 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
Depending on how the cities go up, we most certainly can take the closest cities to us by D+1 at the latest (assuming we have superior forces). One or two could be taken on turn D if we are lucky (espionage right before war reveals a small enough garrison that 6 or 8 horse could win, and/or the cities get built close enough that our border is against the city).
If CDG builds as I suspect they will, they will have one ring of cities between us and their iron, with Elucidium just beyond that. They will have 1 city on or next to gold hill. They will have another city 9 9, or 6 9 from the iron. Both these cities can be ours by D+1. From there, we will have borders adjacent to their iron, and 3 tiles from Elucidium.
My question is, if this were the situation and we outnumber them 1.5 to 1 or better, why would we divert sizable forces in a flanking maneuver? Why not simply use the shock of the initial impact and the impetus of the charge to carry us through while CDG scrambles to adjust?
Flanking maneuvers are great when they are necessary. They are good things to do when the enemy has strength facing you and a weakness some distance behind. I do not think that CDG can be that strong in relation to us on our front, and that such a maneuver would be needlessly costly (extra gallies instead of swords) subject to failure (our fleet is spotted) and carries with it risks for our own cities and Army Group A (that's a whole other post, and I would like to see what BigFree sims, first).
However, it is a good option to keep as a contingency if the situation with CDG's and our cities does not develop as expected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
NYE, the problem with that plan is initiative. In Civ 3 the most important thing to consider is who has the initiative.
But in Civ 3, it's not like in real life warfare... in Civ 3 you do not want the initiative. You want the enemy to come to you so you can decide how to deal with them. On the other hand, you hope you can get a few good punches in edgewise and prevent them from doing so.
If we charge down from the south with, say, 30 units (20 Swords, 10 NMs) and run into 12-15 CDG Immortals in a city, we're in trouble. Even with our NMs, those Immortals basically guarantee a dead unit 2 times out of 3. That could be all of our NMs in one turn. Add Walls and Barracks to that, and they could be ready the turn after that to repeat. Losing 10 units per turn is not a good way to win a war. 
In that case, CDG holds the initiative. They seem to be building roads all through the jungle, so they will easily be able to move their main army to wherever they please. They see us coming, they wait, they pile their army into one city, pound us when we get adjacent, probably hold the city, pound again. We could lose 18 or 20 units in a very short amount of time.
And they don't even have to be Napoleons to accomplish that. With a bit of luck they knock down nearly as many units as they have Immortals in one turn, and if they aren't completely wiped out, they can do the same the next turn.
The initiative is like a "hot potato"... we need to make them have to attack us.
To do that we steal what's most valuable to them... their capital. At that point they can return to attack AGB in the capital (most likely), they can push forward to pursue AGA (doubtful), or they can sit where they are (also doubtful in my mind). If they come for us, we do the same thing they did to them. We rush some Walls, and perhaps some Barracks. We have reinforcements on the move, have AGA race south and we pop them when they get next to us.
Might they recapture the capital? They could, but with Horsemen we could attack them twice before they have a chance to hit the city. With that opportunity we could easily cut their numbers in half before they attack. And the main issue is getting rid of their army... their army is their greatest asset, and if we can take out 12 Immortals with 8 Horsemen and holding their capital, then they're doomed. AGA can be on the heels of the main CDG army and even if CDG recaptures the capital, they're minus 1/2 to 2/3 of their Immortals with our main army ready to take care of the rest of them.
Perfect? Probably not, but we can refine things as time goes on. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
|
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
If ArmyGroup A is not going after them, what compels them to go after AGA? They read the MilAdvisor. It says we are strong, they are weak. Do you think they will come to us? They sit in their cities. We land. They rush towards Elucidium. Many immortals would be in Elucidium or adjacent to it before we can attack (assuming we were not spotted on our way, if that happened they would be waiting for us to land and then butcher that force). |
AGA will be attacking their border cities and be looking menacing as it parades towards their capital. It's entire purpose before their capital is captured is only to attract their attention. If they have 15 Immortals, and we have 13 or so Swords in the first AGA stack (with another 8 or so in the secondary stack so we still maintain a numeric advantage with AGA), they'll see it as an opportunity to take out our stack. If they see us "strong" compared to them, they should think that their biggest opportunity to do real damage to our army before they're overwhelmed with numbers.
I'm betting they won't sit idly by while our force roughly the same size as theirs (from what they can see) is busy razing cities, capturing Workers and pillaging tiles. I expect a knee-jerk "there's their army, it's weak, let's kill it!" reaction.
Until AGB lands, we stand to lose very little. The plan can be changed at any point in the war.
quote:
If AGA goes after them, then the scenario you put forth is still possible. Very pessemistic, but still possible. At any rate, it is certainly possible to trade unit for unit when on the offensive. If we start with 40 and they 20, we win that war. Furthermore, by D+2 we are camped on their iron with fortified mercs. Now they are building warriors while we build swords. Game over. |
This is our chance at a relatively "clean" war. A successful war depends not only on the outcome of the battlefield but your stance after the war is (hopefully) won. If your army is mauled, then you're probably in worse shape than you started (especially with the land we'll be fighting over  ). If they hunker down and AGA sees no sign of them, then we use AGB as the distraction, reinforce AGA and charge southwards. The plan only works if we have superiority with AGA anyways... I'm not talking about if we have 30 units and they have 20 and we split our forces into two stacks of 15... I'm talking about them having 20 and us having 40 or 50. Given their city placement, that's what it looks like we'll be dealing with. This is our chance at a "clean" war. We can always bash them, but that's expensive and leaves us weakened.
I'm not seeing the whole D+2 and we're fortified on their iron...
"D" being the turn we declare war and attack, their iron is 5 tiles from the diagonal border proposed, and by the time we attack they should have 3 or 4 new cities between Elucidum and us. Unless we have Paratroopers researched by the time we get Republic, I don't see the D+2 iron venture being possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
|
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
nye, I think the concept is to maneuver for relative strength at the point of conflict.
Even given our head to head production advantage, a straightforward invasion against a bunch of Immortals is non-trivial.
Better to sow confusion, deny them iron, destroy their production capability, and then mete out death on killing fields of our own choosing. 
I think the key here is the threat of AGA to their iron... they HAVE to deal with that.
That said, regardless of whether we actually undertake this plan, I think that our military build-up for the foreseeable future is good either way. |
As I've said before, an "active defense" (where you wait for the enemy to charge into your crosshairs) is the single greatest weapon in all of Civ 3. So in the sense I want to fight a "defensive" war, I agree with Dominae. However, I differ in how I want to get to that point. Dominae wants to wait for them to come to us. I want us to steal their flag then wait for them to try to get it back. If there wasn't so much jungle, then a manoever war with Horsemen would be a treat... but we have jungle, and any standard assault would turn into a bloody and expensive slug-fest.
Our "manoever" will have to come through our Galleys. Unless they spot one of our boats, they won't expect such an attack, especially if our army is "strong" compared to theirs. If we lure them into approaching AGA then the plan succeeds. That is the most important part of it though. If CDG decides to sit around and wait for us, then things stand to get ugly no matter what we do. If they think they have a shot at destroying one of our armies, then they will go for it. That is what we must achieve. An enemy afraid to attack will not. An enemy who believes he has a chance to win if he attacks will. We must take advantage of that false hope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
Just a thought:
You're basing the value of the capital partly on it being their only iron source. We don't know if there is iron close beyond the chokepoint or not though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:28
|
|
Whether we go by this plan, a variant or by something completely different, I think Trip may be right about at least one thing. The need to attract their attention and draw forces away from where we want to go.
With them having Immortals this is a must. Agreeing with Trip here, we need to attract their attention, because (agreeing with joncnunn) fragmenting their forces so we can take them down in battles where our numbers are superior is the only really viable strategy against stronger units.
Taking the chokepoint is a great distraction. They may just resign themselves to it though. Agreeing with nye, taking those outer cities of theirs is a good idea too, as this would be even MORE distracting. And agreeing with Theseus, crippling their production and then taking them apart is how I hope this turns out.
We all have some excellent ideas that are not incompatible. The key thing in my mind is the Iron. We want to prevent them from using it to reinforce their troops as the war goes on, especially seeing as we can count on them having their GA as well. Going for their Iron would be the single greatest distraction. Without Iron and facing an opponent with a GA, NMs, Iron and Horses, they are nothing and have no hope. With Iron, even with just the one city, there is a chance they could survive.
Thus, if we sent troops as a distraction for them, we should aim for the maximum distraction. The chokepoint is great, and we should take that with a force where possible. A second force will go down laying waste to CDG outer ring cities, aiming for the Iron. Keep in mind that every CDG town we take out, no matter how small, costs them in unit support, and if they start losing numbers then they will be doomed. If they have spent all their money on upgrades, then by cutting roads and culling trade centres we hurt them even more. The great thing about this is that WE will be in THEIR territory, meaning that they are the ones suffering. If we make them suffer enough then our advantage becomes larger.
If we get to the Iron and they are defending it, then we must make them REALLY defend it. Every unit they have there is one less in the capital. At this point we must either send the Galley force or join in the siege on the Iron. This decision seems a little more difficult, and certainly depends more on the specifics of development closer to the time.
Attritive warfare, although rather tedious in SP, will work to our favour here. It will also serve as a distraction, possibly enough that we can make CDG take that initiative you suggest, Trip. They certainly would ignore it at their peril.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
How about we forget the whole two-group plan, and just land all our offensive troops in one big stack around their capitol? We would have a weak defense because our our army would not be between our lands and CDG's, but then it would be suicide for CDG to assault us when all our forces are next to their economic capital (including their Iron).
Proposed new plan:
1. Send all our offensive forces West toward the CDG chokepoint city, carefully hiding our numbers.
2. Send a lot of Galleys toward the chokepoint city, enough to carry our entire offensive army in one trip.
3. Take the chokepoint city by land, again carefully hiding our numbers (if possible).
4. Move in the Galleys, load them up.
5. Sail down the coast and disembark right next to their biggest baddes city.
6. Hope for the best.
As Trip said, I prefer a defensive war in our own lands, but if we've decided to strike, a "king of the mountain" strategy could work well for us, too. We just need to make sure we grab that capital.
The one main problem with this new plan is that CDG would be even more likely to figure it out, because we would have no northern diversionary force. Our advantage would be solely in our dedication to a naval troop movement; they'll surely be surprised to see a ~30-troop landing (ever seen the AI do that?!).
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 08-06-2003 at 21:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
I have to agree with MrWhereItsAt on the 15 galley thing, even 5 seems like a big investment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
15 Galleys is a necessary evil of the plan I was proposing. I agree fully that it's a lot of production (a lot!).
We need to be strong in one area, not "let's see what we can do" in two. Am I the only one that thinks that the naval landing as described in this thread will fail miserably when we realise that CDG is not silly enough to leave their only good city undefended? Or that units in their northern cities are not that far away from their capital by road?
We've not been thinking of the worst-case scenario here. Even the average-case is looking pretty sub-optimal to me (i.e. we do some damage, but spend way too many resources on a hard-fought war).
The "15-Galley" plan is just an attempt to propose something that might work with a higher probability of success. It could be considered "too expensive", sure. Then again, it could actually win us the war in one fell swoop. Hight cost, medium risk, high rewards; sounds not bad to me.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
|
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:28
|
|
I take your point about attempting half-heartedly to do things, but I do think that an attack on multiple fronts is less risky for us, with a near guarantee of a lot of damage to CDG. Either we take down some of their support cities and end up sueing them for gold, or (if they're really stubborn) besieging their Capital, or we manage to break through said capital. Even if we can't take that, we can devastate their infrastructure and wear them down - attrition could well work, as long as we have something getting in the way of their attacking our lands. And I do believe that the more crises we have them face (loss of small cities, destruction of infrastructure, army en route overland, loss of chokepoint, landing near their capital), the more places there are for them to slip up.
I see multiple attack paths us giving them so much to deal with we just have to be cool and play it safe, then we will see them fall apart. If they don't then they are not the unbalanced players they have lead us to believe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Panzer32
|
 |
Queens University, Kingston, Ontario
Oct 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I take your point about attempting half-heartedly to do things, but I do think that an attack on multiple fronts is less risky for us, with a near guarantee of a lot of damage to CDG. Either we take down some of their support cities and end up sueing them for gold, or (if they're really stubborn) besieging their Capital, or we manage to break through said capital. Even if we can't take that, we can devastate their infrastructure and wear them down - attrition could well work, as long as we have something getting in the way of their attacking our lands. And I do believe that the more crises we have them face (loss of small cities, destruction of infrastructure, army en route overland, loss of chokepoint, landing near their capital), the more places there are for them to slip up.
I see multiple attack paths us giving them so much to deal with we just have to be cool and play it safe, then we will see them fall apart. If they don't then they are not the unbalanced players they have lead us to believe. |
I agree with MWIA. We need balence in our forces, not one big force risking everything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
The truth about Civ3 is, fast-movers aside, the SOD strategy is probably the best one. This is especially true in our case, since we've got such a good defender. With a SOD, we can just march into their lands and just wreak havoc (which I hear is what we want to do), achieving the same effect as multiple stacks, with less risk.
I was looking for a more specific objective...a surgical strike, if you want. Here, too, overwhelming force at the target location is best. Hence the 15 Galleys.
I really hope they continue to think they'll be the aggressors, and not build Catapults. A bunch of Cats would hurt our offensive chances considerably.
Another thought: the chokepoint city is great as a feint, even if we do not go through with the Galley plan (any version of it). We need not grab it until later, since it will surely be poorly-defended (unless CDG puts a lot of units in there, to our advantage when going for their core...we should monitor this). The big risk here is CFC grabbing the chokepoint instead of us, which is a real possibility if CFC sees that we've got the advantage in the war and just step in for some spoils, at little cost to them.
Anyway, the situation is not at all obvious. I'll look at the map some more and see what I can come up with.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I don't claim to be half the player/strategist I know you are Dom,
|
You would be surprised...
quote:
but even I have seen SODs die when faced with relatively small stacks fortified in decent locations (my SODS dying when I thought my overwhelming force would, well, overwhelm that hill stronghold).
|
My whole purpose in trying to get us to fight a defensive war is to avoid this situation. Vet. Swordsmen against Vet. Spearmen on Hills and behind Walls? Spearmen wins 71%. Same situation, but take out the Hills? Spearmen wins 61%. With those odds, we're not looking good even before adding in everything else, such as the fact that CDG has a 4-power counter-attacker.
The best options with such odds is either: 1) bring along some Catapults, 2) pillage without actually attacking any settlements, or 3) forget the offensive altogether and get CDG to attack us (broken record, I know).
quote:
CDG will have plenty of time to do so if we mass one frontal assault.
|
With CDG's cities all connected by Roads, they'll have plenty of time to defend their cities even if we split up into smaller stacks. Trip's plan assumes that the capital will be left undefended. But the capital is is not that far away from the other cities! We would have to bring a force large enough to guarantee we take the capitol, and survive the counter-attack the next turn (unless we Raze it...). That's not at all an easy thing to do with the info we have now, or will have.
quote:
Whether we go with the Galley assault or not, having multiple forces will enable us to SOD in one place whilst having raiding parties hitting them where they are weaker.
|
You can cover a lot of ground with a SOD, since the enemy never knows which of the 9 tiles you're going to move to next. By pillaging a few select Roads with the SOD, you can make their defense even less fluid, thereby helping the SOD strategy. With the RNG being what it is, smaller stacks could very well fall prey to some bad luck (say, 3 of their Immortals beats three of our Mercs. in one turn, leaving two Swordsmen completely undefended).
quote:
There's not much point in just going for their little cities,
|
Actually, if we can reduce them to a maximum of three cities, we'll have accomplished a lot.
quote:
which is why we do need a lot of troops headed for their capital through one way, but if we get caught and stopped there, then we have accomplished little.
|
Unless we pillage everything along the way. Still, the battle for their capitol will be very very tough. Which is why you want to either surprise them (15 Galleys?!), or hope they cry "uncle" when their empire is in shambles. There is no point in losing units unless we really have to.
quote:
With smaller forces around we can use these to divert attention before the main push or to sabotage their nether regions if the jugular is tightly defended.
|
This will not work as described: 1) they've got Roads to shuffle their units around, 2) they're not so dumb as to be diverted so easily.
Dominae
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2003 23:01
If that offensive stalls then we are in trouble. By the time we've built all those Galleys either our army isn't as impressive as it would be without that many or CDG has Feudalism, which means difficult times ahead...
, with one big force we wont be risking a lot , ....
|