 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
Proposed report to GoW
beginning of turn:
Lego destroyed all of our escort ships in the N. As a result, we can't penetrate their blockade, making our original target (Sando) unreachable. We deducted that Sando 7 should be covered by a 4/5 BB.
Lego exposed our spy, but we managed to plant another one.
Legoland forces:
- 2 settler
- 14 worker (-3)
- 3 horsemen (-1)
- 12 Cavalry (-13)
- 91 infantry (+2)
- 62 artillery
- 27 Tanks (+11)
- 6 ironclad (-1 LiB)
- 15 transport
- 10 subs (-1 LiB)
- 9 DD (-1 LiB, +3 B)
- 9 BB
- 1 carrier
- 3 bomber (+1 B)
Investigating Quanto
Not shown in the pic is that there is also a cath, uni, factory, hospital, harbor.
Further, I count a defense of:
- 9 T
- 1 reg T
- 10 I
- 10 art
- 1 bomber.
Investigating Abilene
Not shown: Bank, Cath, uni, factory, hospital.
72 spt
defenders:
- 10 I
- 6 T
- 1 reg T
- 11 Art
- 2 bombers
- 5 Cav
- 2 TR
- Neither Quanto Mechanico, nor Abilene are possible to take with our marines.
- We assume Forkmouth is similarly defended by 10 I, 10 T, 10 art.
- we scouted, and spotted 22 I, 10 Art on Q12 (our preferred landing spot in case cities weren't possible)
- This should leave enough units for Lego to do the exact same thing on GoW's side, making it impossible to attack a city.
- Lego has pillaged a couple of forts it couldn't defend. They did the same thing inbetween Jackson and Dye fields.
- We decided to land our land units on Abilene 78, on grass without a fortress. (8 further M were landed on Quanto 77 to allow room for chaining.
- We keep a naval threat nearby, consisting of most of our M (the rest can be chained to the fleet if needed). This threatens a 3rd city, Tiperrary.
End of movement pic
Battle Report
- DD attacks 3/5 BB Legopolis. DD sinks. BB 2/5.
- DD attacks 4/5 DD At Abilene 4411 (forgot to note the name). Defensive bombardment misses. 2/4 DD.
- DD attacks 2/4 DD Myrmidon. DD sinks, Myrmidon 2/4
- 3/4 DD attacks 2/4 DD Myrmidon. DD 3/4.
- 3/4 DD stumbles into (reg or 3/4?) sub at Abilene 47. DD 2/4.
- 3/4 DD stumbles into sub at Abilene 411111111. DD destroyed.
- 4/5 DD attacks sub at Abilene 411111111. DD 1/5.
Total: 7 battles, 3 lost. We lost 3 DD, Lego lost 2 DD and 2 Subs.
It is the best we can do for the moment: threaten 3 cities and 1 defensive position.
We strongly suggest GoW tries to do the same, as otherwise there is no way we can attack next turn. From here, it looks like your land units would best be landed on the pillaged fortress in between Jackson and Dye Fields, which (together with a settler), threatens 2 cities. Your Marines can either be landed too, with chainers in range, or could be loaded to threaten Zargonia. If you position them right, they will fork on Zargonia and Dye fields.
I'm not saying this is definately the best solution for you, but unless you threaten 3 cities (or more), neither of us will be able to do a lot of damage on Lego. Main reason why both our attack-a-city-with-marines plans failed was because Lego was able to reduce the threatened cities on our side from 5 to 2. We could have handled it if there were 2 more.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
Theseus, it remains a trade. If we would have landed on Q77, there was a big chance we would lose our naval, mobile forces completely. At that point, we can only threaten 2 cities. Even if enough transports would have survived, the cities would have been blocked.
What we have created now is a situation were we do threaten 3 cities, and we've got a reasonably sure position to start from for a naval assault. The 8 marines are a sacrifice, but not one without it's benefits: it will draw Lego forces. Otherwise we board them on one of our transports next turn, and use them. And any tank busy with a marine, won't attack a MI / tank in our main force.
I do want to make one thing clear: I very much liked the dialogue the past few pages. I have spent a great amount of time thinking about it. It's just... well, you didn't convince me. Maybe next time 
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Theseus, it remains a trade. If we would have landed on Q77, there was a big chance we would lose our naval, mobile forces completely. At that point, we can only threaten 2 cities. Even if enough transports would have survived, the cities would have been blocked.
What we have created now is a situation were we do threaten 3 cities, and we've got a reasonably sure position to start from for a naval assault. The 8 marines are a sacrifice, but not one without it's benefits: it will draw Lego forces. Otherwise we board them on one of our transports next turn, and use them. And any tank busy with a marine, won't attack a MI / tank in our main force.
I do want to make one thing clear: I very much liked the dialogue the past few pages. I have spent a great amount of time thinking about it. It's just... well, you didn't convince me. Maybe next time
DeepO |
Don't get me wrong... I think the dialogue and thinking has been great too!! I just want us to stay on the ball and keep getting better! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Did we think through the strategic aspects of that decision other than in the context of supporting the chaining we desired? |
I did. Although I thought they might have to just be disbanded outright instead of landing at all. The value of going S over N is greater than the loss of 8 Marines in my estimation.
39 Marines attacking Abilene are effectively facing 1 Infantry more than 47 Marines attacking Quanto. While our 68 Tanks are at 4 Infantry less in Abilene over Quanto. In Tip 39 Marines are effectively facing +3 Infantry more than 47 Marines attacking Sand.
So, if Sand wasn't blockaded, Sand didn't have more defenders than our Marines can get through, none of our Marines were lost in the naval battles, no Tanks were lost that could have been protected by Lego attacking exposed Marines, we didn't have any further use for a fleet, and we end up attacking Sand or Tip, then N is equal to S. If any of those things change, it swings the balance to S IMO.
quote:
Given Lego's success in manouevre (yes, the British spelling ) over the last few turns, and personally still scarred by the Bobian Misadventure, I fear that we are not thinking through every bit of strategy and counter-strategy.  |
It's obviously not going to be possible to think through every possible permutation. Especially given the time constraints. We are going to look at as much as we can.
I disagree that Lego's success is due to manouevre. Simply put, intercontinental invasions against a wary opponent are difficult. Against an opponent with a naval movement advantage and production advantage it's even more difficult.
We had to give Lego 3 turns warning. We had to cross somewhere. We had to rely on the terrible odds afforded by Marines vs Infantry or make a conventional landing (which also required a Marine threat to be possible). We had to go when we did because we only had a small timeframe between when we could start building Marines and when Lego could start building Tanks, and shortly thereafter (maybe very shortly given Vox being Scientific) MI.
We sent our Marines one way, Lego's BBs didn't show up for an extra turn. We sent a diversionary group to the deep S, Lego sunk them with ships that were diverted for that purpose and thus weren't available to sink Transports with units in them. We weren't able to sink a Sub with good odds that may or may not have kept Lego in the dark about our N fleet's position for another turn. Lego had a stable RNG run when attacking our N fleet which helped them to destroy all our DD and blockade Sand. We chose to land at Abilene 87.
Those are the main events so far. In every case it is Lego's response and/or RNG event that is the deciding factor on how things turn out. I think it's important not to look at guesses (which we have to resort to to plan for Lego's response) or RNG events relative to their results in hindsight as nothing good comes of it. We can't see the other sides of the guesses and how they would have come out. It's only worthwhile to look at guesses relative to the probabilities. Attacking something that needs to be killed at 80% odds is a good choice, even if we lose. A well thought out and coherant invasion plan that limits liabilities and forces the opponent to make guesses of their own is a good plan, even if the opponent guesses right, striking at a liability that wasn't possible to completely nullify, or which had to be left open to close another liability.
I think we've done well. There may have been better options to choose in hindsight, but I don't think there were better options to choose given what we knew at the moment. Lego has enough units to cover 7 cities well enough that our Marines can't break through. Even in hindsight I can't see how that could change. We've landed most of our units conventionally and still have a decent Amphibious threat for next turn, and possibly a turn after that. It seems as good a result as any plan we could have come up with would have allowed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cort Haus
|
 |
London
Apr 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
That's a great summary, Aeson. It puts the strategic options into the historic, geographic and economical context.
A long time ago, at the low point of demoralisation and defeat on Bob, our initial game plan to expand our territory was in ruins, so we decided to hunker down and try and deal ourselves in against the odds later.
All we could do then was throw up a sea-wall with our remaining units, install a lodger in the corrupt north to get some commercial output, and build like crazy for the science and industrial wonders. We got them, got an unlikely alliance with our nemesis GoW, got a tech lead, and here we are in the slender window of opportunity causing Lego some headaches that the game badly needed them to have if they are to deserve victory. Not many teams could have achieved that.
If Lego succeed, fair play to them and we can hold our heads up for taking the game to them. As far as the game's storyline and history goes, we've given the crowd something to cheer about. If Lego do thwart us, ND might pick up the baton. We might even get the two Superpowers at each other hammer and tongs while we and GoW lick our wounds and rebuild our strength.
If we can damage Lego even a bit - enough to see ND slip ahead of them then it's job done. Once Lego can't outbuild ND they'll be forced to consider more, er, Stormian solutions, and we have the enticing prospect of a five-civ alliance against ND.
As OPD's sig says "Are we having fun yet?"
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-11-2004 23:02
).
|