offensive untill you can recolonize them later.

Other times, holding teritory is crucial, because you need their production, or their resupply depots, or need them to slow down a counter attack.

Very true. In the case where you need to hold territory, I stress the importance of adaquately defending your new gains. This may mean pushing your defensive line forward... and not a Marginot line that is static but a mobile defense that operates under the tenant of Mobility. You can't defend everything... but key points. And what you acquire is your new key point.

[Foreman]

Originally posted by Taera:
Does someone have a link to full translation of Sun Tzu's book and Prince, too? I have one Sun Tzu's translation but its rather puny...

Try this one: Sun Tzu's Art of War
This translation is much more fluid than most others I saw on the internet.