 |
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
[*] build loadsa infantry, maybe 2 or 3:1 with Arty.
|
This is what I expect the other teams to do. The trick is therefore to reverse this ratio, and pound on them like there's no tomorrow. It will come down to who has more Artillery, not who has more Infantry.
Master Zen, I would love to be able to get rid of all civs on our continent before the Industrial. I doubt this will happen, though. Plus, the Industrial Age is the reason IMO to keep ahead in the tech race. I would not like to be left behind because of an expensive Cavalry war.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Well, of course the more Arty the better, but if we're doing any invading, we'd better have more Inf than they have Arty if we want to keep OUR Arty!
|
This is the misconception I'm trying to debunk. I'm talking about slow, destroy-everything-in-sight warfare, in which the number of Artillery decides the outcome, not the number of Infantry. Consider that Artillery will do something every turn, while Infantry just sit around most of the time. Building more Infantry than Artillery is essentially a defensive proposition, while I'm talking about offense here.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Like I alluded to above, the idea is to bombard the heck out of one city (over the course of maximum 2 turns), take it, then regroup there to prepare for an assault on the next city. Note that this necessarily involves taking out all Roads/Railroads to prevent counter-attack as much as possible. If we grab an enemy border town in this way, we can leap-frog from city to city.
Where would you put all your units in the Industrial Age? Even more than in the other ages, it's best to just place all your units in cities, assuming you can hop from city to city with Railroads. Artillery just rips through this defense, by simultaneously weakening cities and the escape routes. Siege warfare, basically.
And, just for fun, let's look at Artillery from an attrition point of view: per attack, how many Artillery losses do you take for each HP inflicted? Zero. All other things being equal, that's a knock-down argument to build Artillery. I see no reason why we should place an upper bound on how many Artillery we should build, relative to the number of Infantry.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
In not bidding for Artillery instead of sufficient Infantry. Rather, I would like to see a very large number of Artillery in general. It is a common mistake (IMO) to wait for Tanks when Artillery does the same job, if not better, a hundred or so years before. Of course we need sufficient Infantry to defend our units. What I'm proposing is a number of Artillery sufficient to run over any enemy we make in the Industrial Age. This is a big project, to be sure, but I also think it is essentially a guarantee. If we have more Artillery than the enemy, it will not matter that they have more Infantry than we do.
|
It's not a question if we can get more artillery than the enemy, it's a question that if the enemy can assemble enough arty of their own and enough offensive units of its own to destroy our infantry defense. Arty is DREADFULLY effective against any type of unit on open ground, and the turn our stack lands by sea or enteres RRed enemy territory it will be vulnerable to a massive counterattack which may well destroy our stack.
As you can see, I'm still against this unless there's overwhelming and undeniable proof of a MASSIVE superiority in this regard.
quote:
And if we reach Replaceable Parts before our target? Heh-heh, good times... 
|
I'm crossing my fingers already... 
Dominae [/QUOTE]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
As you can see, I'm still against this unless there's overwhelming and undeniable proof of a MASSIVE superiority in this regard.
|
This argument applies at every stage of the game. Are we not to attack another team with Cavalry until we outnumber them 3 to 1? I see no reason to be extra-hesitant with Artillery.
I'm not sure why you think this idea is reckless. We'll have our best Generals figure out exactly how we can run the enemy into the ground without having to fear losing our stacks of Artillery. My point is simply: if we accept the tool of Artillery for what it is and dedicate a sound strategy to its use, there is very little another civ can do other than copy our tactic. That's a lot better, IMO, than having Knights bash into Musketmen.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
 |
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
Just to kick in a bit here- the Modern Age and nuclear weaponry COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, changes the face of warfare. Taking cities becomes trivial, if not laughably pathetic.
When we get to the modern age, I'll be happy to point the way if need be, though it's not all that hard. "Future start" games are very popular on the ladder right now, and nuke-tricks are pretty easy to do, if you have the industry to produce the monsters. Honestly, it will become a question of "who has nukes and who doesn't."
If we don't, we better make bloody sure we have aluminum to build SDI. You can win without nukes if you have SDI, but if you don't even have that, throw in the towel.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
|
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
I didn't comment much on that section because I didn't see all that much that I could add. Infantry say "No" to most attackers, including tanks, and with artillery, definitely including tanks. I personally avoid conducting war in MP until I have modern armor if I know the other guy has rubber. If we must engage in a war in the infantry/artillery period, then stupid-large stacks of artillery are vital. I would also reccomend using bombers to sever roads behind cities we're aiming to take for the same reason as the "2 square artillery obliteration" manuever. If you tag a few workers along with your siege group, you can plunk down an airfield and move bombers in for that sort of work.
As for intercontinential invasion.... I'm not sure it is possible, frankly. If it IS possible, it would need air support, done as above. Invade with marines (you MUST take that city without warning or you won't take it at all, thank you unbalanced railroads) and then use bombers situated on an aircraft carrier to sever all the roads leading to the city on the same turn, so that when your opponent gets the save, what they see is a city in your hands, and the roads leading to the city cut. Then, obviously, you pour units into the city as fast as you can, and so on. If you can cut the access points to the city so that you can potentially attack OUT of it or bombard safely, then you might have a shot.
That's a lot of resources on a gamble, though, and this assumes that you can even manage to CUT all the roads leading to the town. I honestly don't see it happening unless we already have our foot in the door somewhere; even if that's only a little arctic town. Hence my references to the "rush-the-spaceship" manuever, which, now that I've thought about it a bit, I think might even be a pretty safe bet.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-06-2003 21:03
) the best placed civ to have Rubber. Many other civs may not have this, and if we are really lucky there may only be a few sources of the stuff we do not control. We can expect that these will be shared out pretty well unless there is a Monopoly/Duopoly going, in which case the owners would milk their restriction on access pretty harshly.
, can we get your input on the Infantry / Arty stage of the game? I'm sure you've seen games where players have heavily weighted one or the other. Also, what have you seen in the way of IC invasions?
|
|