Brick by Brick (Spoiler Alert!)

[TheHumanHydra]

What is happening in this game right now? Old Harry's posting tons when he doesn't even have the save, Azza's been posting the last few days ...

... I mean, I've inferred from events that Azza had a stack poised to retake de_inferno from Old Harry as soon as their peace expired (which it has), so Old Harry, fully occupied by me, gifted it to stave off a two-front war. Now Azza may choose to use that stack to hit me (for which I'm already repositioning my army - might not be fast enough, but it's as fast as can be), though that would be of little benefit to him. Or something else entirely may be occurring that I haven't foreseen (it's happened before, says Ollantaytambo from the grave). Or it's meaningless banter. Or they're responding to "future plans" questions like I did a couple days ago. Whatever - I try not to worry too much about activity elsewhere; I know from comparing players freaking out about lurker threads to the actual content of those threads there isn't usually much to worry about. It's just creepy that it's Azza. We'll see.

@NobleHelium: Well, we don't know if we're actually teching to Assembly Line right now or grasping desperately at it while getting trampled on in ten turns' time. Since (and because of) this fortuitous peace, I've come to see that some of my recent fatalism with regard to this game was misplaced. Old Harry's and my empires are about evenly matched right now: I'll cautiously say that our tech rates are about the same, his mfg and crop yield are higher (every game I play in, single and multi, others' mfg is much higher - I don't know what it is; it's not like I don't mine or build forges), his population is higher, while I have a mild tech lead (just not on the axis that counts - time to next military tech level: we both need Steam Power and one other), and my power is higher (for now). I have both potential and limitations: my populations is lower, meaning my demographics will be better once it's grown, but I still suffer from a restricted happiness cap, which also has ramifications for civics, as I've discussed before. I'm expanding in cities; we'll see if he tries to maintain the gap or if he's hit a plateau. Oh, and I've got a Golden Age to launch; I must admit to not having kept track of how many Old Harry's had and whether he's likely to generate another. With the information available to me, I'd say odds to win are 50-50 right now. Someone will either pull ahead in the next 10+ turns of peace, enough to wage successful war on the other eventually, or we will pace each other and have to tech up to Modern units to reach a decision. As Old Harry and I discussed, we will likely call it a draw at that point. So these next ten turns, plus however long afterward Old Harry chooses to prolong the peace, are quite possibly the decisive period of the game.

I'm really rambling; I hope some of this is interesting. Anyway, means I won't have many thoughts to share with those pictures later today or tomorrow. I do want to do a "final analysis" of the (first) Old Harry war, even though I've shared many thoughts on it already. Actually, I have something to say prompted by it (but concerning all RB) that might be quite controversial. Stay tuned for another war-analysis like the one after the Serdoan conquest - this time with intrigue. But first, TheHumanHydra needs to go kill some more draugr (next city name is "Castle Volkihar," by the way. Then "Fort Dawnguard").




And it turns out I'm an idiot. They both had played & sent; just regular turn reports. Well, from Azza it's still suspicious. You know, he's not that bad off; still up to par on techs, obviously able to have a military impact. If I'm eventually successful against Old Harry, I may have to send some troops his way - and, as always, watch for troops coming from his way.

[TheHumanHydra]

Let's do that state-of-the-empire, shall we?

It's turn 156. I hope to another of these in ten turns, when the peace expires, to show what progress (if any) I've made. Of course, if Old Harry forces me to draft with obvious war-preparations, all this may be negated. But the goal is to found four to five more cities, garrison my frontiers, (stave off an attack from Azza, if any), grow back up to the happy cap in my developed cities, grow my new cities to the point they can take part in the next draft-cycle and contribute economically, build at least one more economic building in all my developed cities (save Aquanauts and Pirates, which will build two-turn cavalry and cannon, respectively), finish Steam Power and start on Assembly Line, and finish the Forbidden Palace (Wild West) and Globe Theatre (Hydranauts). To help accomplish this, I will launch my three-man Golden Age in two turns when a couple more cities have been founded and I know the result of the Great Person birth in Wild West (if it's an Engineer or Artist, I can rush-build one of those national wonders - Artist frees the Engineer I've got already). Now you know my plans; we'll see how events conspire to derail them. But without further ado, my cities:








































Now for the demographics screens:



















Tech situation:




I don't have Compass and up or Theology - Divine Right.

Enemy techs:




Vs. Old Harry, I'm up Music, Nationalism, Military Tradition, Constitution, Liberalism, Economics, Corporation, Steel, and down Military Science, though he'll close much of that gap while I burn turns on Steam Power and Assembly Line - unless he guns for Machine Guns, in which case I'll maintain that gap but we'll remain at military tech parity. Or he'll blow past me and both close the gap and maintain military tech parity. We'll see!

Note Azza has Nationalism and Rifling and is about to finish Chemistry. Serdoa has Gunpowder now.

Rival civics:




Old Harry's will change as soon as the cooldown abates.

My civics:




I intend to swap into Representation and/or Free Speech on the first turn of my Golden Age, then back out on the last turn. That's mechanically possible, right (the cooldown is five turns)?

Foreign affairs, in case they were getting confusing:




Finances:




Finally, my and Old Harry's militaries (remember I have visibility on almost all his cities):







And that leads into my next post, on military affairs.

[TheHumanHydra]

Here's the controversial post I promised you. At least I think it'll be controversial. By the way, feel free to shoot me down; I don't pretend to be an expert on anything. And just in case I accidentally hit a nerve, I want you to know in advance I'm not trying to be provocative or anything (other than intellectually), just to think critically about the game and add interest to this thread. But first, some lighter stuff. I'd like to celebrate an accomplishment before things potentially go downhill later in this game.







When's the last time you saw those screens in a report, eh? And ... oddly even numbers, eh?

To date, if I have added correctly, I have lost 7177 hammers in units to destroy 10567 (and 12 cities). That's an exchange rate of just under 1.5 hammers to 1. As a green fighting highly competent human opponents, one of whom destroyed my entire medieval army, and always on the offence, I'd say that's an accomplishment. And, uh, well ... that's all I've got on that. Moving on!

The war with Old Harry - I promised you an analysis (the following consists of summary - elaboration - broader analysis; I apologize for the repetition). The first phase consisted of me ingloriously losing two cities to Old Harry because I defended them inadequately like Hitler in that video from earlier (one unit apiece). But I was planning to attack Old Harry anyway, and this caught him by surprise. You'll recall that the purpose of the war was to do as much damage to Old Harry as possible, hopefully capturing at least Barnet, before my army was inevitably destroyed. A suicide attack, for glory and a last shot at a lucky victory before the long, creeping end.

What actually happened was my army of cavalry, riflemen, and catapults advanced toward Barnet while Old Harry furiously upgraded his units to grenadiers and built and then whipped more. His capacity to summon an army was greater than I'd hoped and as great as I'd feared. Upon reaching the gates of Barnet, it became clear I had no hope of taking the city. While on the flat ground before the city, Old Harry struck, sacrificing all his catapults and twice as many hammers as me to kill two-thirds of the all-important cavalry that covered the rest of my force. I retreated to the hill tile from whence I'd come; Old Harry healed a turn, then struck again, this time achieving hammer parity. I estimated that counterattacking would be equally or more favourable than retreating, and sacrificed half my catapults and a few other units to kill twice their value in hammers. When Old Harry accepted peace, my sizable number of surviving units, against all expectation, marched back home in safety.

Meanwhile, in the south (Old Harry's north), I sent ten riflemen that couldn't make it to the front in time toward Lancaster as a diversion, accompanied by three cavalry to stave off grenadiers and no catapults. Instead of defending the city with everything in the area, Old Harry left behind two riflemen and an archer and abandoned it to the wolves. They devoured the city and its defenders with no losses. Then Old Harry accepted peace. I did not succeed in razing Barnet, but I did raze one other well-developed city, entirely unanticipated and realistically improbable. What's more, though, my complete diversion of Old Harry's troops in two theatres apparently allowed Azza to advance his limited forces to threaten his former city of de_inferno, home to the Mausoleum of Mausollos, and compel Old Harry to give it up. I felt that the destruction of Lancaster more than compensated for the loss of my much less valuable cities of Ollantaytambo and Huamanga earlier; this was icing on the cake.

So the suicide-attack by 70+ units into determined opposition and far greater numbers resulted in an attritional victory on the scale of two to one, the survival of two-thirds of those forces against all odds, the destruction of one city by a diversionary force with no siege support (and its survival), the enabling of the capture of another, highly valuable, moral victory (revenge and the "last word"), and a peace that needn't have been given. Given the forces and resources arrayed against my armies, this was the best possible outcome, and a substantial victory - one that shouldn't have occurred. I can only conclude that for Old Harry, something went very wrong. That something (and here's where we begin to get to the controversial part) was that he refused to wait, to defend.

By the time my main army reached Barnet, it was already impossible for it to take the city "115 units visible/that can hit my stack to 82 therein"). But 115 units, many obsolescent, to 82 is not that great a margin for attacking (many were apparently even unable to press the attack due to poor odds), and Old Harry lost thrice the units I did (65 to 19) and twice the hammers, including all 26 of his catapults (ie. offensive capability) in-theatre doing just that. This attack did drive my forces back to the hill tile, but what they were supposed to accomplish in front of a hill city with 60% cultural defences garrisoned with half-again their number of units if he hadn't attacked is unclear. Old Harry could have afforded to wait and upgrade more of his units to grenadiers (very powerful attackers against my mainline units) before attacking, and achieve a much more favourable rate of attrition. That said, an attack with superior numbers and massive collateral against an invader on flat ground cannot be faulted too strongly. What followed can.

Old Harry wisely healed a turn and upgraded large numbers of units to riflemen, while I retreated to the hill tile and issued a heal order. If my army accomplishing anything was impossible before, it was now unthinkable. I had already made the decision to leave Old Harry's territory entirely, cognizant that this would likely mean the destruction of my whole army when it reached the flat ground before my borders. Old Harry could not have known, but could have guessed, that my army was abandoning the attack, but he should have known as I did that no matter what its purpose, he would be able to destroy it on flat ground with superior numbers and fresh catapults (he had nine in range the next turn) as soon as it moved. But he chose to attack it on the hill with minimal collateral (one catapult) regardless. Granted, he achieved a slight attritional advantage, but this only indicates how much more favourable the exchange and how complete the slaughter would have been with ten times the collateral damage, more units, and no defensive bonus the next turn. Further, by not waiting to finish my stack at a blow, he exposed himself to the full force of my collateral and a desperate army on flat ground on my turn. As it turned out, though he had left many full-strength troops uncommitted to resist such an attack, I only needed half my catapults to generate an almost 100% kill-rate with my mainline units, as heavily-damaged as they were, shatter his attacking force, and guarantee the escape of my cavalry and remaining siege. Ironically, I still believe he may have been able to destroy my riflemen on the hill on that or succeeding turns with his dregs and fresh forces, but he choose peace instead of a further bloodbath with another enemy knocking at his door. The army of men consigned to death walked home.

I conclude that the sole reason for my army's survival was Old Harry's excessive eagerness to attack. By waiting, he would have had to surrender neither a single city (Barnet was too well-defended, and taking Matlock would have jeopardized the integrity of my forces), nor the chance to destroy my entire army (which could not have escaped fast enough. By attacking repeatedly before his troops were ready in overwhelming force, and unnecessarily into defensive terrain while exposing his forces, he allowed my forces to achieve an immensely favourable rate of attrition and make good their impossible escape from certain annihilation. To compound his failure to defend and wait, he refused to defend the valuable city of Lancaster from forces that should have had at best a 50% chance to take it, and realistically, without siege, none. All this points to a lack of faith in the defence of even strong places, and a belief in the offensive whenever and wherever possible.

Now let's wade into hot water.

Recall my critique of Serdoa's defence 50 turns ago. I criticized him for overbuilding horse archers (attackers) over spearmen (his most cost-efficient defenders) and aiming to defend by annihilating my stack instead of wearing me down at greater loss to myself. I pointed out that, while he did achieve his goal in the end, it was not this but his whipping of large numbers of longbows that persuaded me to end my offensive. I stated that I believed similar use of the defensive bonuses inherent in cities and cost-efficient defensive counter-units over mediocre attackers would have slowed me down far more and cost me far more than the offensive form of strategic defence he employed.

I didn't do an extensive critique of the Azzan war, because it was short, I became preoccupied with Old Harry, and there was realistically nothing Azza could have done to stop me. But Azza conducted a similar form of defence, culminating in the counterattack from de_nuke that failed to impede my forces and again generated a two-to-one attritional advantage for myself (in the Serdoan war it was even - good job Serdoa). He could have executed a similar attack with more units from deeper in his territory, or defended that city with all the units he lost in the attack as well. Again, he chose not to trust in the defence (though it wouldn't have saved him there; maybe further in), and to attack as soon as humanly possible - even in unfavourable conditions (it was even a hill attack!).

Thus I have fought every opponent in this game, and each one of them chose not to trust in the strength of their walls but in the power, such as it had, of the offence.

Historians characterize France in the decades leading up to the First World War as possessed by a "cult of the offensive" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_offensive>) that led to attack at all costs in Alsace-Lorraine and the Ardennes at the start of that conflict: and the costs were devastating. French troops in red pantalons marched to the calls of bugles into machine-gun fire and were mowed down. Military leaders believed the bayonet was their troops' best weapon and that cold steel at arm's length and sheer spirit could somehow prevail over rapid-fire firearms shooting from concealed positions to as far as the eye could see. Similar attitudes prevailed elsewhere. Prewar Russian Generalissimo Alexander Suvorov is credited with such quotes as "the bullet's a fool; the bayonet is a fine chap." Even the vaunted German army launched its fair share of needless costly attacks, against the fortress complex at Liege before bringing up the big guns and in the south at Toul-Epinal. As the war progressed, both sides persisted in immensely costly attacks on prepared defences until one side no longer had the manpower to resist, and improved tactics, particularly absolute reliance on artillery rendered successful attacks possible. The conflict was a total vindication of the supreme power of the defence in modern warfare, defence that can only be overcome by meticulous preparation and overwhelming firepower.

Interestingly, conditions are much the same in Civilization IV. I'm sure you can all remember rapidly discovering when you first began playing the game that an attack on a city could not be successful without two to three times the number of defending units engaged. Eventually (I don't know how long this took, perhaps not long; I wasn't around), the community realized that the solution was an immense amount of collateral damage (the absolute reliance on artillery of the end of World War I). Fast-moving mounted troops could sometimes roll over a backwards or unprepared enemy, but against prepared defences, collateral damage was absolutely necessary. Strategically, the defender retained the advantage due to interior lines of communication, better visibility, defensive hardpoints (cities), and above all, the whip and the draft, but tactically, the lessons it took so long for commanders of the First World War to learn well in hand, offence was and is king.

I am here to tell you that the pendulum has swung too far.

Now what I'm about to say I have not verified empirically by poring over all the games on the site. Perhaps it applies less elsewhere than this game, upon which this impression is principally based. But if the case study of pbem 46 is any basis upon which to begin to draw conclusions, I would assert as a hypothesis that a "cult of the offensive" has begun to ensnare RB. What I have witnessed in 50 turns of war in this game is a total disregard for the staying power of the defence, an uncompromising willingness, almost compulsion, to abandon the strongest defensive positions in the face of any force, even when irrational, ignorance of defensive terrain when on the attack, eagerness to attack without overwhelming force, repeatedly, always at the earliest opportunity (Serdoa excepted), and against strong, technologically superior defenders, without regard for the defensive repercussions of these actions: in short, an utter deprecation of the value of the tactical defence, and absolute faith in the tactical offense as, if not always successful, the most effective form of warfare available in every circumstance.

The fact of the matter is, in Civ IV as in real war, a prepared defence is always stronger unless adequate means are at hand to overcome it. If the attacker does not have adequate means at hand (as in my war with Old Harry), the defender will achieve more favourable results by defending. Likewise, if the defender does not have adequate means at hand for a counterattack, he will achieve more favourable results by defending. I do not argue that the counterattack is not in the end essential, only that the defender should not launch it until he can expect success. Default to the defence, innately strong, not to the costly and uncertain offence. Attack only ever with meticulous planning and overwhelming firepower, tactically as strategically.

Whew. <wipes brow> This has taken me, along with the previous report, all day to write. I'm out of steam. I hope this was interesting. It was strongly-worded; I hope you will bear in mind this was for argumentative effect and not offence (heh). Old Harry, Azza, and Serdoa, I feel the need to apologize in advance. I do not actually think you defended incompetently, especially in the circumstances you faced. This post was intended not to rip apart your gameplay but to critically analyze our gameplay on RB and bring our warfighting to 110% - remember we've all already discovered the key thing, and that's collateral, which you all used effectively: myself actually least of all. This is just a minor correction to our collective mindset on the defence. And perhaps we will be able to watch as more experienced lurkers proceed to tear all my evidence and premises apart. I'm fine with that; the point is as I said to analyze critically, and as I said I do not pretend to be an expert, or even very good, at Civ. But I must analyze success and failure if I am to improve. By the way, all of you are probably better than me at Civ generally; I've just been lucky geostrategically and skilled enough to take advantage of my opportunities, and, you know, do basic things like build cottages and pick the right techs that you guys demonstrably can do better (note my praise of your stellar recoveries from bad circumstances, Azza and Old Harry, earlier in this thread). Please don't hurt me! [Insert hiding-under-a-desk smiley.]

Anyway, that's all for that. Ooh, I'm scared of the responses to this post. Just remember, if you attack my argument, only do it with meticulous preparation and overwhelming firepower. Uh, I'm going to run away and hide in Castle Volkihar now. Skyrim, ho! Pay no attention to the hidden rearguard I've left to cover my retreat. Um, and fill my thread with weedy smileys! Now where'd I put my invisibility potion? Gosh this is embarrassing. Prepare to see TheHumanHydra torn apart!

Seriously, though, I hope no one takes offence and that we can have an intellectual discussion about this, even (especially) if I'm wrong. You have my permission to lampoon me.

Edit: Holy heck that was a long post. Should I add review pictures to spice it up?

[NobleHelium]

Well, I think it's rather funny that you admit that your argument is based on evidence from this game alone and then proceed to argue that the "cult of the offensive" has ensnared all of RB.

[BRickAstley]

And I'm rather interested why when you have said admittedly small sample size to draw upon you felt it necessary to indict the overall gameplay shown on the site? For what it's worth, I see where you're coming from, but disagree with your overall claim at the basic level of not seeing a "cult of the offensive" as being as epidemic across multiple games as you claim it to be.

[TheHumanHydra]

Haha, I did step on some toes. That's good; it means there's discussion to be had.

You're both right that this argument may not apply to the site as a whole, or to all parts of it:

Now what I'm about to say I have not verified empirically by poring over all the games on the site. Perhaps it applies less elsewhere than this game, upon which this impression is principally based. But if the case study of pbem 46 is any basis upon which to begin to draw conclusions, I would assert as a hypothesis that a "cult of the offensive" has begun to ensnare RB.

It is a hypothesis which we shall prove or disprove by comparing my observations here to those of other games. If it is disproven, so much the better. I will begin amassing the evidence for and against immediately, since there seems to be interest; if you're interested in this question, I would encourage you to do the same. Hopefully you will post the results in this thread and not the lurker one, so I can take part in the discussion I started.

I thought it appropriate to post this now because it was the natural extension of my analysis of the Old Harry war, and the time for that was now, and because I was excited to share with you my recent thinking on the nature of the game. I've always thought one of the chief purposes of reporting on the game was to analyze it and try to learn from it. I've conducted an analysis of this game from a military point of view (which we may also debate if we're so inclined), which has led to a, yes, rather bold, hypothesis regarding play on the entire site. But that's okay; that's the point of reading about these games. And as I said, if disproven, so much the better; we will have learned in that case too, or at least I will have. I trust there's no need to become defensive when the objective is only thought.

Edit: Oh, and kudos to you guys for reading that whole thing. You're the reason I write!

[NobleHelium]

I've already written my thoughts on the topic in the lurker thread. I don't see how we can fairly discuss this topic while the game is continuing.

[TheHumanHydra]

Mm, okay. I thought we could, you know, start to look at other games as I suggested. You're right, of course, re: this game.

[NobleHelium]

I'm familiar with the vast majority of games since 13...

[TheHumanHydra]

I've read many of them too, but I can't remember the precise sequence of every conflict. That's what I need to go back and look at.