I was referring to that earlier post and extrapolating to Haffaton.
No, you can't take a theory about Haffaton defending itself against invasion and twist that into me attacking Haffaton. THere is no parallel to extrapolate it along.
I strongly disagree with that. If they're struggling to maintain their production to support their units, which is what is implied, then any lost cities can be devastating. Especially if using tactics like this
1. We don't KNOW that they are struggling. Jillian thinks they should be.
2. As I said, destroying Revenue does not inherently create a problem. If you destroy more expenses than revenue, you free up revenue. For instance, if City Level 75 gives 1 Schmucker per day, but it is defended by units with 200 schmuckers per day upkeep, then 199 Schmuckers per day just got freed up for new units.
You may not be doing major damage, but anything that destabilizes your opponent's infrastructure when they're already close to their limit will really hurt them.
Very false. Note the example above.
That way your target is still having to pay the upkeep for the units of that city, but they're down one city's worth of income.
Not sure the game mechanics are going to work out for you that next morning when Upkeep is paid. They become pristine again, which may mean unbound and with weapons in hand. "Captured" may have a very strict definition.
Well, obviously you wouldn't be attempting this particular tactic if your side wasn't capable of it or lacked heavy air units like dwagons or megas.
*shrug* You think that way. Housellama doesn't always, I've noticed. He does trivialize some things when discussing his strategies.
make them scramble for a couple of turns as they devote resources to stopping the strike forces to prevent further losses before they can mount a retaliation against you.
Like Charlie did to Sammy? Yes, that works, in theory. You mount up your armies, deplete your own defenses, and spend several turns marching to my capital.
Ah, but I don't need those defenses at my border, do I? Your army is 4 turns into my territory when I start marching. Are you going to delay on your race back to take those weakened cities, knowing that any delay may increase your chance of disbanding?
But no, I *WILL* destroy your Capital. You get the chance to Turn just before it ends. That's the only deal you'll get, and there won't be negotiation.
In the meantime, I'll keep taking your cities and messing up your economy as much as possible.
Then you disband. Bye-bye. The Diminishing returns Jillian mentions ensures that you are only damaging the Cities that provide the least income, you're destroying upkeep at the same time, which may be much larger than the revenue, and I can retake those cities without a fight a few days later... with your Capital's treasury.
I might even send a small force with instructions to avoid engagements with your troops altogether and focus on razing farms and mines exclusively.
Yeah, you're not getting to those. You'd have to get a lot deeper to find them. I'm not stupid... the further they are from the enemy, then the less likely they are to be harmed.
By the time your army reaches my capital, you'll be struggling to finance the upkeep on your defenders
Somehow you can get to 20 cities by the time I can get to one? Don't be absurd. That's pure wishful thinking. And dont' forget that while I race for your Capital, you may be losing cities of your own along the way... and for a smaller side that isn't deep past the limit like Haffaton, you're losing a lot more schmuckers per day. How much more depends on the specifics of the equation, but if you're Gk with it's 14 city max, and I've got 50, each city level you lose is 3x as important as one I lose.
True, you could always just disband units elsewhere
You just don't get it. You're destroying units for me, and the equation probably gives them upkeep than the revenue you're destroying. In that case, I do NOT need to disband one unit, since I am adding money to my treasury next turn, not draining it.
but then you're caught with your pants down when the other sides see how weak you're leaving your flanks in your effort to eradicate me me.
Didn't need to drain flanks. I drained the border directly in contact with YOU. Further, you were the aggressor, so they are not going to fear me defending myself. And guess what? I have something to offer... a bunch of neutral cities to divvy up. Sure, they could attack me, or they could see my point of view and take the nearly free cities I can offer them.
Someone suggested it. I had believed it was in one of your posts. Still, I believe that I addressed this in part above.
That should have been an "I'm sorry", not a "It doesn't matter than I lied about what you said."
And you seem to think it would have no effect whatsoever.
No, I'm saying it could well have a positive effect on my treasury. I have mathematically demonstrated that it could.
They would obviously have a treasury. If they deplete it in their defense, then what do you think will happen with the cultures swoop in during the immediately following turns?
GK's treasury was 500000. How much damage would you have to do to burn through that? And that was the result of having only 14 cities.
Where is it stated that you cannot have more than one heir? I believed that Ansom and Ossomer both were popped as heirs. I'd like to see a quote limiting the number of heirs.
I'm sorry, I believe you are making a large assumption there. Ossomer was never named an Heir, only Chief Warlord. You might want to look into that example.
How to defeat Haffaton:
1) You need an Alliance with as many Sides as possible. Critical for this may be Charlie, who has contact with everyone. Use him to find Sides on the far end of Haffaton to coordinate.
2) Attack as many Cities simultaneously as possible. Attacking 4's and 5's will take large numbers. Focus on 2's and 3's. By attacking from multiple directions, Haffaton has two poor choices: defend many places with middling defenses, or a few places with large.
2a) When you see large defenses, retreat from the attack.
2b) Where defenses are thin exploit.
3) Do not penetrate deep. Surgical strikes only. Your attackers are also your defenders, so if you let them go too far, your Side is made vulnerable.Strike and retreat.
4) Fight in the field, wherever possible. In cities, you have to attack defensive bonuses. Draw the enemy out into the field and you're not trying to overcome castle walls, even if you wind up losing more units than you kill.
5) Be unpredictable. Change tactics. Change army make-up. Don't let the enemy predict where you're attacking next.
5) Fight. Everywhere, fight. Turn the battle into a war of attrition. Haffaton's weakness is it have a smaller revenue stream than multiple small size. To make that work for you, you need to make Haffaton recruit constantly, so that you eat through its treasury, and make that revnue stream matter.
Attrition is the way to defeat Haffaton.
Isn't that basically what I was saying above? Yes, I believe it is.
I still think the best option for attacking an enemy employing an eggshell defense would be to pierce the outer defense as mentioned then attack the weakly defended level 1s
It is nothing like your suggestion.
1) You're attacking level 1's. I'm attacking 2's and 3's. (I suspect 4's and 5's take multiple-Side combined forces.)
2) You're exploiting behind the band. I'm attacking the band. This keeps me close to attack any attempts to attack my cities.
3) You're stuck with one static force with no access to reinforcements. I can quickly reinforce because I'm on my own border without worries they'll get intercepted by Haffaton's forces, where your small reinforcement attempts will have to bypass the entire band to get to you. Haffaton may let your large force through, but they'll stomp small reinforcement armies.
4) You're attacking alone trying to do it all yourself. I'm attacking with others across a wide front to maximize the effectiveness of our revenue stream.