 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Voltaire
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Aug 2001
time: 22:32
|
|
Alright since no one else will answer I will take over the CMC.
For the time being I think everyone will agree that we need defensive units more so than offensive ones, since we do not have any current invasion plans, and well we have been drawn into a war with the Angels. They have proven to be a threat since they have a transport parked off of our coast. Our defenses frankly are abysmal. We need ?-3-? defense units, we can obtain 3-armor from the Drones, and start building these in our costal bases at first, and then in all the other ones.
Frankly as the Chairman of the Central Military Committee, as well as the Central Continuing Committee, I have no current offensive plans, and well the defense of the Hive remains more paramount than anyone else, therefore let us defend ourselves by constructing better garrison units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rokossovky
|
|
Marshal of the Revolutionary Army of the Socialist People of the Human Hive
May 2003
time: 22:32
|
|
Yup, I'm here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dacole
|
|
Welcome back marshal, glad to see you! My advice for the military would be that we use the strategy kody came up with for defense mainly get the tech from the drones as soon as possible, then cash in some of our crawlers for at least one three based unit in each base.
The best defensive strategies I have seen involve two of the best defense in each base with one movement point. A rover with the best defense in every other city, or in such a manner that each city can have one in it in one turn (this assumes each city is conected to all others with roads) and one best attack unit in the same arrangement. If done correctly this should lead to a potential of three best defense units in each city, and one attacking unit.
As head of the department of interior let me know what you need built and by when (year goal would be nice) and I will do my best to see that it gets done. At this point defense trumps all other concerns (population science, ect)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vev
|
 |
I am so out of touch
Nov 2000
time: 15:32
|
|
While not military planning, the next section is an experimental algorithm for calculating combat odds. Although probably much nicer if I could create/find code to do it.
Combat odds is represented as 'x:y' e.g. '3:2'
Convert this value to:
x/(x+y)
Let p = combat odds represented in same format as above. e.g. 3:2 = 3/5 = 0.6
Let a = your unit's health points
Let b = enemy unit's health points
P(sucess) = SumOf (from 0 to a-1) where (b+n-1 C n) * p^b * (1-p)^n
Avg Hits remaining (needs working) = (SumOf (from 0 to a-1) where (b+n-1 C n) * p^b * (1-p)^n * (a-n)) {/ P(sucess)???}
Last edited by Vev on 03-12-2003 at 09:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rubin
|
 |
Datalinks
Mar 2003
time: 06:32
|
|
Fellow comrades, based on the allocated and available resources for military production and recruitment please allow me to present a few tentative considerations.
Resource Allocation:
The basis of military recruitment and deployment relies on available resources and production/recruitment facilities. It should be our prime concern to present a 5-10 year allocation plan. Acknowledging the need for infrastructure and future considerations, I suggest a gradual reduction in military spending; from 90-100% while the bulk of our forces are being massed; to 10-25% once significant military superiority has been achieved by mid/late 2160's.
Aerial Supremacy (Composition I):
The Cloudbase Academy provides a tremendous advantage to all our aircraft. The versatility and the flexibility of a strong airforce are not to be underestimated. To this, I suggest that the core of our military operations is to rely on a very, very strong airforce--both in quality and quantity.
Naval dominance is costly and inert. Our aerial range should provide for adequate reconnaissance, defense and light offense near our territorial borders. Enemy warships shall be wasted on naval dominance where we have little interest; effectively reducing the cost/efficiency ratio of enemy resource allocation.
Additionally, a strong aerial presence prevents potential enemies to gain aerial momentum. Our bomber class aircraft may additionally reduce the effectiveness of enemy ground defenses; specifically, increasing our chances of successfully invading and occupying enemy territory.
Flexible Support Troops (Composition II):
Given our aerial supremacy we shall require less resources for landbased troops. Our strongest asset is the ability to airdrop into enemy territory.
Depending on the scale of invasion we would need a mix of strong defenders and flexible and fast attackers. While our newly conquered bases provide adequate anti-aircraft measures, our units--when stationed outside bases--and our access and supply routes are still vulnerable to enemy bombers and interceptors. Simple rovers equipped with surface-to-air particle impactors are relatively cheap and excellent for retaliation; upgraded with missile launchers such rovers carry a high level of flexibility. Additional defensive measures could be provided by heavily armored infantry and strategic probes, etc.
Of course, there are many alternatives; this is simply a highly tentative suggestion.
To ensure efficient military production, I strongly suggest that we decide on the basis of a long-term military production plan.
Further areas of importance are aquisition of military technology, homeland defenses, strategic battleplans, etc. However, the complexity of our military options are closely intertwined with our general concept of progess. Hence, these aspects should be closely coordinated--even in times of peace.
Comrade Rubin (Ex-Commander, Ghost Report Excerpt)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jamski
I am a strong follower of "rover defense" i.e. have best-1-2 rovers in each base to attack approaching units. Also artillery combines very well with this 
-Jam |
It's been a long time since I played SMAC/SMAX, but this has largely been what I remember finding effective in the early game, especially when combined with air power (if it is available).
Offensive, speed, and bombardment rock in combination. Having some defensive units around to cover a stack of fast movers doesn't hurt, though. Perhaps we should consider building a few high-defense/low-attack rovers (I think I remember that they're more expensive, but well worth every bit of resources you pour into them).
That said, as long as there's a working road network and you have force superiority (either by quality of troops you can produce or by quantity of troops you can produce), infantry stacks with both high attack and high defense can be devastatingly effective, especially when combined with air power (personally, I found this to be a bit later-game strategy, as infantry units could remain cost effective even when you added all sorts of extra goodies).
It's been a LOOONG time since I played SMAC/SMAX, though, so take anything I say with a pretty heavy grain of salt. 
It also seems that we're on the verge of attacking, so this is probably pretty belated anyhow... just responding to threads I see as they pop up. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snowflake
|
 |
falling, once again
Apr 2003
time: 23:32
|
|
Comrade Rubin presented pretty good suggestions. I concur with him that we should lower the resources spent on military units from 90% to about 15% after the Uni war. Currently our military force consists about 10 choppers, 3 penetrators, 1 interceptor, 2 drop rovers, 4 drop probes, 4 drop plasma garrison, 4 plasma garrison, 5 defense probes and large amount of scout infantry. (I still need to double check the exact number of units.) This composition emphasis attack via "chop and drop". My feeling is we've had rather sufficient air force now. We would need to constantly making up for any units that is lost in action.
Also, if we are going to go to war with CC eventually, we need to be prepared that some of their bases (especially the newly conqured PEACE bases) are sea bases where chop and drop will not work. In other words we may need to discuss if we want to create a larger navy force than we currently have.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-11-2003 20:30
|