 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
OK, I am going to think aloud here for a bit...
First... with 5 DDs capable of striking at three different tiles around NGSF (W, SW, S), I don't believe it would be wise to "box" NGSF in - the SGSF DDs would break the siege and let NGSF transports out, no doubt about that. GS might lose a DD or two or three, but we would lose a BB or two, too... and if there is no real hope of keeping NGSF out at sea, let's forget about keeping it out at sea and plan for seeing NGSF cargo landed next turn. Let's just try to force them to land where we would like them to, rather than where they would like to...
NGSF can theoretically attack three cities: Forkmouth, Sandonorico, and Quanto Mechanico.
Out of these three, Sandonorico is the one with the worst defense situation. Just a city, on flat land... our fortified defenders here receive 10+50+25=85% bonus "only". Infantries still kill attacking marines in 87.2% cases, but basically this is where two marines get close to having 50% chances of killing one defending infantry. We would certainly be able to hold the city even against all 47 GS marines, but the losses would probably be quite high.
We could, however, make Sandonorico totally safe by using our three high-health BBs (5/5, 4/5, and 4/4) to block the tiles NW, W, and SW of the city. If you check the combat calculator, the chances of a 4/4 transport breaking through a 4/x BB are virtually nil. Even 4 4/4 transports combined still have less than 1% chance to break through. Despite my belief in "mathematical odds" having been shattered on more than one occasion (last time just few hours ago), I would still consider this as bullet-proof as we can get. GS would have to be totally nuts to even try anything like that.
This would take another city out of the defense equation (Tipperary is already out), leaving us with only 3 cities to defend against amphibious attacks on the West Coast (and 2 more on the East Coast). With 93 infantries available, we would be close to 20 infantries per every threatened city, which is again as bullet-proof as we can get (you need at least 4 vet marines to have slightly better odds than 50% to kill an infantry fortified in any of those cities). And I am not even considering our 27 tanks...
So... simply blocking Sandonorico would allow us to stuff our exposed cities up with defenders enough to rule out surprises.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
Well, I am getting too tired. It's 3am here and I need to get some sleep. There is a number of ideas whirling in my head, but I have to force myself to shut the computer down and go to bed.
As we really have to think hard how to use our unexpected victory best, I suggest the following:
1) after waking up, I will post battle logs in the public forum
2) I will tell other teams that due to the unexpected outcome of the naval battles, we will need some extra time to discuss our strategy
3) throughout the day, I will do my best to post detailed plans on the defense, new builds, and everything else
4) after you come back home tomorrow, you will comment, suggest changes etc. - I will do my best to be in the chat and forum around that time
5) I will play the turn Saturday early morning, after waking up, forwarding it to the GS then
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
Blocking Sand does seem to be all we can do. I was trying to figure out how to block both Sand and Forkmouth; but while a six-tile line NE of the transports would do it, we just don't have enough full-health ships to be able to do that reliably. We'd have to stuff Forkmouth anyway just in case they went for the unorthodox move of breaking through a weak part of the line with their transports. |
Yes, unfortunately, that's my assessment of the situation, too. While 4hp BBs are simply impossible to sink with eleven 4hp transports (unless you risk losing all their cargo before landing it), 2hp BBs are a different story. Three 4/4 transports would have 30%+ chance to sink it, breaking through our line (and let's not forget there is that GS carrier that can take an hp off the BB). I believe GS would risk 3-5 transports to break through - would be an acceptable price for taking an undefended coastal city of ours.
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
Also, I don't know what uses you were thinking of for the workers, V, but we really should add some to Abilene so they can't bombard our +100% metro bonus there down to a +50% city bonus. Adding to Quantum, Dye Fields, and Jackson wouldn't hurt either; Quantum is only 3 pop points away from becoming a city. |
Will surely do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
And a miscellaneous note we'll hopefully be having to worry about down the road: Crossing doesn't have a barracks. Neither does Jackson now. They'll both need barracks in order to build civil defense. |
Yeah, I was thinking about rebuilding the barracks in Jackson this turn (instead of doing a 1t fighter here). We could max the city growth out, adding 1 pop point naturally - and we will need those barracks in 1265AD, after GoW lands.
As for Crossing... dunno. It does not seem to be under any direct threat ATM. And will finish a submarine next turn. So, maybe afterwards. Probably after finishing the sub, yeah.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
Some observations:
1. From their current position both GS stacks can reach Quanto mechanico. Not only that, but they can land on the hill south of Quanto with evrything the have, including marines, which is not good. Is there any way to block that hill? Probably not. (not enough defenders). Though we may put a few infantries there and build a fortheress.
2. Are we going to defend the fortified hill N-N from Quanto? Is there any way to block the access to it?
3. What about the fortress N-N from Abilene? Are we going to let it there? Probably not, but I thought I mention it.
4. OK, a bit of brainstorming: since GS doesn't have enough DDs to keep the transports maneuvering in the seas, they will land this turn. Now: where? There are 2 possibilities: either on a tile wher several cities are threatened (Abilene N-N, QM N-N, FM SE-SE) or on a tile right next to a city, if they decide to land he marines as well (though the southern fleet is pretty safe, so they may keep it on the sea and move the marines in tha stack). So let's check all the possible landing tiles and the possible counter-measures we can take.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
1. From their current position both GS stacks can reach Quanto mechanico. Not only that, but they can land on the hill south of Quanto with evrything the have, including marines, which is not good. Is there any way to block that hill? Probably not. (not enough defenders). Though we may put a few infantries there and build a fortheress. |
I would actually welcome such a landing. GS could not use their combat settlers and we could concentrate our defenses (infantry supported by a handful of artillery) on the West Coast into a single city, which would make taking it very difficult. There are much worse scenarios than this one, I am afraid.
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
2. Are we going to defend the fortified hill N-N from Quanto? Is there any way to block the access to it? |
We can put two 1/4 DDs and a 2/4 BB right W of this hill fortress, and one 2/4 and one 1/4 BB right NW of it. GS would be able to attack the tile W with their 4/4 DD and the (probably empty) 4/4 transport, currently with the carrier. This would not be enough to break through and they would have to start throwing loaded transports at our ships. That would make no sense - better land the cargo somewhere we will have to engage it.
So, yes, I believe we can prevent GS from landing on this hill fortress. They may be able to land there, but their losses would likely be high enough to make the landed stack quite weak.
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
3. What about the fortress N-N from Abilene? Are we going to let it there? Probably not, but I thought I mention it. |
This is one of the key tiles, I believe. This is the only tile GS can combine all their landed forces on, while getting into a position to choose from two different city targets on the following turn. Imagine their 68 tanks being able to strike at both Abilene and Q.M. - we would likely have to plan for losing one of the cities.
After crunching some defense numbers, I am afraid we do not have enough units to try preventing GS from landing here... more in a separate post later today.
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
4. OK, a bit of brainstorming: since GS doesn't have enough DDs to keep the transports maneuvering in the seas, they will land this turn. Now: where? There are 2 possibilities: either on a tile wher several cities are threatened (Abilene N-N, QM N-N, FM SE-SE) or on a tile right next to a city, if they decide to land he marines as well (though the southern fleet is pretty safe, so they may keep it on the sea and move the marines in tha stack). So let's check all the possible landing tiles and the possible counter-measures we can take. |
Q.M. N-N we can pretty much prevent GS from landing on. Landing there would almost certainly cost them more than what the hill defense bonus would be worth.
F'mouth SE-SE I would certainly not mind seeing GS landing on. Forkmouth would only be attackable over a river (25% defense bonus to us), making the odds of a 4/4 tank to kill a 4/4 fortified infantry in Forkmouth just 27.1%. Considering that GS is unlikely to have all their tanks concentrated in NGSF, we'd be fine.
F'mouth W-NW would actually be a more likely landing zone, should GS go for split landings - same situation as with F'mouth SE-SE, but no river-crossing handicap.
Abilene N-N is IMHO the most likely landing zone. Allows GS to combine their landed stacks, allows them to combine transports still loaded with marines and give them maximum protection (6 DDs) - by positioning the marine-loaded transports at Q.M. W-W-W-SW (posing a threat to both Abilene and Q.M.). We'd have difficulties cracking through this escort - our BBs would be out of range. We would have to rely on bombing (3 bombers and 5 BBs max), submarines (4 of them could be around), and DDs - the way I see it, we would have 3 4/x DDs (H.B.S. Myrmidon and H.B.S. Apollon at 4/5 and 1 rushed 4/4 DD from Q.M.) and maybe 1 rushed 3/3 DD from Abilene. That's 5 bombings and 8 head-on attacks. We'd have to have 1260AD luck to crack through.
OTOH, though, with some successful bombing, we might be able to prevent the marines from this combined fleet from doing any harm to us - by simply blocking the tiles at Q.M. West and Abilene W & SW. Since we would be stacking a shitload of defenders in these two cities anyway, stuffing like 4-5 vessels per tile should do the trick with reasonable odds. Q.M. West would be within the reach of all 7 battleships and both 1/4 DDs. Abilene tiles would be within the reach of 3 4/4 transports, 2 4/5 DDs, one 2/4 & one 1/3 DD plus some subs and whatever we manage to rush in Tipperary, Abilene, and Q.M. Up to 10 vessels, 5 per tile - considering GS would have 6 DDs maximum to attack (hardly full health), that should be enough to prevent an amphibious assault at any of the two cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
I'e just had a thought... trying to see the whole defense strategy from a different perspective... looking beyond just this one turn, anticipating things to come.
GS has 2 fleets of 11 transports each. That's 2*(8*11)=176 units. Their rooster shows 5 settlers, 3 explorers, 47 marines, 40 infantry, and 68 tanks... that's 163 units. I'm not exactly thrilled to admit there would be space enough for those 18 mech. infantries, too... actually, it seems almost certain they are part of the invasion forces. 
Well, whatever...
Let's look at it this way: GS most probably split their forces pretty evenly. NGSF was a bit stronger, but we sank two transports, so both groups are likely to be about the same strenght. If GS marines are split about evenly, that would be like 24 marines per fleet (3 full transports), leaving space enough for 64 land-combat units.
Now, if GS landed their forces split, we'd have 62 artillery pieces and about 35 tanks to strike them with. That should hopefully be enough to cripple one of these stacks so that we could kind of ignore it - focusing our defenses on the remaining two invading stacks, one of which would only be around 30-35 tanks.
I'd be suprised if GS didn't realize this (basically, they'd have to not know about our arty - if they know about it, they must know about the tanks, too, and in turn, they would know everything they need to know to avoid doing this splitting mistake).
So... I'd take it for almost granted GS will try to combine their land forces. There is only one area allowing that - between Q.M. and Abilene. Basically, only 2 tiles come into play:
Q.M. South - because it is a hill, granting extra 50% defense. The only hill within the GS range, actually (assuming we block the one between Sandonorico and Q.M.). However, if they land here and combine their forces, they will only be threatening one city: Q.M. And they would not be able to use their combat settlers either.
They would have to rely on taking the city - and that we should be able to prevent, I believe. Even if we had to abandon one other threatened city (on the East Coast) to allow for concentrated defenses of two cities only, we should be able to keep Q.M. - and grant us one more turn of tank production and arty barrage.
Abilene N-N - flat land, but allows threatening two cities on the following turn. Exposes landed units to possibly heavy arty bombardment with minimal cover. However - with the combined number of infantries approximately equal to the number of our arty pieces, GS would not have to worry. Their tank corps would remain intact, ready to unleash hell one turn later. We would most probably have to abandon Abilene on the following turn, so that we could focus our defenses on Q.M. only (and still be far from safe).
And let's not forget that we might be forced to abandon one other city on the East Coast to be able to ensure no city lost to the invading GoW hordes.
Mulling this over and over, this leads me to believe that preventing GS from combining their forces at Abilene N-N should be one of our priorities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
Keeping Abilene N-N
Considering what I just posted in the previous post, I believe that preventing GS from landing at Abilene N-N must be our topmost priority. If we leave it undefended, using defenders elsewhere to raise our odds from 95% to 97% (you get the idea), we would sure survive this coming turn with less stress, feeling that little bit safer about our cities...
...but on the turn following the landings, we would be screwed. Royally screwed. We would have 68 GS tanks knocking on the doors of Abilene and Q.M. And 52 GoW tanks knocking on the doors of Jackson & Dye Fields, or Dye Fields & Tarzania. "There would be no stopping GoW/GS", to paraphrase BigFree...
Sure, we might hope GS misses this possibility. Might we? Sigh. No, not really... those guys are smart. Real smart. They would not miss it. Hoping they would miss it would be a much bigger gamble than hoping 10 infantries could keep a city against 30 marines, IMHO.
So... I am going to search for possible reserves we could use to make sure GS does not land on Abilene N-N. Actually, I seem to be getting to the crux of our plans for the rest of this turn... deploying our defenses.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
Moving over to the East... by the same token:
21) use 3 cavalries to destroy the fortress N-N of Dye Fields
22) use 3 cavalries to destroy the fortress N-N of Tarzania
These two must go, too.
Eastern Theatre
The situation in the East upon opening the save:
All we can do here is to turtle...
Though, we can at least try finding out what we are going to face here in 1265AD. We can see the GoW Armada (it is E-E-NE-NE-NE of Dye Fields), but not their carriers. Plus, we cannot see 2 transports (there are 19 of them in the Armada, but GoW's rooster shows 21 of them), which makes a transport chain possible - if we could rule such a chain out or confirm it, we could better rely on the number of GoW marines attacking us on the East Coast.
A transport chain would need a transport parked within 5 tiles of the Armada:
As you can see from the picture, we can check almost all of the tiles a transport link would have to be parked at. The four tiles in the South can be safely ignored, since they are too far away from the GoW mainland.
Interestingly, I've just realized no tile within the 5-tile radius around the GoW Armada can be reached with a transport sailing out from Zayrut or Deep Dark Dungeon. And only two such tiles are within the reach of a transport sailing out of Zenophobia (though chaining units through Zenophobia would require another transport taking the units from Bob to Baby Bob...).
Either way, even if we spot a transport link somewhere within that radius, a maximum of 8 marines/units only will be able to join the GoW Armada using a transport chain (speaking of the invasion in 1265AD, that is).
These naval moves in the Eastern Theatre seem so obvious and well working that I will play them before going to bed (until about midnight GMT), posting what we spot...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
To get at least some idea about how many cavalries and horses (aka cannon fodder) we should have ready for our defenses this turn, here is a tentative build schedule:
City Management
Legopolis to start 1t tank
Jackson to start barracks
we will badly need those barracks when GoW attacks with their tanks (for fast healing); max food/commerce to get 1 new pop point naturally, add 2 workers
Farmerville to start 1t worker
Panama to start 1t tank (disband 1 cavalry)
Red Bricks to start 1t tank
Forkmouth to start 1t infantry (disband 1 cavalry + 40g)
Karina to start 1t tank
Zargonia to start 1t tank (or infantry?)
infantry would be guaranteed even if we are struck with pollution... perhaps infantry would be better, as there is high pollution in Zargonia
Dye Fields to start 1t fighter (work all land tiles, disband 1 cavalry)
probably to be changed or short-rushed during the F1-trick phase, as D.F. will like be heavily bombed
Sandonorico to start a placeholder
it's not very likely that GS would move their remaining navy (with marines aboard) within the reach of our 4/x BBs... but then, if it is out of the 4/x BB reach, it would be out of reach of any DDs rush-built in Sandonorico, too. Spending a cavalry and 320g on a DD that might be too far from where we would need it... unless we later find out we desperately need a new DD here, I would rather put Sandonorico on standby, maxxing out food & commerce
Logville to start 1t tank (disband 1 cavalry)
Sharpehaven to start 1t tank (disband 1 cavalry)
Oasis to start 1t tank (disband 1 cavalry, use the iron hill, maxx shields out)
Tarzania to start 1t infantry (disband 1 cavalry + 40g)
Camp David to start 1t explorer
Kloreepville to start 1t tank
Ahhmyfoot to start 1t tank (disband 2 cavalries)
Tiberium to start 1t tank (disband 2 cavalries)
Q.M. to start 1t destroyer (disband 1 cavalry + 1 horse)
...to make sure we do not miss the build even if struck by pollution. A new 4/4 DD from Q.M. should be within the striking range of the GS Marine Fleet - this one I believe is worth going for.
Abilene to start 1t tank (disband 1 cavalry + 40g)
add 1 worker, work the rred/mined tile S-SW, currently worked by Tipperary
Horsefish to shortrush to 60S (80g) and switch to tank (mine one irrigated tile)
Tipperary to start a placeholder
we wuold only be able to do a 1t explorer here, if not freeing that rred/mined grassland for Abilene - I am not sure we need explorers that much, so we better start something here and have a "basis" next turn
Nou Camp to start 2t worker
Port Hammer to start 1t worker
Notes:
- irrigate 1 currently mined tile in Legopolis radius (1 worker)
- irrigate 1 currently mined tile in Red Bricks radius (1 worker)
- irrigate 1 currently mined tile in Karina radius (1 worker)
- clear pollution near Jackson (3 workers)
- clear pollution near Tarzania (3 workers)
- mine 1 currently irrigated tile near Horsefish (2 workers)
Now, that's 13 cavalries, 1 horse, and 200g. Not bad, considering that we could theoretically have 12-13 new tanks, 2-3 new infantries, and 1 new DD next turn...
We would be left with 3 horsemen and 12 cavalry.
This also shows that we can afford to add up to 9 workers to our cities, if needed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
For easier reference, here is a rehash of the odds as posted few days ago:
Defense boni available
City on hills
(Forkmouth)
Forkmouth is one of the threatened cities, but not really likely to be a target, as it doesn't allow a blitz-through attack. We have to defend it properly anyway, though.
You need 4 marines to have reasonable chances of taking down an infantry here. 3 is not enough (41.4%). And 2 marines do not have 50% chances of taking out a tank.
Metropolis on flat lands
(Abilene, Dye Fields, Quanto Mechanico)
The most common type of a city we will have to defend this coming turn.
For all practical purposes, the odds are the same as in a city on a hill. However, these 3 cities will be most likely targets of enemy seaborne attacks in 1265AD. As if that was not enough, Dye Fields may and probably will be heavily bombed... thus, the defenses here should be a tad better than in Forkmouth.
Metropolis on hills
(Jackson)
Jackson would be an extremely tough nut to crack. Not even 4 marines grant you 50%+ chances to kill an infantry here. 3 marines are not enough to have 50%+ chances to kill a tank. And 1 marine is actually more likely to lose its fight with our cavalry there then the other way round.
However, the city may be heavily bombed...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
After much shuffling back and forth, this is what I believe is a pretty solid defense plan:
Few comments:
Tanks used exclusively on the West Coast - GS has no bombers there, so it's granted that we will have barracks in all cities there. Whatever gets attacked, but survives, no matter how badly damaged, will be full health when the turn comes to us (at least I hope so...  ... can anyone confirm that?).
For most cities, the invaders have only slightly more than 2 marines per every defending infantry/tank... thus, I consider it almost impossible for them to break through (and there is the supporting arty there, too!). If they do, then it will be time to say g'bay to Civ3 and go look for some other, "fair" game  . Besides, Forkmouth and Abilene are unlikely to be within the striking range of all GS marines (that's why they are a tad weaker than Q.M.). Jackson and Abilene are "overdone" to account for hps lost to bombing runs.
And as you can see, we've been able to put together 22 infantries with a decent arty support to man the fort at Abilene N-N.
These numbers are extremely important. Be so kind and have a look - if there seems to be anything strange, by all means say so, please. I might have overseen something important and we have to get this right.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2004 05:59
|