<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 25 of 25   
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/9/2012 20:27:39


[中国阳朔]TexasJohn 
Level 35
Report
Does anyone else ever use the Attack Only or Transfer Only commands? They can be quite useful.

For example, If an enemy is bordering two territories, I will put a few onto one, and most on the rest, counting on a first turn annihilation. The smaller number of armies will be given a last move Transfer Only order. By doing this, I don't throw away the defenders if my initial attack is repulsed, but I am able to move them towards the front if the attack IS successful.

Although, I must admit, I use Attack Only much less often. Does anyone have any ideas regarding the use of Attack Only?
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/9/2012 20:31:39

Darth Mylor {Warlighter}
Level 13
Report
If you and an ally need to invade one territory, and your ally needs the territory, then you attack only, destroying the enemies defence, then you ally invades.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/9/2012 23:06:47


Timinator • apex 
Level 64
Report
Your post just shows you have no idea how Attack Only really works @ Mylor
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/9/2012 23:12:02


awesomely bitchtastic beta 2.o
Level 58
Report
Timinator your post just shows that your not helpful at all. i have never used the attack only command and mylor's post seems like a good possible use for the attack only feature. can anyone tell me why that that scenario is not?
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/9/2012 23:21:55


myhandisonfire 
Level 54
Report
Useful only on very rare occasions and hard to explain.

For example:
3 Territories: A, B, C.
You control A and B, your enemy is in C. C can attack you in A or B.
You are stronger than him deploy in one territory but you want only attack late, when you are sure he has taken the territory.
Attack only because you dont want to send your troops to a inferior place if not absolutely neccesary.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 00:05:33


[中国阳朔]TexasJohn 
Level 35
Report
Agressive, Mylor is wrong because Attack Only means your armies will not transfer, such as when an ally takes a territory before you (and you don't want him to have your troops!), or if you really need to take out a territory, but you don't want to send those troops unless it is absolutely necessary (such as if you had an enemy surrounded and really wanted to destroy that spot, but didn't want to send troops unless you HAD to).

While Tim might have been a tad rude in his response, it IS true that I was kind of asking people who knew how to use the features in the game, rather than people to kind of guess at what the feature means based on the name.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 00:10:55

Darth Mylor {Warlighter}
Level 13
Report
What i mean is, if C has a territory and A and B are allies, B needs it for his bonus, and A can easily invade C but not B, A invades and uses attack only so he destroys C armies. Then B invades, and gets the territory.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 00:34:13


[中国阳朔]TexasJohn 
Level 35
Report
Again, that isn't how Attack Only works. You are describing a situation in which Player A attacks C, so that there will be no more armies there when Player B attacks. This is mistaken. You can't say "I want to attack that player, but just kill all of his armies, don't actually occupy the territory".

Or are you trying to say that by using Attack Only, you can weaken Player C, so that when Player B attacks later, C is unable to defend and Player B captures the territory? While this is a good team strategy, this isn't something you need to use Attack Only for, just maybe some well-played Delay or Priority cards.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 00:34:54


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Mylor... the initial intent made sense but the situation just doesn't make sense in the context.

There is no use for the Attack Only command in your scenario. Player A uses a standard attack while player B uses a standard attack, just with the teammate treated as an enemy.

A better example would be if player needed the territory but wasn't certain he had the strength to take it. He could attack standard while B used attack only. Therefore, A would get the needed territory if he succeeded and B would keep his armies. If A failed, B would take it instead to defeat the opponent and free it for A on the following turn.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 00:39:35


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Needless to say, I frequently use the attack/transfer only commands. I'd estimate I average once a game for one or the other, though I use the attack only more often.

I do wish there were some tweaks to it though...
1 - Attack only ignoring neutrals -- useful if you expect an opposing player to invade a strategic point but don't want to take the neutrals first.

2 - Overcommit armies in attack-only mode -- Have a large army adjacent to two threatened territories. Have attack only flagged for both territories, allowing for either to be reconquered in the event of an attack. Obviously only one attack could be made but the option would let you commit to both and thus overcommit.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 04:04:44


[中国阳朔]TexasJohn 
Level 35
Report
Shame on you for the double post!

I am now intrigued. I myself find the "transfer only" order to be far more useful, but you say you find "attack" only to be more useful? I am kind of wondering if you can explain it a little better, I don't quite get your example.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 08:35:41


[中国阳朔] V 
Level 12
Report
I'm guessing you only need the "attack only" option if you are attacking a teammate. Because you'll never transfer to an enemy or neutral. And as normally you'll not attack teammates that often I almost never use this option.

But when it's usefull:
Your teammate attacks a neutral with 2. Normally he will break it down to 1 for you to easily take it with a 2 attack. But in rare situations a 2vs2 will actually win, so to be 100% sure get the territory you should issue an "attack only", so you either attack the 1 neutral or your teammates 1 that took the territory first (instead of automatically tranferring it too him, which happened to me in the past).
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 08:43:04


[REGL] Pooh 
Level 60
Report
I'm not sure if this is posted as an option for attack only:

Use with people you are at "Truce" with.

Keep low armies on the border, with high armies behind. Issue an Attack Only order from the large stack to the bordering territory.

If he decides to move in on you, BAM! your large pile will take him out (provided that you have enough armies, and that his attack move executes before your attack only move.)

This way, he'll never see how many armies you have unless he decides to get frisky.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 09:26:11


[中国阳朔] V 
Level 12
Report
Keep low armies on the border, with high armies behind. Issue an Attack Only order from the large stack to the bordering territory.

If he decides to move in on you, BAM! your large pile will take him out (provided that you have enough armies, and that his attack move executes before your attack only move.)


John, that sounds quite useful for some rare situations unless you play a lot of FFA games.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 14:00:50


[中国阳朔]TexasJohn 
Level 35
Report
Actually, for FFA games, that strategy seems very useful! Cool! Although this isn't so useful to me, as I rarely play FFA.

So happy to see a proper Warlight strategy discussion on here, rather than people listing numbers of brownies, or touting their 3-man clan.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 16:07:32


hedja 
Level 58
Report
V, what you expalined earlier only needs the "treat teammates as enmies", if you press attack only, it wont attack
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 16:38:41


[中国阳朔]TexasJohn 
Level 35
Report
But Hedja, If the territory is enemy (or neutral), you won't have the option of treating teammates as enemies, unless you have that set as the default (which I find causes more problems than it solves).
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 16:41:24


Timinator • apex 
Level 64
Report
you're wrong Texas, you always have that checkbox with "Treat Teammates as enemies"
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 17:09:02


[中国阳朔]TexasJohn 
Level 35
Report
You can set the game to ALWAYS treat teammates as enemies, and then you will NEVER transfer to teammates, only attack. However, I don't use this setting, and I suspect most people don't either.

If you have the teammate warning set, you have to select attack teammate or transfer to teammate each time you attempt to move armies to a teammate-controlled territory. If you are attacking a neutral or enemy territory, this option doesn't exist.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 19:05:15


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
Ok, there seems to be a confusion about attack-only option and when it is useful, so let's break it down to basics:

Standard attack mode is attack or transfer meaning attack only should be used only if you see some value in keeping your troops in one place INSTEAD of transferring them to a certain territory. That implies that you (or your teammate ) have to attack specified territory earlier from some other territory or just have it in the beginning of the turn. Let's start with the first case:

Since you generally attack towards enemy not transferring troops using attack-only mode should be used for defensive purposes. The most obvious one is dealing with enemy on multiple fronts. For example suppose on strat 1vs1 you complete central russia while your opponent completes west russia. For the sake of the argument suppose that you have either income or troop stack advantage on the border, but you suspect, you won't get last order. Very common strategy would be deploying 3-4 to Dudinka, rest to Omsk and attacking Ufa late exploiting your income or troop stack advantage (Ufa is strategically more important). Now, for the execution of strategy the best way is to attack late first from Omsk. Now, if you take Ufa with that first attack there is a good chance opponent decided to deploy more to Vorkuta, trying to counter from there. If not, then attacking Ufa from Dudinka will happen making it more likely to take it. If the first attack was succesful, you don't want to transfer troops from Dudinka since you want to defend against the possibility of counterattack there. That may seem convoluted at first, but it's easy to observe why 1st attack on Ufa is being succesful is directly correlated to counterattack from Vorkuta being possible.

Second case is when you want to use attack only from your territory on your territory. That means that you want to defend against a possible attack from opponent, but on the offchance it does not happen, you don't want to move major troops out of a better positioned spot. That is rarely the case, because that type of defense is very ineffective in a balanced position, but sometimes you may be forced to do it, mostly when you have leftover troops and your income is needed elsewhere. Suppose You just finished australia with major leftover troops in Western Australia while your opponent has Indonesia and India (suppose you know that from intel gathering). Also you fight elsewhere, in africa for example. Suppose you know you can force last order, but you are at a disadvantage in africa, where you can't die for some reason, so majority of your income is committed there. Also you judge that attacking indonesia will be too risky for some reason (it is very abstract, but there are scenarios where the math pictures sth like that). So you'd like to defend australia bonus, but you can spare only 2-3 troops in australia. If you move your troops from western australia 1st order, you are vulnerable from a late counterattack in western australia. If you just attack normally from western australia to Queensland late order, that is a good method of defense, however every time you'll end up with majority of forces in Queensland, but Western australia seems like a better place to attack from due to proximity of india. So we can decide to use attack -only, that way deploying 3 in Queensland defends on its own against attack of possibly even 6 (with 0% luck guaranteed 5) and on that offchance you remain pressuring indonesia and india indirectly.


Those 2 examples can be extended to multiple other scenarios, but in their essense they will be the same. From my experience attack-only is very rarely used and I don't remember any game where it was decisive whether I used attack-only or attacked normally. Using attack-only very rarely can create and advantage, because the circumstances needed are very rarely seen, most of the time there are other, strategically better options. I hope this helps :)
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/10/2012 20:45:49

[16] Jasper 
Level 52
Report
First off TexasJohn, as said before you repeated yourself, you are wrong. There is ALWAYS the checkbox that allows you to treat allies as enemies under advanced. The only thing the setting with the dialogue does, is show a popup and then make sure that whether or not the checkbox is checked is based on your answer on the popup message. After you said you want to attack your enemy on the popup message, you can still uncheck it and have your order not treat allies as enemies. When you order an attack on a neutral, it doesn't give you the popup message, but the checkbox is still there and you can use ti to manually set the behavior of your attack.

---


Now for the real discussion. I am always trying to improve my own game (mostly on 1v1 Strategic, but elsewhere as well) and one thing I am working on now is attacking a single territory from two different places. It is an interesting thing and it is where attack only comes in.

The reason I find it so interesting that at first, it is good. That's because the AI can't handle it all. But then, you start playing against humans who do their ordering much better and often put (almost) all their income on top of the stack they already had, which means attacking it is not as effective, and it turns out that it is a poor strategy now. However, then you get better and you start using techniques such as attacking a large stack at the end of turn with 2 armies, so if he uses everything to invade you, you do pick his original territory. Sometimes, he might attack in two directions, in which case you can do this from two directions - it'll possibly cost you two armies (net armies, it would cost you 4 and your opponent 2) but if he takes either of your places with his entire stack, you take his original territory. However, attack only still isn't all that interesting. However, when you get to a yet higher level, you see that your original conclusion that the technique was a bad one isn't completely true. When you know a lot about your opponent's income and you know that you can take his territory if you attack from two spots (and by placing your reinforcements in the spot there wasn't a stack, you prevent he takes that territory from you as well - either that or you attack from two places that started off with stacks) it may actually be the right thing to do from time to time.

Now, that last case is where attack only comes in. Your opponent may have decided not to stack the territory you are attacking (at all, or not too much). Now, your first attack will take out the opponent. If you preferred your troops where they were, you may use attack only to keep them there. This can be because they can now do a better job of defending against attacks (this or next turn) or because you want to use those troops somewhere else (to defend a border that you will now only take 2 turns to get to instead of three, or perhaps to expand into neutral territory on the other side of the territory you just took from your opponent).

So, that's why attack only is so much more difficult to use than transfer only - the situation in which you use them require much more skill to get to.

---

Personally, I am currently coming to the point where I am finding when to attack from multiple sides just now, and in doing so, I have come across a couple of situations where I realized I should have used attack only when watching the turn unfold.

(And yes, I know this is just about the same thing sze said, I am just taking a look at it from a different angle.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/11/2012 07:20:39

Darkruler2005
Level 6
Report
If anyone is still wondering why transfer only is useful, you can move troops in defense towards your borders without risking them to die. Do this when you're moving relatively little troops while your opponent could attack with relatively much.
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/11/2012 12:36:28


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Darkruler...

Another example of using transfer only is when you and your opponent have large stacks and no Order Priority cards. If you want to move your stack to defend a territory you expect to be attacked, use the transfer only to ensure they are there as defense instead of wasted in attacking the enemy stack. As we all know, when two comparable stacks fight the attacker always fares worse... transferring only in such a scenario ensures the strength of your stack is not wasted
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/11/2012 13:35:44


[中国阳朔]TexasJohn 
Level 35
Report
Richard, I notice people failing to do this all the time! I will capture a territory first move, then the enemy throws its 1s and 2s into me. If they would only use transfer only, they would save those troops to fight again another day!
Usefulness of Attack/Transfer Orders: 9/12/2012 03:10:09

Darkruler2005
Level 6
Report
Well, I did mean that, but now I see my explanation wasn't too clear. I'm really just saying use transfer only when it's possible your opponent will attack the territory you're transferring to with troops that will kill more of yours when you attack the stack. I don't use transfer when I know my troops will kill more of his regardless of whether I transfer or attack, because I would want to destroy his stack. I even sometimes attack his territories with 1 army later on in a turn when I know my stack will decimate his, since I don't want him to build it up (it'll be saved when he does a transfer only and my attack is earlier in the turn).

Nevertheless, I use transfer only in every game, and many times. Attack only to me really just seems to be useful in FFAs when you don't defend your borders and whenever you have multiple territories to defend from one of your opponent's, and you have an income advantage.
Posts 1 - 25 of 25