How often do you use All Out Attack/Hold at All Cost

[TheDoctorKing]

I use hold at all costs when I'm defending a very strong position and I suspect some Yankee generals of McClellan-itis. No, seriously, I think it helps guys with low command skills not flee before they have to. I don't believe I've ever used all-out-attack. I try to attack as little as possible.

[Zebedee]

Frequently for hold at all costs. Rarely for assaulting somewhere. Primarily because I try not to have to assault - usually my only two are in the first turn as CSA...

[berto]

Thanks for all the votes, everybody.

In my private testing, I have some interesting results relating to this issue. I am awaiting independent confirmation from other members of the AACW beta testing team. When and if I/we have something definitive and conclusive to share, we will do so.

In the meantime, if you haven't already done so, please vote! (But just once, please!)

[tagwyn]

Aw shucks!! I am from Memphis; we always voted several times for Mayor Crump, at least that's what I was told by my Great-uncle Tom. apy:

[berto]

I have opened a new thread to discuss the ramifications of Hold at All Cost defense in the "Help to improve AACW!" subforum:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=10947

[Dudosh]

I always use hold at all costs I don`t let my enemy 1 meter

[Heldenkaiser]

I don't believe I have *ever* used "all-out" on the attack. The one situation where I use it defensively is in the defence of Washington.

[Daxil]

I've used hold at all costs and attack at all costs and have found out the hard way it can be very, very dangerous. 18 1,000 elements with a sliver of life. That's not what all-out attack should mean.

[Old Peter]

I don't think I've ever used the hold at all costs. But I've been known to launch all-out assaults if I absolutely need a breakthrough.

Old Peter

[enf91]

"He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day." Almost nothing is worth losing an army over. I usually put garrisons on "hold at all costs" because they're not going to retreat anyway; this way, they may stay just a little bit longer (damn you, Jackson Browne!). I never attack at all costs unless I am certain of a quick victory. It's just not worth it otherwise.

[cleveland]

This happened to me playing Napoleon so I'm not sure it's applicable to the Civil War game (which I have played) but I ran into this situation playing the AI:

AI (as Austria) goes all out attack on a small garrison and easily takes the city. Later in the turn (a couple days later) Napoleon marches into the region and because the AI had all out attack when attacking the city it then attacks Napoleon resulting in the Austrian army's total destruction.

has this ever happened to any of you?

[urbancannibal]

I rarely use Hold At All Costs unless it's somewhere I absolutely have to hold onto, and also believe that I can. Holding at all costs against a vastly more numerous attacker will just lose you that many more men (and NM). It isn't going to affect the result of the battle.

As for Assault, I probably over-use that. Any time I'm attacking a fort unless it's stuffed to the gills with defenders, I tend to assault it. Any time it looks like I've got good odds (5-1 plus, or thereabouts) and I'm attacking a structure of any kind, I'll assault. My rationale is that I might take casualties, but I'll take the structure; if the enemy then wants it back, he has the tough choice of either assaulting me in turn, or besieging me. Either way, he'll need a big commitment of manpower to pull it off.

Then again, I've only ever played the Union so far, and I can afford the losses. The Rebs can't.

[Banks6060]

I have used the "hold at all costs" ROE to good effect. It's really a case by case thing with little to determine an overall "rule of thumb".

I suppose the first thing I think of is: Whether or not the sacrifice in troops will end up SAVING me MORE troops "in-theater" in the long run.

Same goes for "assaulting at all costs". Sometimes an objective must be taken within a certain time frame....or the opportunity to take it is lost. You also have to factor in the "chicken" effect. If you're "assaulting at all costs" with 2 to 1 odds...with Stonewall Jackson....against a poor Union commander with regular "defend" orders. Odds are that you'll push the defenders out by sheer tenacity. You'll likely lose a lot of troops in the effort...but sometimes it's worth it.

[Moff Jerjerrod]

I use hold at all costs more frequently than all out attack.

Hold at all costs is a great option for when you have a decent defensive stack that you absolutely can't afford to have forced to retreat from a position. (i.e. when a piece of real estate must be held to allow supplies to reach units that have penetrated deep into enemy territory.

All out attack is a great option to use when you know for sure the upcoming battle is going to be in your favor. It's more important to me in my playstyle to absolutely obliterate an enemy corps then to let a few divisions escape because I was unwilling to accept high losses on my part.

[malthaussen]

Playing the USA as I prefer to do, the onus of attack is on my shoulders. It can take a very long time to starve out an enemy garrison. Accordingly, I tend to use assault quite frequently on enemy forts and structures, which I typically attack with a minimum of two divisions. This works quite splendidly on the coastal forts, for example, with a minimum of losses to the attacking force, even when the fort is unbreached. Of course, the attack odds are in the neighborhood of 9 or 10 to 1.

For the USA, each year's campaign season is too short, and activation is too sporadic, to afford wasting time on CSA garrisons unless they are of substantial size.

-- Mal

[John Sedgwick]

Very seldom. It just goes against my nature to issue such inflexible orders. But I do like to roleplay a bit in my games, so for commanders with traits like "hothead" or "reckless" I might issue an all-out attack or hold at all cost if it seems appropriate.

[Dadaan]

I only use an all out attack to take cities that have a small garrison and I have overwhelming force. I have never used Hold at all cost...

This about fits what i was gonna say.

[Cromagnonman]

I will often use hold at all costs to keep a stack from retreating before battle, especially if it's a supported Corps. You can't MTSG if the guns never fire.

[George McClellan]

How do you get second row of buttons?

[George McClellan]

Not really. I dont want my men's uniform dirty...

[lodilefty]

Remember, since November 2010:

(from WIA notes, should be effective in all AGE game patches since then)

Major Changes:
* You no longer assault structures if you are still moving, you only assault them if you have stopped moving (the region of the structure is your destination or you don't move at all) [color="Red"]UNLESS your ROE is also 'all out attack'[/color]. Both the assault posture and ROE tooltips have been updated to explain that to the player.

This is to prevent serious problems for the AI... This has been observed in several of the AGE games with unexpected assaults from the AI... She wants to assault region X, but in the end it happens she will before assault region Y and more often than not: ... bloodbath...

[Aphrodite Mae]

My method of assault has a great success ratio (close to 100%!), but it only works when you're playing against somebody that you live with. (In other words, it will not work during PBEM games, OK?) Besides that, I don't think that it's a tactic that most of you men will want to try.

I park my little guys outside the town that I want to take, and make a token assault on it which of course is destined to fail. Then, I pout and look small and pitiful and act kinda like I'm gonna cry, making little moist, sniffy noises and stuff like that. That part is really important, OK? You've got to make little moist, sniffing noises of distress, or else it won't work! Now, excuse yourself to go powder your nose, and let your opponent make his move.

Like magic, you'll find that the little town that made you cry has been evacuated by the time you come back! It's just amazing! Of course, this is kinda like "strategic redeployment", because you can only use this tactic a limited number of times. After that, your husband just makes a kinda disgusted snort when you turn on the tears and sniffles, and it doesn't work anymore.

[Citizen X]

My method of assault has a great success ratio (close to 100%!), but it only works when you're playing against somebody that you live with. (In other words, it will not work during PBEM games, OK?) Besides that, I don't think that it's a tactic that most of you men will want to try.

I park my little guys outside the town that I want to take, and make a token assault on it which of course is destined to fail. Then, I pout and look small and pitiful and act kinda like I'm gonna cry, making little moist, sniffy noises and stuff like that. That part is really important, OK? You've got to make little moist, sniffing noises of distress, or else it won't work! Now, excuse yourself to go powder your nose, and let your opponent make his move.

Like magic, you'll find that the little town that made you cry has been evacuated by the time you come back! It's just amazing! Of course, this is kinda like "strategic redeployment", because you can only use this tactic a limited number of times. After that, your husband just makes a kinda disgusted snort when you turn on the tears and sniffles, and it doesn't work anymore.

Your majesty, this only works in monarchies.

[Gray Fox]

AOA/HAAC cause your men to lose more casualties than your opponent in battle. The end effect of this is that your units/leaders gain no experience. So, you train up your opponent and do nothing for your own side. I use this very seldom.

[csiemers]

When I want a city in a hurry I'll use All out Attack.
I don't often use Hold At All Costs as I figure even I lose a city I'll come back and get it at a later time.