A Grepolis Themed Debate (3)

[DeletedUser6156]

For this debate we'd like to discuss whether it is better to be:

the Attacker
or
the Defender.​

Thanks to [user]lolophant[/user] for the idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

Defender will give you more BP.

 

[DeletedUser17088]

the defender has the luxury of walls,militia, combined troops from other cities, towers, luck and morale and now a nifty little app that wakes them up if they have an incoming attack.

Defender has the advantage by some amount

 

[DeletedUser]

it's much easier to be the defender, but much BETTER to be the attacker

 

[Aicy]

The question is rather vague. Are you asking whether in a particular it's more advantages to be the attacker or defender (clearly defender), or as a playstyle do you think it's better to be attacking more or defending more?

 

[Baudin Toolan]

Since they implemented shared BP you don't get as much BP from defending as you used to. People get BP from their killed support now. I prefer to be the attacker as you can't win a war defensively.

 

[Aicy]

Oh sick I didn't know they implemented it! That's nearly all of posts I made in the ideas forum like two years implemented now.

yeah boy

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh sick I didn't know they implemented it! That's nearly all of posts I made in the ideas forum like two years implemented now.

yeah boy

Congrats. I think being as defensive player or "turtle" is and has always been looked at very weakly. In some cases, defensive maneuvers can be "better" but overall I like being the attacker.

 

[Aicy]

I think overall, broadly in the state of the game offensive players have it better off however in individual fights defenders have a huge advantage in terms of unlimited support and defense bonuses.

 

[DeletedUser]

Defender has the advantage... until you get into the same situation I did:
Enemies know online time
Enemy alliance is 10x bigger because you just rebelled from tyrants
Enemies live 8-10 hours away (time zone)
Enemies are loaded on offense
No pacts yet because you just regained independence

 

[Aicy]

But all those things could happen if you were the attacker, and would be even worse if you were the attacker right?

 

[DeletedUser]

Defender is easier and gives a way better BP ratio most of the time, however it gets boring and you cannot take cities with Def troops....

 

[DeletedUser23986]

game favours def, but going defensive is a sacrifice. I did that in en41, and i now need help to take most of cities. I can't get bp unless someone is attacked. In the end, i had to start building ls and troops.

You get bored when you go defense is the overall scenario. The fun is in attacking...

 

[DeletedUser]

If you want to get anywhere you have to be the attacker... I can't even begin to imagine another viewpoint from where I currently stand on it. ;_;

 

[DeletedUser]

Defender you don't have to be online all the time you can make mixed units and fireships can be used as defense not offense also a wall a guard tower and premium bonus thats alot of bonuses

unless the other person has a premium bonus

 

[DeletedUser]

You get bored when you go defense is the overall scenario. The fun is in attacking...

Defender is easier and gives a way better BP ratio most of the time, however it gets boring and you cannot take cities with Def troops....

If you want to get anywhere you have to be the attacker... I can't even begin to imagine another viewpoint from where I currently stand on it. ;_;

Are you playing this game to have fun, or are you content to cower behind your wall? Fortune favors the bold, no guts no glory ... all that good stuff. Take a chance .. if you get rimmed, so what? At the rate new worlds are coming out you'll get another chance soon enough.ro:

 

[DeletedUser29066]

Are you playing this game to have fun, or are you content to cower behind your wall? Fortune favors the bold, no guts no glory ... all that good stuff. Take a chance .. if you get rimmed, so what? At the rate new worlds are coming out you'll get another chance soon enough.ro:

I think the problem is that most players have a tendency to favor defending because it's how they learned the game and because they think it's easier. Those tendencies are not always easy to overcome

 

[DeletedUser8396]

I think it's a well established fact that the defender has an INCREDIBLE advantage (and more-so when morale is active).

Bother play styles have their advantages. Attacking lets you grow faster, but you teeter on the brink of being rimmed. Attacking is funner whereas defending usually brings worry (especially with 100+ attacks ).

Defending gets boring after a while, but you usually can keep what you have. You grow, but it is exponentially slower

I think we can all agree a proper combination is the best. Defense for incredi-BP boosts and attacking for growth / enjoyment.

****************************

I myself prefer to be the attacker. It gives exhilaration instead of simming.

The above is my opinion and is subject to change if and when I so choose.

 

[DeletedUser]

In terms of strategy and tactics, the attacker is always at advantage, otherwise the attacker wouldn't invade. However in terms of grepolis, in actual battle the defender does have the advantage in terms of strength to protect his own city, but lacks the ability to change the course of the war.

Hence, attacking is eventually an advantage.

 

[DeletedUser]

I can only see the advantage of being a defensive player only if that player were in a strong alliance with plenty of attackers. Then, that player could serve a role of defending sieges, also giving them plenty of BP for city slots. That is one of the few scenarios in which I can see an advantage in being a defensive player. Otherwise, I'd prefer being all about offense