 |
Send 9 of our Knights to Parthemunde?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes, send them; 21 knights at Ruhrpott |
   |
14 |
43.75% |
| No, don't send any to Parth; send all 30 to Ruhrpott |
   |
18 |
56.25% |
| Total: |
32 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
Let's try to keep this debate civil, shall we?
As for the topic at hand, I've been discussing the issue with folks in chat from a bit of a different angle that I wanted us to cover it from:
Assume we take down their FP and we fail to take out Parthemunde. Is that sufficient, in your opinion, to allow us the advantage we need to make the next big fight a successful one or to AT LEAST delay and hamper the coming GWT invasion of our continent enough that we will have what it takes to repel them should they land?
If the answer to the question of sufficiency is yes, then the probabilities for success likely mean we should send all 30 knights to Ruhrpott.
I'd estimate that the Ruhrpott area has no more than about 3-4 slowmover defenders (spears or pikes) TOPS, perhaps only 1-2 within one turn's walking distance of Ruhrpott itself and thus able to stand against us. HOWEVER, because CGN went down ahead of schedule and given our best guesses as to GWT's overall military strength, they could split their forces evenly to both cores and have ~25 Ansar Warriors covering each core.
If that is the case, a 21-knight strike at Ruhrpott stands far less chance for success compared to a 30-knight force.
The case where GWT has all ~50 of their Ansar Warriors (perhaps they have as many as 60) stationed within 1 turn of Ruhrpott is NILL becase that would leave their more productive cities in the East completely undefended. That said, the chances that they would split their forces into two groups (one for each core) are relatively high... afterall, that is the defensive strategy adopted by Apolyton on our own continent before we started to prepare for this invasion and a likely strategy by GWT as well.
Even if we give a low-end estimate for GWT forces, it is entirely probable that they will have 15-20 Ansar Warriors within reach of Ruhrpott along with any defenders within reach. 30 knights do indeed stand a better chance of winning such a battle (though 21 might not fair too badly against 15 Ansar Warriors and a few defenders).
The question I've been compelled to ask is the following one:
Is the increased value of taking out Parthemunde worth the increased risk of losing the Ruhrpott strike?
The more information that I gather to make that assessment, the more I must admit that I am forced to answer no. The reason is that even if GWT only stations a 1/3 of their likely Ansar Warriors within 1 turn of Ruhrpott (quite likely), they will have enough to at least place 21 knights in serious risk of losing the battle. If they put as many as half, we stand virtually no chance of winning that fight if they behave aggressively in trying to stop us.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm tempted as much as the next person to try to take down both Ruhrpott and Parthemunde. I was arguing for that earlier in this very thread. Obviously Ruhrpott+Parthemunde is worth more than simply Ruhrpott.
The key piece of information that I needed to make a final conclusion on the issue was what the true relative VALUES of Ruhrpott and Parthemunde are. The answer is that Ruhrpott is worth about 40% of the GWT economy (both GPT and MFG). Partemunde is worth about a 1/3 of that.
So to return to the question I've bolded above... is the potentially substantial drop in the Ruhrpott operation's chance for success justified by the potential ~33% increase in damage to the GWT economy if both succeed together rather than just Ruhrpott?
To answer THAT question, we must determine just how much damage we must do to GWT to be competitive with them in the long run. The answer is, obviously, that we cannot truly KNOW. However, the 40% drop in the GWT economy brought about by the loss of their FP we DO KNOW will cause their gross GPT income (after corruption) and their MFG (after waste) to fall below Apolyton's numbers. With an economic advantage then in hand, Apolyton can then start our Golden Age, swell beyond GWT, and produce a larger army than they can... while their already existent large army weighs down their reduced economy.
I'd make the determination, based upon that, that we don't actually NEED the additional (and far smaller) drop brought about by the loss of Parthemunde. Would it be nice? SURE! But the question is whether it is worth purchasing it by risking the target of much larger value. Now that I've looked at it more thoroughly, the answer seems to be no.
On the other hand, losing at Ruhrpott would practically guarantee our loss of the entire game. We NEED to take out that FP. The entire game seems to be riding on it.
However, playing devil's advocate, I had to ask Trip, E_T, and Kloreep in chat about a number of other possibilities that might play havoc with us taking down their FP. What if GWT gifts their FP core to GCA? What if GCA has a GL and uses it to rush an FP there? What else can GWT do to recover quickly from the loss?
There are two weaknesses to the FP-only assault:
1. Assume that GCA has a GL sitting around. Assume that GWT is willing to trust GCA so thoroughly as to gift them their entire FP core and allow GCA to rush an FP near the old Ruhrpott location. This would give GWT/GCA nearly the same economic potential they had before we took out Ruhrpott, but would make GCA economically more powerful than GWT. Would GWT really do that? Do they trust GCA that much? Would their pride create a problem?
2. If the operations of Apolyton and CFC have too many battles with GWT and they get a GL, we're sunk. Period. The whole operation is pointless.
Combatting #1 isn't really possible. We're just going to have to run that risk.
Combatting #2 is more possible, however. We need to talk with CFC and see if we can figure out ways to minimize ALL military contact between GWT and Apolyon/CFC forces. The fewer battles that give GWT a chance to get a GL, the better. Of course, we want CFC to get their GA, so at least a skirmish with a stray unit if we can find one for them would be nice... but we don't want to give GWT a GL, so CFC needs to be careful. We need to discuss this at length with CFC and what impact it should have on their plans.
---------------
Back to the issue of the thread, however, please record a manual changing of my vote from yes to no.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
Nothing is worth the risk of our Ruhrpott strike failing.
|
THIS, my friends, is the entire crux of the argument.
Ruhrpott is THE main objective of this attack, nothing we do can risk that this operation fails. Will it fail? We don't know. Hell, it might well succeed along with Parthemunde, though admittedly the odds of both succeeding are minimal.
My question is, what would we rather live with:
1) A complete failure on both fronts knowing perhaps that we might have won at Ruhr with 9 extra knights?
2) A failure on Ruhr alone knowing that GWT was just too damn powerful for our meager invasion force.
I hate living with "could have beens". If I fail, I want to fail knowing I gave it ALL for what I wanted to achieve. If our invasion leads to disaster, I'll be content at least knowing that this great idea ran up against a wall of superior enemy forces, and that there was no way around it.
I would HATE to live thinking "gee, what if we have had those 9 knights at Ruhr"...
Let's not hesitate, go full swing for our main objective, and let the deciding factor be our two team's strengths, not our indecision or ambition.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
I hate living with "could have beens". |
Gee, what if we had had those 9 Knights at Parthemunde...we could've took that goddamn Colossus away from them...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
Whatever, BigFree. The vote is still going negative as things are, even if you count my vote as "yes" (which is currently reflected in the poll result).
We have allowed people to swtich votes before, however. It has so many numerous precedents here that I would consider it beyond question.
I also resent the implication you make with your note about lying. My initial reaction was an honest reaction to what I saw (and still see) as the "OMFG, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!111!!" reaction I saw and see from E_T and company. I sided with you and Togas in believing that they were irrationally fearing the chances of an obtainable goal.
What I then did was, rather than blindly run out here calling people cowards or attacking the people calling people cowards as idiots or any other such disgusting argument.... was to actually take a critical look at the issues involved and attempt to really determine the value of the Parthe strike versus the drop in probability of success for the Ruhr strike.
The result of my investigation of that is that I have been forced to change my opinion. That reflects an honest willingness to do what is best for the country, even if it involves admitting that my earlier impression was wrong.
It worries me when I see so many of our leadership, most particularly including yourself, seemingly having lost sight of the fact that it's not important whether YOU are right or wrong, but whether what we do for the team is right. Frankly, I'm disapponted in both sides of this argument in that regard - people are making up their minds far too quickly, closing them and going on the attack rather than actually investigating things. If this continues, it will be our undoing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2004 07:02
|