Page 1 of 2
How often do you use All Out Attack/Hold at All Cost
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:09 pm
by berto
In connection with my battle losses testing, I'd like to poll the players about how often you select the tab for All Out Attack/Hold at All Cost (the red tab below the force posture tabs):
* Frequently
* Occasionally
* Very Seldom
* Never
Please vote (and vote just once!) for one choice only.
Thank you.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:29 pm
by vonRocko
I use them frequently. Especially the hold at all costs.It seems the best way to make my armies more aggressive.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:14 pm
by Banks6060
I like to use hold at all costs for the defense of important depots. I figure if you're gonna go down, might as well pull a "300" on somebody.
Otherwise I usually try to leave room for retreat.
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:29 pm
by MrTFehr
You don't win by marching backwards!! I say CHARGE!!!
Ok, really though, I only use all out attacks when the outcome is already determined (ie, I greatly out power the enemy). The hold at all costs I use all over the place. I watched "300" one too many times maybe....
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:50 pm
by Daxil
One tactic I find especially pleasing, albeit a little gamey, is anchoring a div to a unit that wont move out of province. Therefore the surprise cav attacks w/out supply are neutralized.
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:35 am
by Comtedemeighan
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...
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:14 pm
by vonRocko
One vote for Never? I can't imagine a game where you would never have,at least, one place that you MUST defend{Richmond?} at all costs. I have seen some battles where the defender beats overwhelming odds in this game.As long as that is possible,I will hold at all costs most of the time.
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:18 pm
by Rafiki
Nothing wrong in believing that it's better to regroup and fight another day than attacking/holding to the last man standing
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:33 pm
by Generalisimo
vonRocko wrote:One vote for Never? I can't imagine a game where you would never have,at least, one place that you MUST defend{Richmond?} at all costs. I have seen some battles where the defender beats overwhelming odds in this game.As long as that is possible,I will hold at all costs most of the time.
Doing it most of the time can really be a suicide mission...
I preffer to study the situation and the incoming forces... if I have a chance to win it and the position is very important to my campaign, I may use it...
But like Rafiki have just said, there is nothing wrong in regrouping your forces and coming back another day to retake that area...
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:43 pm
by arsan
vonRocko wrote:One vote for Never? I can't imagine a game where you would never have,at least, one place that you MUST defend{Richmond?} at all costs.
J. E. Johnston would had disagree with you
I voted seldom. I'm kind of "johnstonian" myself.
No need to die here today if can fight (and kill) another day 20 miles down the road...
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:05 pm
by Dixicrat
Banks6060 wrote:I like to use hold at all costs for the defense of important depots... Otherwise I usually try to leave room for retreat.
+1
Daxil wrote:One tactic I find especially pleasing, albeit a little gamey, is anchoring a div to a unit that wont move out of province. Therefore the surprise cav attacks w/out supply are neutralized.
An interesting idea! I'll have to try it.
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:53 pm
by teufel0331
arsan wrote:J. E. Johnston would had disagree with you
I voted seldom. I'm kind of "johnstonian" myself.
No need to die here today if can fight (and kill) another day 20 miles down the road...
that's kind of the point, though -- some stuff you just GOTTA hold onto!
come the fall of richmond, you might not get that 2nd chance...
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:55 pm
by teufel0331
can't you just 'lock' yr unit in place on command?
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:56 pm
by teufel0331
Daxil wrote:One tactic I find especially pleasing, albeit a little gamey, is anchoring a div to a unit that wont move out of province. Therefore the surprise cav attacks w/out supply are neutralized.
can't you just 'lock' yr unit in place on command?
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:27 pm
by Daxil
Not that I'm aware of?
unit lox
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:13 pm
by teufel0331
Daxil wrote:Not that I'm aware of?
go
here brother
they'll take you to the pot o'gold!
Unit Locking
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:41 pm
by Dixicrat
As I understand it, the lock that you're referring to is only a lock to keep units from merging under a single tab. It has nothing to do with keeping that stack in place... unless you use Daxil's suggestion of combining a unit with a unit which is locked within the region.
On a separate note, I agree with Jabberwock's post elsewhere, where he questions the necessity of some units (particularly artillery units) being locked into regions "until attacked". That being said, I'm sure that PT had a very good reason for designing the game that way.
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:44 pm
by tagwyn
But - As JEJ found out in front of Atlanta, you can be outflanked out of any position where the enemy has more troops than you do? His army was willilng to fight and die but they got whipped whenever they tried to make a stand. Right? T
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:57 pm
by arsan
tagwyn wrote:But - As JEJ found out in front of Atlanta, you can be outflanked out of any position where the enemy has more troops than you do? His army was willilng to fight and die but they got whipped whenever they tried to make a stand. Right? T
Yeah, under Johnston they may get whipped
But under Hood they got wiped out
I bet Sherman got pretty happy when he learned about the enemy generals change
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:59 pm
by Daxil
Well if Johnston hadn't been so secretive about his strategy with even his President, maybe the story would have been different.
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:25 pm
by tagwyn
JEJ was hoping for a mistake! Sherman did not give him an opeining. t
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:31 pm
by Jabberwock
Daxil wrote:Well if Johnston hadn't been so secretive about his strategy with even his President, maybe the story would have been different.
Yes, if the rebel cabinet hadn't leaked like the Exxon Valdez, maybe JJ could have avoided that situation.
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:48 pm
by Aphrodite Mae
Jabberwock wrote:Yes, if the rebel cabinet hadn't leaked like the Exxon Valdez, maybe JJ could have avoided that situation.
Reb cabinet?!
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:17 am
by tagwyn
Nothing President Davis or any of his cabinet said or did not say or told the NY newspapers would have made the slightest difference! IMHO. t
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:11 am
by Jabberwock
In early 1862, Joe Johnston had a meeting with Jefferson Davis and the rebel cabinet. At this meeting, Johnston informed the President that he was about to pull back from Manassas.
When he got back to his hotel, the first thing that happened was someone walked across the lobby and said "General, is it true? Are you really retreating from Manassas?" (Not an exact quote, words to that effect.)
He never shared any strategic plans with Davis after that.
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:45 am
by Big Muddy
I don't recall ever using Hold, I have a bad habit of over using Attack.
All Out Attack Question
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:51 am
by Captain
Ok someone please educate me.
Situation:
Harpers Ferry is held by a lone federal militia. Taking the opportunity south sends a Corp to HF with all out attack to to take it. The North however simitaneously sends to HF a full Federal army.
Question is who is the attacker?
Does the Reb Corp do an all out attack on the whole Fed Army?
If The Fed Army is also on the offensive who is the defender?
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:10 pm
by PeterPan
Banks6060 wrote:I like to use hold at all costs for the defense of important depots. Otherwise I usually try to leave room for retreat.
+1
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:13 pm
by Daxil
Captain wrote:Ok someone please educate me.
Situation:
Harpers Ferry is held by a lone federal militia. Taking the opportunity south sends a Corp to HF with all out attack to to take it. The North however simitaneously sends to HF a full Federal army.
Question is who is the attacker?
Does the Reb Corp do an all out attack on the whole Fed Army?
If The Fed Army is also on the offensive who is the defender?
In that case both would be offensive. Sometimes generals overturn orders and go defensive though.
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:04 pm
by W.Barksdale
I chose frequently. Given the scope of the game I almost always have a few units carrying out these orders. Small and large stacks.