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.

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.

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

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!

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.