Attacking on Day 1?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Attacking on Day 1?

      I have heard from quite a few sources that you should never attack on Day 1, because all starting units are defensive and you will lose every time, and won't be able to build enough offensive units without gold.
      The logic of this seems fairly sound. But on the other hand some skilled players will recommend doing it. It seems fairly common for two countries to gang up and divide a common neighbour, as well.

      E.g. Thundax's Pan-Asian Rapid Conquest Guide!, which I am using as my guidebook for a Pacific game as Korea.
      I am attacking Mukden (AI) and taking Kyushu off Japan (unskilled and lethargic) simultaneously, using artillery. I am also taking Vladivostok off Khabarovsk because he is completely inactive.

      What do you people think? Is it viable, or will it weaken me too much? :?:
      The fate of the Empire depends on this battle; let each man do his utmost.
      — Tōgō Heihachirō, Battle of Tsushima

    • Usually I do, but how and when depends on a variety of factors: your doctrine, your opponents' doctrines, your opponents' skill levels, their activity levels, terrain in their territory, whether they've teamed up with anyone yet, etc.

      If you do it, you should go in with a plan to limit losses as much as possible (using ranged attacks, using large stacks, etc). If you can't guarantee limited losses, it might be best to wait or to choose another target. Also, if attacking in one directing would leave you open to another opponent attacking you from behind, consider waiting or make sure you can fight two at once.

    • at the same time or one after one? thats 2 way different results....but its nearly always better to stack up to at least 10 units for a fight (after that its way more it depends)..... bigger stack later dying units.....more dmg.... also on first hit you make 100% dmg. becouase they have full hp...for me its pretty clear that for FIGHTS stacking to 10 units at least is pretty nice.... for many
      other stuff its crap.... (for example for getting fast unprotected land or against revolts...)...

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      I have heard from quite a few sources that you should never attack on Day 1, because all starting units are defensive and you will lose every time, and won't be able to build enough offensive units without gold.
      The logic of this seems fairly sound. But on the other hand some skilled players will recommend doing it. It seems fairly common for two countries to gang up and divide a common neighbour, as well.

      E.g. Thundax's Pan-Asian Rapid Conquest Guide!, which I am using as my guidebook for a Pacific game as Korea.
      I am attacking Mukden (AI) and taking Kyushu off Japan (unskilled and lethargic) simultaneously, using artillery. I am also taking Vladivostok off Khabarovsk because he is completely inactive.

      What do you people think? Is it viable, or will it weaken me too much? :?:
      i always attack on day 1?
      知己知彼，百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:

    • I always attack on day 1, would you rather attack when your enemy has about the same amount of troops or when he possibly has a lot more than you? even just a single city , if you can take it, you immediately have a huge advantage of taking the rest of his territory. this has ALWAYS worked for me, no matter what strategy i'm using.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison


      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - callofwar.com/index.php?id=279
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.

    • Yea, maybe I'm giving away too much strategy here but, when fighting single infantry for example, there's a huge difference between a stack that does 14 damage vs a stack that does 18 damage (don't forget to account for the homeland defense bonus and the +/- 20% randomness). The former takes two defensive hits and slows you down because it's an additional 30 minutes to move on. The latter takes a single defensive hit and immediately moves on.

      Now apply similar thought process to 2 inf stacks, or mixed stacks, or stacks that are on different terrains, or stacks that are simultaneously bombarded by artillery, etc... and that will help inform your stack sizing.

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Do large stacks actually reduce casualties? If I attack 5 units of 2 with 1 stack of 10, will I win then?

      This is hugely important. The goal is to do the most amount of damage to the enemy, while suffering the least amount in return. You can achieve this through unit choice (tank beats armored car), terrain choice (tanks in plains, infantry in city and forest), posture (AT guns defend, artillery attack), and stack size.

      Quite simply, 10 units deal 10x the damage of 1 unit. That gives the opponent less opportunity to hurt you back. Battles end faster, and cost you fewer hit points.

      Early on, you can stack 10 infantry and take any neighboring city with ease. Not because infantry are good on attack. They are not. But 10x is 10x.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Do large stacks actually reduce casualties? If I attack 5 units of 2 with 1 stack of 10, will I win then?
      This is hugely important. The goal is to do the most amount of damage to the enemy, while suffering the least amount in return. You can achieve this through unit choice (tank beats armored car), terrain choice (tanks in plains, infantry in city and forest), posture (AT guns defend, artillery attack), and stack size.

      Quite simply, 10 units deal 10x the damage of 1 unit. That gives the opponent less opportunity to hurt you back. Battles end faster, and cost you fewer hit points.

      Early on, you can stack 10 infantry and take any neighboring city with ease. Not because infantry are good on attack. They are not. But 10x is 10x.
      Yeah I always assumed this but wanted to validate it. Thanks.
      The fate of the Empire depends on this battle; let each man do his utmost.
      — Tōgō Heihachirō, Battle of Tsushima

    • This is very situational. You really have to check out who your starting neighbors are.

      Attacking on day one is a position I've evolved on. I used to be opposed to it for the reasons you mentioned, you only start with defensive units so why go on offense. There are a few reasons. Quite simply, the sooner you take a cap, the sooner your core cities get the morale boost and that's a very valuable thing for production. Usually this can be accomplished simply by taking an AI. At a minimum, on day one you should accomplish this. But there is also a value to securing your core so you sleep at night. It can certainly be worth partnering with another neighbor and going after an active player to accomplish this. Minimizing casualties is vital on your first conquest as you should expect to do many more after.

      Also consider that the first supply drops now occur on day one. If you can declare war on an enemy before the supply drops happen, they will be more likely to appear in the country you are at war with making it easier to get. If you get resources on day one in a supply drop, that is a huge boost for your production potential.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • I generally like to attack the first day for a couple of reasons. You most of the time will win the first war, (in my experience I always do), but you will also gain an influx of resources from the captured cities which really helps early in the game.

      The skill level of your opponents doesn't really matter because if you attack and they don't know until you are in their territory all they can do is watch as their units die to your large stacks of troops. I recommend attacking the first day.