Defense is more difficult than offense

>defense is more difficult than offense
what did he mean by this?

With defense (especially of a village) you're tied to one location, you have very little mobility.

Seems to be the opposite in the west, with castles and such.

You have to react, not act.

in order to attack all you have to know is how to kick or punch, for example. in order to defend you must know how to kick and punch in the first place, but then also then know how to block a kick and a punch

In offense, if one of 25 attacks succeed, that is success

In defense, if one of 25 attacks succeed, that is defeat.

pre-cannons sieges always favor the defender though

What would you rather? Me telling you "I'm going to stand still, hit me all you like" or me telling you "you're gonna stand still and I'm going to punch you all I want"?

I thought he explained it in the movie. To defend, you have to predict every point someone will attack from, and plan for it. To attack, all you need to do is fine one weak point and exploit it. Am I giving a sincere answer to a troll post right now?

>le impenetrable wall memes

Defending, usually, you're more vulnerable, you don't know who is attacking you, with what, how many, how they will attack, all you can do is try to hold out as long as you can

Attacking, You can study a stronghold's weaknesses, Use tactics the enemy might not be aware of, You have an advantage usually

>What is the object of defence? To preserve. To preserve is easier than to acquire; from which follows at once that the means on both sides being supposed equal, the defensive is easier than the offensive.
>t. Carl von Clausewitz
So is this not true all of a sudden or what

your post depends entirely on clauswitz being not a fucking retard

Why didn't the bandits just torch the huts with burning arrows from afar?

smart man

>both sides being equal
In the case of OP, the sides are not equal. The samurai need to defend a whole village. The bandits just need to kill people and take their food. Their objectives are entirely different, so your quote does not apply.

what if the defenders have the high ground?

Also each samurai was worth 10 bandits, more or less.

Because then there would nothing be left to loot as everything would burn to the ground, you tard.

>to preserve is easier than to acquire

No. It's not. Destruction is much easier than preservation. This is a meme opinion.

>Defending, usually, you're more vulnerable,
behind walls?
>you don't know who is attacking you, how many
you have a better idea than the enemy, because your army is higher, and behind walls

Preserving isn't easier than acquiring, it's impossible. Everything is subject to the inexorable march of time and decay, you can ultimately preserve nothing. Acquiring, on the other hand, can actually be done. All you need to do is snatch an object from the stream of decay while it is yet whole

was he referring to the specific situation though or was he giving out a bit of universal wisdom

>on both sides being supposed equal
>one side in seven ronin and peasants
>on other armed bandits
Those sides are not equal

>Ottomeme roachpire

it's not universal wisdom because it's bullshit and clearly wrong

If the peasants were attacking the bandits they would be at a higher disadvantage than if they were defending

>hurr, one time one thing happened once so hurr durr castles xd

because you have the initiative being the attacker , the defender can only react to the attacker's plan

but it's wrong, ronins mounted counter-attack on bandits with huge success with only 4 of them

Would you rather punch someone or be punched by someone?

Probably that no matter how much effort you put in, all you need is to display one weakness for them to exploit.

Fairly certain Sun Tzu would disagree. With strong defenses you didn't need to attack, but for a strong attack you needed both strong defense and strong offense.

it's not about fist fighting, it's people guarding an entrance

Sun Tzu is a fucking meme. His "art of war" is the stupidest shit

Counter atatck is not a normal attack defense situation. If they attacked the bandit hideout/camp they'd be fucked

>Sun Tzu is dumb! Clausewitz is a meme! None of the most influential names in warfare know anything. Listen to me instead!

well let me tell you fags

i've played a lot of RTS's in my time and defense was always easier than offense

you could just sit and your'e base and kill behind your walls

>T. keyboard warrior neet

>If they attacked the bandit hideout/camp they'd be fucked
you forgot when they burned their buildings with several bandits inside?
Defense is fucking hard, bandits were not prepared for it and got crushed. Ronin mounted exceptional defense compare to bandits human-wave tactic and that's why they won

>Sun Tsu who wrote a fletching manual a thousand years ago knew anything about fighting, much less war
>Claubshits who has to metamorph defense into something nebulus like "preserving" without explaining how such things can be, in order for him to say attacking is easier
Stay retarded, Mr I Read 2 War Books and think I know how WAR WORKS man

That was a surprise hit and run attack, not an attack with a goal beyond doing as much damage to soften up the upcoming attack. I'm taking full on assault like the bandits were planning on doing to the village.

Look at any siege in history and you'll see the attackers usually outnumber defenders by 2:1. If fortifications were no use, people wouldn't bother building them, they'd just sally forth every time.

>but muh metaphor of punching or it being easier to destroy than build!

that's nice, but look at reality.

as a rule of a thumb, you must have at least 4.5 x the size army( He says up to 15x and still you are not 100%) if you are on offensive

if we are strictly speaking about cold warfare there has to be at least 2 attackers per 1 defender( 2.5 out of 4 will be able to come alive and do some fighting,0.5 will be wounded or somehow incapacitated to do some real fighting but they will be able to participate ).
Now, if its human wave tactic, well that should go up to at least 10 on 1.

True, defenders chose type of game, place of game(and if they are really defending their country(their cause is just), morale is not an problem), but on the other hand they don't have anywhere to run too and since they used some really mean and vicious traps and tactics to stop bigger advancing army, they are gonna be tortured really, really bad if they lose.

well yes, because they had NO soldiers beside ronin. Peasants were far from fighting forces so yes if they were attacking bandits head on they would lose, doesn't make defending non-fortified position easier than attacking

They could eat the villagers.

so you're equating walls being effective with defense being easier. tell me, how long does it take to build a castle? how much math and geometry do the masons need to know to construct sturdy walls? how many TONNES of stone? how much man power and man hours?

now compare how long it takes to walk up to a town

ah, right. because building the walls, you know, ERECTING the actual defenses, doesn't factor into your little scheme just the battles. and even then attacking the walls is easier than defending them after all is said and done

nice memes

...

Assuming both sides equal, defense wins if they have advanced knowledge that an offense is coming. If proper defense is set up, it becomes a battle of resources which defense have a upper hand due to preservation.

This is true, Attack and Defense on Overwatch is heavily in favor of attack. what a smart guy

basically, what he wanted to say is:" Im really experienced in attacking , ill use that experience to predict where they shall try to breach."

>Amerifatz can't into basic philosophy

Well, fat fuck, you can't apply the same thing to your disgusting eating habits;

It's much easier for you to attack food (as in gobble up everything in sight, even small children and household pets), than defend against it (you know, NOT eating more than 50,0000 calories a day, you disgusting FUCK)

Lol, and you wonder why people in Canada hate you

Defence can't win if it has no supply lines, they can't just get up and pillage elsewhere like the Offense can.

If they'd fare better defending than attacking with no change in resources then that means defending is easier.

Dawg, just because you can win a game of Total War on medium difficulty doesn't mean you can talk shit about guys who've been quoted by successful leaders of armies that number in the hundreds of thousands.

>walls take a long time to build!
ok... never said otherwise.
>and even then attacking the walls is easier than defending them after all is said and done
not if you look at actual sieges.

I wasn't aware number of times quoted equaled military prowess. you'd think battle successes and his WRITINGS would be the benchmark.

oh no, but someone quoted him it doesn't matter his book is shit and he loses fights

wrong, because Defense does not have logistics to bring new stuff(if you strickly speaking about food)

attack their water supply, food supply and just wait, let nature do its

Well uh, his writings are what's been quoted by successful commanders, so they are the benchmark.
>he loses fights
What? Who're you talking about?

so which is easier, spending years learning geometry and mathematics to erect stable walls then spending years erecting a castle

or walking up to a town with an amount of soldiers?

you've already conceded by ignoring my post and saying "hurr, just look at ottoman blunders on wikipedia" but I just thought I'd do one last victory lap around your dumb ass

>his writings are shit
ignored that part, did ya? quote him all you want, you're quoting a fucktard
>hurr but when I read it I just felt like he was super smart because people said he was and and... and all those times he was quoted... so I never bothered to actually digest what he wrote to find how much bullshit is in there

>Guy was literally a general who's saw some shit irl on the frontlines

>Other generals and military leaders through history have literally used his strategies in real fucking frontline shit

Yet

Some turbo autismo shitposter from Sup Forums that the only shit he has seen irl is the skidmarks in his boxers thinks he knows better....

What? Obviously I've read and to some degree digested it. I'm not a military commander, so of course I can't tell its worth as well as an actual military commander. I found it good, and so have many successful commanders. What's so stupid about it, anyway?

>so which is easier, spending years learning geometry and mathematics to erect stable walls then spending years erecting a castle
is that what the peasants had to do in the movie?
romans built simple fortification often before a battle, trenches, spikes. You don't need to build a new castle at the start of every battle like a RTS game.

Show me one siege where the defenders outnumbered the attackers, and lost.

The best tacticians disagree with you.
Historical records disagree with you.
You're objectively wrong.

On the other hand with their wast numbers ronins could encircle bandit camp and and thus turning tables around

how hard do you think it would be to erect a new wall when theyve had architects and have done it a thousand times over

if it was so ineffective, and so time consuming, surely they would have come up with a better way to defend themselves, right?

>I'm not a military commander
clearly. you believe memes because you heard them and can't think for yourself. that's about it

>never read his book to know how bullshit it is
nice meme frog

Ok well you need at least 2x more people to attack so you'd have to have a bunch of babies, half of them would be women so useless, there would be some with deformities and diseases, and the. You'd have to successfully raise them to fighting age then train and supply them in order to even start the attack. Seems a lot harder than finding a couple rocks and dudes that know geometry.

YES YES DEFENSE IS MORE DIFFICULT THAN OFFENSE

HOWEVER

wasn't expecting to see this here, you made me laugh user

building trenches and spikes =/= defense is easier

you're all over the place and you can't even defend the points of your argument. proof once again that attacking is easier than defending, otherwise you wouldn't look like such a fool trying to do it

GET THIS FUCKING MEME OFF MY BOARD ALREADY

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

that same number of men you had to raise would have to carry stones for years ontop of "some guys who know geometry"

nice try, your own logic doesn't even make the point you're trying to

Okay, first good use of that meme.

>this thread

Look man, nobody's gonna care for what you have to say unless you start giving examples of what's so stupid in the book.

>couldn't even give one example

Embarrassing. Leave the thread now, you'll forget this soon.

Birthing, raising, training, and equipping in twice as many people is more resource and time intensive than moving rocks on too of each other.

the whole thing isn't worth a hot shit

pick a fucking page. it's garbage

>have twice/thrice less troops while sieging
>win

Weak, dawg. 1/10 is the best I can give you.

>that same number of men
It would be at worst half the number of the attackers.

Attacking a castle is motherfucking hard with pre-cannon equipment.
Defending literally means "sit tight and shoot the defenseless fucks under your walls"

an example of what? I already schooled you, you've just been in maximum damage control these past 2 posts and trying to move the goal posts because you know your position is... INDEFENSABLE

it just isn't. nice meme

HERE WE GO

you're unfamiliarity with wall and castle construction is glaring. you are done talking about this

your complete lack of military knowledge is apparent with this one post. you're done with this topic

>dubious
>citation needed
>citation needed
>citation needed
You sure know how to pick em.

>Romans versus literally whos
Gee I fucking wonder what

>Moving a heavy rock is harder than creating and maintaining life for a decade and a half to two decades
Oooook

>an example of what?
Is english your first language? Or are you a little bit autistic? You can't follow the simplest conversation.

>new born babies can move rocks
are you just PRETENDING to be stupid? or do you forget you have to grow men to move rocks too?

Dumb loser can't handle being whip

>still ignoring half my post and picking out just one part that you can meme about
yeah, you already conceded 4 posts ago. you're just working out your cognitive dissonance like a baby

get at me once you know anything about what you're talking about

Never said that retard. You still have to raise those adults. Just not nearly as many as the attacking side therefore making your job much easier.

Dumb loser gets whipped harder than he bargained for and trying to find an out

you raise both to age 20. one side moves rocks, the other gets weapons and makes their way to a village

3 months pass the attackers are there and the stone movers have 1/14th of the wall complete

nice meme. tell me who wins

So you realise you're wrong now, you have no evidence, your only counterargument is calling people's arguments memes. I'm glad to have educated you, there's no shame in being mistaken sometimes.

thread objectively answered within the context of the movie in the first few posts,
yet it continues, why?

wasn't that the one where the romans built walls around the town's walls?

>hurr I'll just say he's wrong after I lost the argument 5 posts ago. m-maybe people have forgotten

no, just because you took a few sentences out of my posts and then ignored the rest 5 times in a row after conceding your point doesn't mean we all magically forgot you lost