 |
| |
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:20
|
|
As of the turn just played we have thrown the gauntlet down - either CDG surrenders everything to us next turn, or we are at war. Although PAL's declaration of war on CDG was ahead of schedule and took us a little off guard (see the urgent message from PAL thread for details), we are getting involved now too.
We have our troops in two Stacks, as is the long-tested way of conducting wars in Civ3. These stacks are comprised of mostly Hoplites and Swordmen, but there is an Archer in one stack and two Horsemen currently in another. There is also a Warrior along for the ride.
Currently, we have Stack one, of two Hoplites, two Swordmen and two Horsemen on hills just outside the CDG city of Shaharazade, able to attack next turn.
Now what we need to do is decide what to do with Stack two. At present we haven't compromised on either of the two possibilities that have been mentioned in chat so far.
Possiblity One
We can keep the original plan of having two stacks go two separate ways. Stack one is through the south part of CDG, starting with Shaharazade and going onwards towards Possumopolis. Stack two could go to the hlls NW of Minnesota, and get there in two turns, ready to attack on turn three.
Pros
- Covers the whole border with CDG
- Prevents any offensive/pillaging force they may have from getting to us
Cons
Possiblity Two
The new proposal that just came up is that Stack two ignores Minnesota completely and goes straight to join Stack one in the assault on Shaharazade.
Pros
- concentrates our forces
- helps prevent a single run of bad luck from ruining a stack.
Cons
- Leaves the border of the new city (with but a single Hoplite in it) undefended next to CDG.
- taking all of CDG will either take longer if we focus at one place at a time or PAL will take more, making negotiations potentially tougher
So now we have to decide which. Where do we send Stack 2?
No time limit on this poll, but realistically voting and discussion finishes when we get and have to play the next turn, which will probably be within a few days.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
maybe joining will be wise. If we keep them together we will advance slower but we will be able to make two waves - the first one captures a city, the seconds advances towards the next target. The first one heals and advances while the second heals. If we find an obstacle both stacks will attack together and heal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
|
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
Join stack one.
Personally, I would rather the MOW/Consuls chose what to do, and not the voters. Look at what happened to CGN. We are in a worse situation than they were. |
In these DGs, the Consuls have pretty much always reserved the right to do what they think is best (which is what they are elected for, as opposed to the role of the President in a single player DG), but the views of the team are very important, and it would only be a sure Consul who disobeyed them.
We'll certainly be attacking with stack 1 first, and assessing what happens from there. I guess that if we don't take Shahara with the one stack, then stack 2 will certainly go to join them. Otherwise... well we'll see.
I still favour splitting them up provided stack one is successful and does not suffer many casualties. It might tempt PAL to attack and trigger the GA, something that is less likely the bigger the stack you have. It prevents them sending anything past Draco (the new city) to pillage, and if we lose a few units GOOD - we can't support them all in a Republic anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
I'd prefer to attack Shaz with stack 1 and then see how things turn out. If we need stack 2, we'll join them, but I'm leaning towards hitting Minnesota with 2 because the longer this war drags on, the worse it will be for us.
The reason this war got started early was that PAL came to the conclusion that CDG had made contact with another civ. We rushed into battle to reduce the possibility that another civ would help CDG in some material way ... be it a tech gift (Masonry, for example), or worse, a gift of cities.
The longer this war drags on, the more opportunities CDG will get to convince some other civ to give them a liferaft ... or worse, they'll put a settler on a galley and take off on their own.
As I believe speed is of the essense, and I believe that CDG will not likely be prepared to fend us off (they are mil weak to us, and have always been, even before we upgraded to swords) ... a blitz attack from multiple directions taking multiple targets out at once is our best move, and assuming Stack 1 succeeds in their blitz attack, Stack 2 should certainly head to Minnesota, as that is their most valuable city.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
|
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
Instead of posting at Banana that we don't know what we're going to do and that we'll do whatever PAL tells us to do, we need to post:
1) Our attack on Shaz will determine if we need to move Stack 2 to back up Stack 1.
2) If Stack 1 easily takes the city, we will move Stack 2 to take down Minnesota.
Essentially, our choice is to either have Three groups of attackers (PAL, APO1, APO2) on CDG, or just have two stacks, one of each allied nation. With three groups, we can take down CDG much faster, and limit CDG's opportunities to escape, fortify, or aquire aid.
The cities with the highest priority should be the coastal cities, which are CDG's best avenues of escape. Minnesota, while powerful, is not an urgent target.
We would be foolish to leave our Eastern flank unprotected while sticking all of our military might in the far south-east. CDG could counter us through Draco and we'd have a tough time returning to counter them. This is an area that we should apply military pressure and in conjunction with our southern attack and PAL's northern attack, CDG will be squeezed from all possible sides.
Lastly, can we post to the banana exchange some actual plans and assert our ideas? I'm not going to post them, as my status as PAL curmudegon makes anything I say seem ill-spirited, but I'd like to see us post with confidence and argue our position, instead of meekly giving PAL data and asking them what we should do.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
conmcb25
|
 |
Angmar
Aug 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
Instead of posting at Banana that we don't know what we're going to do and that we'll do whatever PAL tells us to do, we need to post:
1) Our attack on Shaz will determine if we need to move Stack 2 to back up Stack 1.
2) If Stack 1 easily takes the city, we will move Stack 2 to take down Minnesota.
Essentially, our choice is to either have Three groups of attackers (PAL, APO1, APO2) on CDG, or just have two stacks, one of each allied nation. With three groups, we can take down CDG much faster, and limit CDG's opportunities to escape, fortify, or aquire aid.
The cities with the highest priority should be the coastal cities, which are CDG's best avenues of escape. Minnesota, while powerful, is not an urgent target.
We would be foolish to leave our Eastern flank unprotected while sticking all of our military might in the far south-east. CDG could counter us through Draco and we'd have a tough time returning to counter them. This is an area that we should apply military pressure and in conjunction with our southern attack and PAL's northern attack, CDG will be squeezed from all possible sides.
Lastly, can we post to the banana exchange some actual plans and assert our ideas? I'm not going to post them, as my status as PAL curmudegon makes anything I say seem ill-spirited, but I'd like to see us post with confidence and argue our position, instead of meekly giving PAL data and asking them what we should do.
--Togas |
I think you are looking at this incorrectly based on a less then acurate choice of words by GodKing.
PAL is asking us what we should do. And what they should do. And I think we should base our moves on how there next turn comes out.
They have the fast movers we do not.
The goal is to get rid of CDG as quickly as possible, I dont care who takes Minnesota, we are getting all those cities anyway in the end.
And if this is one big back stab as some of you suspect it aint gonna make any difference anyway. Once the Pyramids are built we are screwed.
So I would strongly suggest we try to start actually working with them vice always demanding stuff. This needs to be a marriage with give and take.
And right now they are by a quite a large margin bringing home the larger paycheck.
Either we are allied or we are not. If we cant give this alliance a chance then why did we get into it in the first place?
I would really like to get Big Free over to the bananacookieexchange to start coordinating the moves with PAL.
One thing I can definately say from real life experience is no military plan survives the first 30 seconds of execution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
We would be foolish to leave our Eastern flank unprotected while sticking all of our military might in the far south-east. CDG could counter us through Draco and we'd have a tough time returning to counter them...--Togas |
I don't think CDG are able to counter attack. They have raised already one city and are going back to their capitol.
If we move the second stack towards Minnesotta it is very likely they will abandon it too, i.e. we may destroy them without even a single fight (not very likely however).
So, Shaharazade is raised and stack 1 is unharmed. The plan was to move stack 2 towards Minn and I think we should attack there. This will bring us at the gates of Zarigueya too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
|
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
Con, you've gotten to the point where you simply quote my posts and fail to read them. It's extremely frustrating.
Your point is: We should coordinate with PAL and we should trust PAL and we should base our plans off of what they do.
My point is: We need to tell PAL what we plan to do, period. We should not wait for them to give us instructions. We need to tell them that we plan to take Minnesota. If they have a better suggestion, let them make it, we can talk it over, but right now we're not pushing forward our own plans for fear that we might clash with PAL's plans.
PAL's next move will be to take the city closest to them, and they will then move down the coast to take on the next closest city. Why the reluctance to go for Minnesota on our part? What I don't get is the reluctance of our diplomats to adopt our current military plans and put them forward.
Should Bigfree become active and get involved and propose to us an alternate plan, we'll go with that, but for now, we have a plan in the works, so let's TALK TO THEM about our plan, okay?
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
PAL already said they are in front of Reikjavik and the next logical step is Zarigueya to eliminate the possibility for an escaping settler. This means we should keep with our initial plan which included taking Minnesotta on turn 90-91
So, I have changed my mind and I think we should move both stacks separately for now
Last edited by ormuzd on 10-11-2004 at 00:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Prot
|
|
Valetta, Malta
Jan 2004
time: 05:20
|
|
Keep them seperate. I'm a CDG sleeper that wants you to have your forces divided, just before we slaughter you.
Errr, no I'm not.
I am also worried about them escaping with a settler.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-10-2004 14:31
|