 |
| |
|
|
vulture
|
 |
Leeds, UK
Jun 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
I've been doing a bit of number-crunching for defense analysis (also relevant to the attack on Lego). The scenario is a simplistic one - an attack on a civ with 6 cities: 3 coastal, 3 inland. The defender has 30 infantry. I assume that all coastal cities get the same number of defenders, and all inland cities get the same no. (e.g. 4 in every inland city, 6 in every coastal one).
The first attacker has 40 marines and 20 tanks. Results in table below.
Column 1 (#coastal) is no. of infantry per coastal city.
Column 2 (#inland) is no. of infantry per inland city.
Column 3 (marine) is % chance of marines taking one coastal city
Column 4 (n) is average no. of inland cities taken by the tanks if the marines land.
Column 5 (N) is the average number of cities taken in the attack (n + 1 (for coastal city) multiplied by prob. of succesful landing). This last column is slightly controversial, so bear with me.
code:
#coastal #inland marines n N
10 0 59.1 3.00 2.36
9 1 80.7 3.00 3.23
8 2 93.9 2.99 3.75
7 3 98.9 2.67 3.63
6 4 99.9 1.95 2.95
5 5 100. 1.43 2.43
4 6 100. 1.08 2.08
3 7 100. 0.97 1.97
2 8 100. 0.87 1.87
1 9 100. 0.68 1.68
0 10 100. 0.43 1.43
Why is the last column controversial? you ask. Well, consider the last row. With 0 defenders in the coastal cities, there is a good chance that more than just the target city will fall. If tanks or marines can reach cities along the coast, those cities are toast. If one of the inner cities falls it may allow access to an undefended coastal city. Worst case scenario, all 3 coastal cities fall. But maybe they can't all be reached. So the N value for the final row is either 1.43, 1.43 or 3.43, depending on geography (i.e. it is very situation-dependent).
Case 1: no extra cities can be reached, and the table is accurate as it stands. Peversely, the best approach is to empty the coastal cities entirely, and stack the inland cities with defenders (really, you should count unthreatened coastal cities as inland cities for this purpose). Since you don't have enough defenders to stop the marines, realistically speaking, then your choice is essentially to let them use 40 marines to take a city killing 0 defenders, and then 20 tanks aganist all 30 infantry, or to let them use 40 marines to take a city killing say 3 defenders (without changing the odds of them taking the city), and then having 3 fewer defenders to defend against the tanks.
In case 1, the worst scenario is to put 7 defenders in each coastal city - getting the maximum number killed (with fewer to defend inland cities) without significantly affecting the odds of keeping that city anyway.
Case 2: all coastal cities can easily be reached. N for the last row is 3.43, and for the 1/9 row is probably close to that as well. The number at 5/5 is pretty much accurate - ignoring the effect of marines being able to assault a second city (we assume only tanks can do it). So we have minimum values at 10/0 and probably 4/6 (that's guesswork - it could be 5/5 or somewhere below that). We have maximum values at 8/2 and 0/10 (or 1/9 - it's hard to know).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vulture
|
|
Leeds, UK
Jun 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
Part 2: much the same as before, but now we have 30 marines and 30 tanks (rather than 40/20).
code:
#coastal #inland marines n N
10 0 00.8 3.00 0.33
9 1 21.9 3.00 0.88
8 2 45.2 3.00 1.81
7 3 72.4 3.00 2.90
6 4 91.7 2.90 3.58
5 5 98.7 2.38 3.34
4 6 99.9 1.94 2.94
3 7 100. 1.59 2.59
2 8 100. 1.22 2.22
1 9 100. 1.04 2.04
0 10 100. 0.99 1.99
The N values for the last few lines have the same problems as before: the last one could be 1.99 or 3.99.
It matters less in this case though, because the 10/0 strategy is so much better than the alternatives, subject to one caveat. The 10/0 startegy is a gamble - 92% chance of losing nothing, vs 8% of losing everything, whereas with the 5/5 strategy you're looking at a pretty reliable loss of 3 cities no matter which way the RNG goes. Which is better depends on game circumstances - which cities are most valuable to keep? Is losing 3 cities as bad as losing all of them in practical terms (doomed, but going down fighting for a bit longer)? Those kinds of questions can't be compensated for except in a specific scenario.
The conclusions I draw from this preliminary stuff are:
if you have the defensive manpower to have a good chance of stopping a marine attack on the beach, the 'shell' strategy is (probably) a good bet. That way you neutralise the tank part of his force, and don't lose a city.
If the attacker is going to have a good chance of taking a coastal city regardless of what you do, and if only one or two cities are under threat from marine attack, then a very light presence in those cities is the way to go, with the infantry defending the interior cities instead. If lots of cities are under threat, you probably want to defend them to a greater extent to avoid giving away too many cities for free.
Some more caveats and notes: infantry in these scenarios have a defence of 22.5 (+100% terrain / city bonus, plus fortified). In all the scenarios thanks only attack inland cities - allowing them to attack the coastal cities as well adds another layer of complexity to the simulations, which would take a while to sort out. Hence in the 10/0 scenario, 30 tanks may well be able to take another coastal city (95% chance, 0.01% chance of taking both) as an example. This screws up all of the above numbers of course, but hopefully a) I can sort something out to improve on this, and b) the conclusions might not be too sensitive to this change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:36
|
|
okay, let's apply this to our current situation. Right now, there are no tanks (Lego won't have them before turn 245), but we face marines in 9 turns. Lego has what we assume, plenty of cavs, and enough marines to take out any city. So, at first, we go for a more shell like approach, with interior cities only defended with 1 or 2 defenders (just to not give them away to wandering cavs). Over the turns, Lego's marine potential increases, and we add more defenders to the interior, especially once we know they've got tanks?
Sounds good to me. What about the ration of defenders in cities, as to defenders on mountains / hills? are we going to leave flat land undefended?
The problem I'm seeing is that currently, we have no way of attacking any invasion force. We're good at defending, but not counting our cats, we only have offensive power of 4 in a couple of knights, and in the rifles... it would be devastating if Lego simply lands a bunch of infs on our coast, we can't defend against that! (Don't give them any ideas)
I'll repeat my request: it is time for a precise, and detailed defense plan, or there is no way we can implement it before Lego is able to do serious damage to us
(the simulations are nice, vulture, don't get me wrong!)
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cort Haus
We'll need Rubber from GoW not later than two turns before Lego get Amphib to upgrade the Rifles. |
that was my idea as well, but if we can avoid that, and have 2 more turns, it would help me a lot in economical planning. Otherwise, we should mobilize earlier, as infs can't be efficiently built without it. (tanks can't either)
quote:
Could Destroyers be our best offensively-defensive weapon? Trouble is, you can't converge them on one point - which is what we're basing our attack aspirations on. |
No indeed, they have disadvantages. Most importantly to me: if we show Lego we've got tons of destroyers, they will build their navy as well, making it more difficult for us to destroy their pickets when the time comes.
quote:
Artillery and Bombers are a good way of taking HP from Inf pre-Tanks, but we still need something to finish them off. Guerillas? They attack with six, don't they? |
I think so. We could upgrade our MI, we've got more then a couple of them. However, are we going to do it as a precaution, or once we see Lego approaching our coast?
quote:
How long between when Lego could have Marines and we can have Tanks? |
1 or 2 turns at most. I think they will appear at the same time.
Other replies later, got to run
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:36
|
|
One of the problems I see is that some of Lego's pickets can threaten our coast right now. Also, what are we going to do if Lego destroys our pickets? So far, I spotted 2 ironclads, which would easily destroy 2 galleons, leaving a big gap for them to navigate through.
Should we upgrade our galleons to transports now? Do we have to avoid that? How are we going to make the transition from our picket line to offensive mode, without warning Lego 3 or 4 turns in advance something is happening?
Also, some other things: I would rather not start naming alll our units, but wouldn't naming our transports help? It does igve info to the enemy, so we rather not overdo it, but as you can see from the turn report, it looks a mess.
I would really prefer named positions on a map (e.g. post a map, name some spot "picket1", indicate a destroyer should be present there), so I can use this while playing, and while reporting.
CH, more questions: I don't know how active Lego still is, but it's safe to assume that Vondrack holds the biggest influence in the team. He had before, and probably still does. They have never been true builders, and certainly aren't right now.
How much troops can they commit? Well, seeing that their productive power is 731 (Thanks Krill!), they are probably producing less then we are. We've got less waste, and are using almost all our shields efficiently. So they can wield about the same forces as us, with similar risk. However, they still need infrastructure: they will be finishing their factories now, and probably want coal plants as well. Plus, in a few turns, they will get Sanitation from Vox. I'm hoping that because of this, we will outproduce them in # of forces. Right now, we're vulnerable to them...
Upgrading is a big question: We've got plenty of units laying around, and have cash. However, are we going to upgrade now, and rise in power already, or wait for as long as possible, and only upgrade at the last possible moment?
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cort Haus
|
 |
London
Apr 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
reposted - also on T217 thread
quote:
I've had a look at which of our towns connect to which in the event of a succesful amphibious invasion into one of our ports. The bad news is that with 3 move units, they can hit every one of our inland cities (and coastal cities for that matter, apart from Inchoff), starting from any port.
With 2 move units invading, taking any port south of Monsoon or Hurricans (including both cities) gives access to the entire south. Dissidentville, Santa Ana and the port next to SA (whose name I can neither remember nor read on the screenshots I have) from an isolated group across the middle - and invasion could take all three, but with two move units couldn't get any further. Everything from Inchoff upwards is isolated from the south with regard to two move units. EXCEPTION: if Dissidentville remains with its current lack of culture, that is a gateway from a northern invasion. It need to get to 100 culture to control D'ville 88, which is enough to protect it against a 2 move invasion from the north.
Invasions in RP territory at any port can chain through to Elipolis (they have to go through San Antonio with 2 move units), and can't get any further than Elipolis, Inchon and Winds of Change in a single turn.
So a pure tank invasion could take out all our good cities in one turn, landing in any of the southern ports, or take out RP and our three north-most cities with a northern invasion. If they are daft enough to invade the D-ville belt they get three towns. A cavalry / ansar / rider invasion can in principle take everything in one turn, and has no problems with artillery support for cavalry attacks (although the artillery will have to be stationed outside of towns).
Sticking to talking about 2 move units, there aren't reall any funnel points for fighting in the south, beyond the fact that the only route between the west coast towns and the southeast is through Sandstorm and then Eye of the Storm. EotS can only be reached from Hurricane, Cyclone or Sandstorm. Sandstorm can only be reached from EotS, Arashi and Tempest.
|
and here are the diags.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
One of the problems I see is that some of Lego's pickets can threaten our coast right now. Also, what are we going to do if Lego destroys our pickets? So far, I spotted 2 ironclads, which would easily destroy 2 galleons, leaving a big gap for them to navigate through.
|
Should we raise this as an issue with lego. Perhaps we could move a ship within landing range of their coast and then negotiate a withdrawal to neutral sea?
Or just let it go and hope for the best...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
yeah, a simple note asking them to kindly move out of range of our coast would be appropriate, assuming we don't have any ships in asimilar situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:36
|
|
What do you mean, Krill? I don't understand... They have a line of picket ships on both their West, and their East. It's not all around our coast, and we have spotted the scouts on their Bobian side as well. Of course, they have moved their ships as close to ours as possible, to have the biggest warning time, it's just that in one case, it's a bit closer then we consider polite. Previously, we didn't care, but now it becomes dangerous (well, not the 3 marines that could be loaded on the caravel, of course, it's out of principle we can ask)
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
I think thats a good message to send. Polite. would be interesting to see their response.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
I'll send it to Vondrack in a minute. Its been awhile since we've contacted them, so...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
too bad privateers are so weak, I wish we could kill it and not give them the happiness bounce
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-06-2004 20:17
wonder how they will respond. Wouldn't it be funny if they declared war? by forcing the issue before they get marines,they either declare war and not do anything for ~5 turns or they back down to a weaker position 
|