 |
| |
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
OK, gentlemen, sit comfortably back, have some drink, and get ready for another of those crazy, long posts of vondrack... this time, it's not a wonder build plan, but an idea about how to set our defenses up.
First: I assume that we agree on that Legoland does not even plan invading another landmass (and even if it happens in the future, I believe we would not really try to hold whatever we would be able to conquer there). So, our military doctrine shall actually a DEFENSE PLAN.
Second: I believe we will not be invaded in the near future. ND apparently is after someone - otherwise, they would not ask for a 50 turn NAP... which, considering the situation from our point of view, effectively neutralizes the whole of Bob - at least one civ there will be the target (ND would have to be insane attacking GS on Stormia) and the other one will, no doubt, try to get at least crumbs from the table. Plus, with only two pre-Astronomy crossing points, logistics would be very difficult for invaders (would have to be GoW, as we have a NAP signed with RPers - the one signed before the game started).
Third: we will not be left alone forever. Others will sure realize that unless they prune us before we have our landmass properly railroaded, they are out of luck. Invading a fully railroaded continent, loaded with artillery, is extremely bloody.
Hence, I believe that the moment we shall expect an invasion will come approximately with the age of cavalry. Before railroads (or before they make any difference), but (right) after cavalry.
The defense plan I am hereby presenting thus assumes the following:
1) no railroads
2) no marines
Let's start with a picture of our landmass:
red tiles are our existing cities
dimmed red tiles are our planned cities
yellow tiles represent the primary landing zones
blue tiles denote our naval defense (see below).
green tiles represent the secondary landing zones
Legoland Navy - The Naval Barrier
Let's start with the blue and green stuff. After some thinking (and quite contrary to what I used to think), I believe we should sort of limit our navy to basically one area - our Northwest. At least until true naval attackers appear (ironclads, or even better destroyers). Why? Because our coast is too long to be properly defendable with a reasonably sized navy. Just imagine how many ships we would need to have a "sufficient" naval presence around all of our continent... and still, when the invading fleet would appear, our ships would have to run for cover and wait for reinforcements, as they would most probably be heavily outnumbered by the incoming "armada". So, if the navy would be of little use because of being stretched too thin, let's focus on deploying it where it can really be of some use.
And that is what those four blue tiles in the Northwest are for. If we deploy two to four DEFENDER-vessels (read: caravels - the strongest naval attacker is A=1 until magnetism, and A=2 until steam power) per every blue tile, we will make it VERY difficult for any invading fleet to break through - such an invading fleet would have to use much of its armed escort to break that naval defense... naval attackers prior to ironclads are always handicapped against defenders.
Until Magnetism, I would stuff all our caravels onto the blue tiles, as they will be much better on defense then on offense. After magnetism, I would assemble a task force of several frigates in Port Hammer, ready to mop up anything that might break through our naval barrier.
With this naval barrier, Panama and Kloreepville actually become almost "inland" cities (that is illustrated by using green for their respective "landing zones"). Port Hammer as well, though Port Hammer would still need an extra defense for the case that invaders would land upon the tip of The Hammer and proceed on foot. This is not to say that Panama and Kloreepville would need NO defenses - just that that part of our defense system could be weaker, as landings in that area would be highly unlikely.
That leaves us with the yellow tiles. But, man, there is a lot of them!
Now, let's ask ourselves a simple question: what is one supposed to do in this situation? Properly defend all his coastal cities, deploying as many units in every one of them, right? Garrisoning every coastal city with units enough to hopefully hold against the invading stack. Hm. How do we do that? Eight or even more knights is nothing unreasonable to expect... and hell, how many mercs or muskets we'd need to be safe against such a force? 4? 6? Multiply it by the number of our coastal cities. And that's only defenders! But we would also need counterattackers and artillery... altogether, we (will) have 17+2 coastal cities (+2 is for Benelux/Invoice and Port Hammer, which will have to be handled separately - see below). 19 cities times about 6-8 units... that is an INSANE number of units... and I am not talking about reserves yet... plus, if you look at the map closely, you will realize that reinforcements from the "neighbouring" city would always be 2 turns away, as our cities are generally too far from each other to allow 1-turn unit shuffling.
So, here is my idea (picture, please!):
The idea may sound crazy at first... I suggest we generally leave our coastal cities UNDEFENDED. The only exceptions to this would be Benelux/Invoice and Port Hammer - because those do not really fit into the scheme.
Has vondrack gone mad?
Nope.
Try following me:
With a proper road network, we can position all our forces in such a way, that they will be able to move to and fortify in ANY coastal city of ours in ONE TURN. Our troops would need to be positioned where the white dots are on the map above (17 of them). The "tails" denote roads which units would move into the threatened city along.
What's the big deal? Why not station the troops in the cities right away? Simple: with this layout, you can move TWICE AS MANY units into the threatened city as opposed to having the units permanently deployed in the cities. There are exactly 17 white dots, which is how many coastal cities there are. Having 2 defenders at each post, ANY coastal city can have FOUR defenders instantly. See my point? With the same total number of units, we would be able to defend any city with twice as many units. Or, to be able to defend any city with a fixed number of units, we will do with roughly half as many total.
There are added benefits to this approach:
a) enemy does not know where your troops are - which makes it difficult to determine the "weak link"... all links appear to be equally weak.
b) enemy does not know how many troops you have - which makes it difficult to determine how many units he will need for an invasion.
c) for reinforcements, you are using roads leading from inland to the coastal cities instead of the roads running along the coast - which makes it difficult to disrupt the communications used to rush reinforcements to the area where thery are needed.
The last point brings me to a problem. If you examine the map with the "primary military camps" (the one above), you will find out it is possible to partially or fully "cut" some of them from "their" cities by landing along several coastal tiles. Let's sort them by the level of severity of this problem:
I. CITIES "OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER"
Port Hammer, Benelux/Invoice - these would probably have to use strong permanent garrisons. It would likely be "cheaper" than to extend the scheme to include even these two key cities.
II. CITIES THAN CAN BE TOTALLY CUT
Tipperary. The only city that could be cut by landing units on all three tiles adjacent to it. I would suggest using a worker or a military unit to block the key tile NE of the city. Problem solved, city moved to the category "no problems".
III. CITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE NO FORTIFIED DEFENDERS
Even though unlikely, Dye Fields and Sandonorico (btw, to make this defense system work smoothly, I moved Sandonorico by one tile) garrisons could be prevented form fortifying on the turn of the enemy landings, if the enemy landed on the "proper" tiles - forcing our units to take 3-tile routes to the cities.
IV. CITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME UNFORTIFIED DEFENDERS
Similar to III., but only one half of the units might be forced to go a 3-tile route - Logville, Tiberium, Abilene, Quanto Mechanico.
V. CASTLEA
Castlea has a bit of a problem, being too far from Jackson and Panama... but I believe that we could actually move the white camp E-E of Panama to E-E-NE of Panama (as Panama would be, thanks to the naval barrier, actually an inland city, needing much less troops ready to defend it).
Now, even if the 3 cities under III. and IV. just MIGHT BE invaded in a way preventing some/all of the corresponding units to get into the cities in time to fortify there, we should plan for the unexpected.
So, let's add few more posts:
The "yellow" military camps could probably use fewer units than the white ones, as they would basically serve the only purpose - to balance the fact that some of the defenders of the closest city could be unfortified. For the cost of 7 more posts (with less than "average" force, if "average" force is what we'd station in white camps), we have our defenses perfect.
Now, if you look at it... in the South, it almost looks like a second defense line, does it not? What about this:
This is a defense system I would dream of. Every city granted a strong garrison whenever needed. Every white camp receiving reinforcements on the turn of the invasion (means the threatened city could probably get more reinforcements on the next turn - unless the invaders blocked the access road... but that would take some of the invaders off the assault wave, which would be good, too).
So, this is basically all.
Let me briefly sum up the highlights of this plan:
1) our enemy would not know where our weakest defenses are - there would appear to be "none" at all (all "camps" would be hidden "further inland"... I believe they would be invisible to ships)
2) our enemy would not know how strong our defenses are (city investigation reveals only troops stationed in the city)
3) our enemy would have limited means to instantly disrupt our vital road communications
4) our cities would be able to field roughly twice as many defenders on average as compared to having permanent garrisons
5) our enemy would likely be confused, as this is a pretty unusual defense setup
Now, let's put the actual composition and strength of the individual "forces" aside, let's ignore the fact we do not have all the cities founded yet etc. - let's talk about the viability of this defense system first. Try coming up with its disadvantages (honestly, I was not really able to think of any... maybe just the need to build the road network ASAP... which may interfere a bit with our general terrain improvement priorities).
If we agree on that this is the way to go, we shall then determine how strong individual "military deployments" should be, what their composition should be, and where we should start with setting this up etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
A small side-note: for certain areas (especially for the Northern Mountains), it may be actually better to use the units that would be kept "behind the landing zones" to control the landing zones themselves.
For example, to prevent ANY landing on the coast between Castlea and Jackson, we would need 10 units. That's probably less than what we would have to keep as part of the defense system for Castlea, Panama, and Jackson (the three white camps in the Sandbox).
A similar situation would be along our Southern coast, between Logville and Tiberium - 8 units would cover the whole of that part of our coast, making it impossible to land there. Again, much cheaper than implementing the "primary" defense system.
Thinking of it... I will probably prepare a modified plan, making those parts of our coast that are suitable for this kind of defense, special zones.
Though - lining our coast with units would be fine (even if extremely ugly), but it would take 109 units to fully cover all possible landing tiles (89 yellow ones, 20 green ones). That's a LOT - having 22 land military units and two naval ones ATM, you can imagine how long it would take us to put 109 together. Plus, that would be almost 7 units per every coastal city! That's certainly much more than what we should be able to do with if implementing the defense system as proposed.
It may be optimal to combine both approaches - use the coast-lining wherever reasonable (Northern Mountains, Southern Coast), using the defense system as proposed for the rest. Strategically positioning units on the "problematic" landing tiles (yellow tiles crossed by a white line) that imply using additional backup forces (the first set of the "yellow camps") may actually solve the problem of having some white camps "cut" from their respective cities (I have just counted the tiles - 10 properly placed units make the first set of "yellow camps" completely unnecessary).
One added advantage of the defense system as proposed is its "scalability". The coast-lining approach works fine only if FULLY implemented. Until fully implemented, the "holes" are just inviting enemy to land wherever your defenses are not set up - and then you are screwed, as your forces are scattered all across the country, unable to reach the invasion area fast enough (plus, moving the coast lining units out of their respective positions actually opens even more holes in the defense system).
But with the proper road system (this is crucial, of course), we would be able to progressively bolster our defenses. First, there would be just one merc and one horse between every two cities (simplified, of course - but you get the idea). This would ensure every city would be able to get the garrison of two (vet) mercs and two counterattacking horses ON THE TURN ENEMY WOULD APPEAR AT THE GATES. Then, we could add a catapult to every white camp. actually giving any threatened city two catapults able to hit the landed stack immediately AND put up some defense fire at the attacking enemy units on the next turn, when the city gets under attack. Then, we could add another defender, then another attacker... and so on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rendelnep
My only concern though is What if someone aims to send a concertrated force to capture a city in one turn? |
Well, any invader will always need at least two turns - one turn to land units next to a city and another turn to attack/take the city. Only Viking Berserkers (?) and Marines can attack coastal cities directly from sea. Vikings are not in this game, Marines come LOOONG after railroads - and with railroads, the defense system will of course radically change: to permanent garrisons supported by huge arty forces.
So, we will always have this one turn to rush garrison units into any city under a threat of invading stack (our mobile attackers will have a chance to attack the landed enemy forces, automatically remaining/withdrawing into the city and our arty pieces will have a chance to fire at the enemy forces, while ending up behind the city walls, ready to "welcome" attackers when they assault the city on the next turn). Of course, we'll never be able to guarantee that our city will have defenses adequate to fend off an attacking stack of ANY size. However, what we WILL have guaranteed is that we will always have a BETTER chance of holding the city - since we will always have MORE units in there than we would have if using permanent garrisons.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ZargonX
|
 |
Space
Sep 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
Ok, got a chance to sit down and read the plan (no coke though, but it's a good idea, Rendlenep!) Basically, I think the fundamental aspects are a good direction for us to go in. However, there are some tweaking of details that will need to be done, of course. As Vondrack said, I believe that perhaps beginning by breaking it down into regional-scale plans will make putting the whole puzzle together a little easier.
The other issue is, of course, that this is a long term plan. While I do agree that we are probably safe until the age of cavalry, I do maintain that there is a small chance of someone trying something during the age of knights and astronomy. Therefore, I feel it necessary that while we prepare for the long term, we must be ready for the short term as well. Fortunately, I think most aspects of this can be begun now and eventually molded into the final product.
I also agree with lmtoops that 3-4 warning galleys would be a good investment. Besides giving us fair warning, they may discourage others by demonstrating that their sneak attack won't be very secret.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lmtoops
|
 |
Dallas, Texas
Mar 2002
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- I agree with rendelnep - how does this plan stop a concentrated invasion in one spot?
- The Mystery Isle factor - if they wanted to, GoW could gather together a huge force on Mystery Isle and with its closeness to us, send large amounts of reinforcements quickly - similar situation exists in the southern crossing near RP |
Early warning is the key. We can put ships at these key locations. Maybe land a warrior on mystery isle (probably not).
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- How "undefended" will our coastal and interior cities be in this plan? I have been advocating at least 2 defensive units per city on the east coast and at least one per city in the interior in the past for example. We can't afford to lose cities even temporarily due to the thousands of shields in buildings that could be lost if any city fell. |
We can be smart about where to put extra defense. I think 2 def. on the east is smart, but camps can be used for interior defense. IMO, no need to fortify interior cities.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- What about enemy blocking units that would prevent us from properly reinforcing any invasion spot who block roads and pillage our terraforming. Unfortunately all of the Bob uniques are mounted units and for blocking and pillaging, both the Rider and Conquistador would be terrors for using such tactics (more likely the Conquistador admittedly). |
Early warning...but even if we have no warning, we have one turn to respond. They may pillage a few tiles, but as long as we protect our key resources we will be fine.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- How do bombardment units fit in this plan especially as they only have a range of 1 currently and so need to get close to the action with adequate defensive units to prevent their capture? Also how do we deal with enemy artillery units or worse yet ship based bombardment ? (admittedly ships are not much of a concern yet) |
Very good point...we need to incorporate this into the plan. The bombardment units could be used to block advantagious landing spots, or just stay in the cities. This needs to be discussed.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- Since the teams see the iron and horses in Panama, it will be a major target of any attacker. (Remember how both Vox and GS were desperately trying to remove access to the other team's iron) |
We will definitely get early warning for Panama. We are OK in Panama from the East and West. Of couse we do have other costal strategic resourses, that are exposed.
If I were planning an invasion of Legoland, right now. I would gead to the far South. There is iron and horse resources. I could transport a large force and set up a couple of town, before we could respond. At least we have barb-hunter roaming the South; they are our early warning system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
I agree with the early warning galleys too - that was one of my concerns about the plan - every turn we have advance notice is a turn more we have to prepare for an invasion. |
As said - early warning galleys are definitely a fine idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- I agree with rendelnep - how does this plan stop a concentrated invasion in one spot? |
It does not. Just like keeping permanent garrisons does not. A stack strong enough will always do some harm, possibly even take a city. This plan makes it more likely though, that we will be able to hold - as whatever size the invading stack would be, we will have MORE units defending the city compared to if relying on permanent garrisons.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- The Mystery Isle factor - if they wanted to, GoW could gather together a huge force on Mystery Isle and with its closeness to us, send large amounts of reinforcements quickly - similar situation exists in the southern crossing near RP |
Well, sure - but all it would take us would be to use a bit stronger "military camps" along the coasts closest to Mystery Island and Spain. The likely invasion directions do not affect the principle of the defense system, just call for keeping stronger forces along the most exposed areas (which we sure can incorporate into the plan).
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- How "undefended" will our coastal and interior cities be in this plan? I have been advocating at least 2 defensive units per city on the east coast and at least one per city in the interior in the past for example. We can't afford to lose cities even temporarily due to the thousands of shields in buildings that could be lost if any city fell. |
Undefended = with no units inside them. That's the key. That's the very essence of the defense plan. Keeping permanent garrisons in our coastal cities actually mean that these units are - at any one moment - available to only ONE city: the one they are stationed in. They cannot reach the neighbouring city in 1 turn - thus, the defense strength of any city would be equal to its garrison only.
It is very important to realize that even if the cities would have no units permanently stationed in them, it would be GUARANTEED that on the very turn enemy lands any city would receive a garrison STRONGER than one we would be able to keep there on a permanent basis (since because of the positioning of our units, the city under threat would receive not only units it would normally have as its garrison, but also units which would normally be stationed in the neighbouring cities).
It just "looks like" there would be no garrison - if you look closely at the map, you will realize that the white camps are ALWAYS positioned in such a way that units need only 1 turn to move to the closest city and fortify there.
For defenders: move one tile long the road, move into the city, fortify. All in one turn.
For artillery: move one tile along the road, move into the city, fire at the enemy stack. All in one turn. On the next turn, when the enemy attacks the city, fire at the attacking units.
For horses: move one tile along the road, move into the city, attack the enemy stack - if victorious or withdrawing from the fight, unit stays in the city. All in one turn.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- What about enemy blocking units that would prevent us from properly reinforcing any invasion spot who block roads and pillage our terraforming. Unfortunately all of the Bob uniques are mounted units and for blocking and pillaging, both the Rider and Conquistador would be terrors for using such tactics (more likely the Conquistador admittedly). |
This was one of the issues I was specifically addressing. There are two possible solutions - the first one is mentioned in the opening post: it's the first set of "yellow camps". Those ensure than enemy CANNOT block reinforcements from reaching the city on the turn of landing, as there is always at least one road tile leading to the city enemy cannot land on.
The second solution (probably the better one) is having troops (10 of them total) control the tiles that might allow the enemy to cut the links to a city. These tiles are easy to see - wherever a white line crosses a yellow tile, enemy would be able to land in such a way that the unit camping "behind" the tile would not be able to reach the city and fortify on the same turn (they would only be able to reach the city, but not fortify).
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- How do bombardment units fit in this plan especially as they only have a range of 1 currently and so need to get close to the action with adequate defensive units to prevent their capture? Also how do we deal with enemy artillery units or worse yet ship based bombardment ? (admittedly ships are not much of a concern yet) |
See my paragraph above - arty units actually fit it very nicely, as they "move, enter the city, and fire" - all on the very turn enemy lands next to a city. Plus, they are ready for defense fire on the very next turn.
As you say - naval bombardment is a non-issue at least until ironclands.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
- Since the teams see the iron and horses in Panama, it will be a major target of any attacker. (Remember how both Vox and GS were desperately trying to remove access to the other team's iron) |
There is one significant difference between that situation and ours. They KNEW about ALL of their strategic resource locations. In our case, nobody knows if and what resources we have in our interior. Spending units on trying to seize Panama iron & horse is futile, as we are likely to have backup resources further inland.
I actually consider Panama very unlikely target of an invasion, as such an invasion would totally lack any element of surprise - we would be able to see the invasion fleet coming 2-3 turns before the landing. That is very unsound from the attacker's point of view.
Note: I agree with Leo - if I was planning an invasion of Legos Major, I would go for the far South/Southwest. But there is nothing we can do about that, aside from settling that part of our landmass ASAP.
One final note:
This defense plan is not meant to be an ultimate solution to all kinds of possible invasion scenarios. NO PLAN CAN BE. If 20 Knights land next to our city, then that city is a toast and there is no way in hell we could prevent that.
However, considering the same total number of units, this plan gives us relatively better chances to defend against invasions. Say, we'd have those 2 defenders in every coastal city. Enemy knights land and on the next turn, attack our city, defended by 2 mercs (we have no way to reinforce the city faster than in 2 turns, as the neighbouring cities are more than 3 tiles away). OTOH, if we take those 2 defenders from every coastal city and position them in the "white camps", ANY city enemy knights land next to will have 4 mercs defending it on the next turn when the knights attack. Just try it using the maps I posted - you will see it works.
So - while we still have roughly 2 defenders per every city, we are actually able to deploy them in a more flexible and effective way, using them wherever really needed. Our problem is that we do not know where the attack will be coming from. Keeping "strong enough" garrisons everywhere will kill our economy (upkeep). Keeping "strong enough" garrisons in cities "likely to be attacked" will only make the enemy strike somewhere else.
By having NO units in ANY city, the enemy will not know WHERE to strike and HOW MUCH units he will be facing. Plus, as I explained above - we will be able to face the invasion stack with more units than if relying on permenent garrisons.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
I finally had time to read through this plan. The first thing that struck me was the posting time  : 4AM Radek's time!! Couldn't sleep ? 
I must say that I like it. I'm not going to repeat here everything is good about it, Radek pictured the advantages quite well.
What I like best about it:
1. the element of surprise and unpredictibility: the enemy won't know where our troops are and what are we planning to do.
2. twice as many defenders as compared to having permanent garrisons
3. the flexibility: rapid troops movement and deployment in short time
Now, my ideas/observations:
1. First, the biggest flaw (but the enemy should guess our plans to do this): a decoy landing. Landing troops near a city, "sucking" all the defenders from the area in that city and then landing a bigger force near one of the now undefended cities. (this is of course no different for any other type of defence, unless I'm mistaken; except for the "unit-chain" defence).
2. I know this means more troops, but I'd like to keep in all coastal cities one unit. Not because the plan wouldn't allow proper defence, but to trick the attackers. One would investigate at least one city before attacking, I suppose. Seeing only undefended cities would make them very suspicious. Let them see one defender and think they are lucky that we are so stupid.
Besides, more troops never hurt (only the finances )
3. I still would like to see 3 stacks of fast reaction forces (horseman->knights) deployed in the 3 areas discussed before (north, central, south). This would be good to counter overwhelming landings and/or decoy landings. These troops would stay in their base cities until it is absolutely clear where the main attack takes place or unless the defenders are overwhelmed. Unless I'm mistaken this rapid reaction force should be able to reach any coastal city whithin one turn.
4. Warning ships, of course.
5. Was it something else? Hmm, I'm trying to remember ... Ahh, I'm getting old 
Ah, yes: pretty please permanent garrisons in strategically important cities (Jackson comes in mind) Can I negociate 2 units in every such city from our MA? 
Edit: in addition to the "white" and "yellow" troops, of course. This way Jacksson would have at least 6 defenders in case of an attack (2 perma-defs, +4 white defs + some yellow defs)
All these troops from Radek's plan, including my or other's additions, would be still fewer than filling our coast with units, so the plan has a big  from me.
Last edited by Tiberius on 25-06-2003 at 16:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
Actually, I think the end of the middle ages, when Cavalry and Conquistadors come into play, is the most likely time for us to be attacked. Caravels will have come by then, maybe even Galleons, making transport more efficient and better defended. |
Agreed on the timing of a possible invasion. End of the medieval times or the very dawn of the industrial time is the most likely moment others will make their try. And I expect AT LEAST TWO TEAMS ganging up on us. Maybe three.
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
I finally had time to read through this plan. The first thing that struck me was the posting time : 4AM Radek's time!! Couldn't sleep ? |
Oh, he could... and would... just that he wanted to have this stuff finished. He actually started at about 10pm... but it was a lot of image & writing stuff to do. 
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
1. First, the biggest flaw (but the enemy should guess our plans to do this): a decoy landing. Landing troops near a city, "sucking" all the defenders from the area in that city and then landing a bigger force near one of the now undefended cities. (this is of course no different for any other type of defence, unless I'm mistaken; except for the "unit-chain" defence). |
Actually, this decoy landing should not be that much of a problem. Especially with the "full" version of the defense plan implemented, with all the white and yellow camps, the units moved into the city under the threat of the invading stack would be IMMEDIATELY replaced by units from the adjacent yellow camps (that's what the lines starting in yellow camps and ending in white camps are for - they are never longer than 3 tiles, which means a 1-turn movement along roads), making it possible to counter any other landing with the same force as the initial decoy landing.
I admit that it will take some time to get our defenses to fully cover all white camps (WCs) and yellow camps (YCs).
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
2. I know this means more troops, but I'd like to keep in all coastal cities one unit. Not because the plan wouldn't allow proper defence, but to trick the attackers. One would investigate at least one city before attacking, I suppose. Seeing only undefended cities would make them very suspicious. Let them see one defender and think they are lucky that we are so stupid.
Besides, more troops never hurt (only the finances ) |
Thinking of this, it may be a good idea... I agree that it is not our intention to make the potential invader suspicious, planning for "the unexpected", but to make him believe our defenses are weak, underestimating our strength, sending a weaker stack. It's all about being warned well in advance - once we KNOW there is a war upon us, I believe we will be able to outproduce even two teams combined. The only problem is the first impact.
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
3. I still would like to see 3 stacks of fast reaction forces (horseman->knights) deployed in the 3 areas discussed before (north, central, south). This would be good to counter overwhelming landings and/or decoy landings. These troops would stay in their base cities until it is absolutely clear where the main attack takes place or unless the defenders are overwhelmed. Unless I'm mistaken this rapid reaction force should be able to reach any coastal city whithin one turn. |
Well, not sure how would we determine "where the main attack is actually coming from". There may be more than one decoy landing.
Thanks to how our landmass is shaped, mobile units stationed in WCs/YCs along one coast need mostly just a single turn to move over to WCs/YCs on the opposite coast, so I am not sure we need three extra stacks stationed in Legopolis, Farmerville, and Karina. Once we have our defenses set up, we can assemble such forces - "just in case"... But I would leave that for later.
Since all WCs are just 2 tiles from the nearby cities, it means mobile units from a given WC can immediately attack stacks landing near one of the cities closest to that WC, plus they can move even to the cities next to these two closest ones. And I am not even mentioning the possibility of moving them to the other coast...
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
Ah, yes: pretty please permanent garrisons in strategically important cities (Jackson comes in mind)
Edit: in addition to the "white" and "yellow" troops, of course. This way Jacksson would have at least 6 defenders in case of an attack (2 perma-defs, +4 white defs + some yellow defs) |
Considering we would basically go for one defender per city, this means one extra defender per important city, which should be doable.
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
Actually I think that just to be safe we should have one unit per city everywhere, not just the coastal cities. We shouldn't forget the speed of Spain's Conquisadors. If they managed to land and we couldn't counter it immediately, they could be 6 squares away the next turn and could perhaps capture one of our interior cities. |
Well, the thing is we would ALWAYS have something to counter an invading stack with. I will grant you that conquistadors with their effective movement of 6 are not to be neglected - but their A/D stats (3/2) suck. Any landing zone would be immediately hit by 2 WC forces. Plus, any interior city within the striking range of the conq's will be able to receive garrisons from the camps on the other coast.
Plus, keep in mind that attacking an interior city (even if you know where it is, which is not exactly the case for all of our interior cities - only Legopolis, Karina, and future Oasis locations will probably be known) is strategically quite unsound and will unlikely be planned for. Whatever you send to conquer such a city, will most probably die within a turn or two, since you will have no means to reinforce it. So, yes, it is something not to be neglected, as the enemy may resort to a suicide attack just to raze the city, but the probability of such an attack is low, I think.
Besides, when you look at the map and all the camps, it's quite a thick defense belt...
quote:
Originally posted by Sharpe
Another possibility is say the situation similar to the ND landing. What if they land and we fire off a threatening PM demanding their withdrawal. They agree, and so we don't attack, and then they change their mind and move inward instead - that is another reason to have one unit per city in our interior just in case. The possibility of losing a thousand or more shields of buildings due to not protecting a city with at least one unit is a much more damaging situation than the 1 gold per turn that these units would each cost. |
The only reason we did not strike immediately after ND landed their unit was that it was just a single unit, moreover an unarmed scout. As Leo correctly pointed out, landing a stack of military units on our landmass is nothing but the declaration of war - there will be no threatening PMs, we shall strike at once. Just like GS did when GoW landed their two elite horses, pretending they were only "observers".
quote:
Originally posted by lmtoops
We could put a defender in the coastal cities. If not in the city, the unit can be stationed on a hill/mountain outside the city. This would take away an advantagious landing position. |
And this leads me to a small tweak to the proposed 1 unit per coastal city rule. Let's basically have one unit per every coastal city, but wherever necessary, use this unit to control the "strategically important" landing tiles that are vital for being able to move and fortify troops from the closest WCs into the city in 1 turn (there are/will be 10 such tiles along our coast). This actually addresses two concerns at the same time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
OK, so I believe we basically agree that the plan is ok, with two major additions/changes:
1) naval screen
2) one "perma" defender per every coastal city, positioned either directly in the city or used to control a strategic landing tile close to that city (making sure WC forces get into the threatened city in time no matter what)
So, let's start talking about what we need to do to make this "dream" come true:
1) let's consider the Eastern Coast only for this moment
Until Astronomy (and quite likely until Navigation), our Western Coast is reasonably safe, protected by the vast ocean. Western Coast cities shall do with a perma garrison of one (reg) merc. Panama should have one more garrison unit (merc or medinf), just to be extra safe.
2) let's start with the coast between Jackson and Zargonia
That's where our cities already are. Once we found Crossing, let's extend this line down as far as Logville.
3) road network goals:
Jackson-D.F. area: already in place
D.F.-Tarzania area: non-existent, three jungle tiles (S, S-S, and S-S-S of D.F.) need to be cleared and roaded
Tarzania-Zargonia area: mostly in place, just a single jungle tile (S of Tarzania) needs to be cleared and roaded
4) military presence goals:
Jackson: 2 elite mercs
Jackson-D.F. WC: 1 merc, 1 medinf, 1 horse, 1 cat (all vets)
D.F.: 2 vet mercs positioned NW & S of the city (controlling the vital landing tiles)
D.F.-Tarzania WC: 1 merc, 1 horse, 1 cat (all vets)
Tarzania: one vet merc stationed in the city
Tarzania-Zargonia WC: 1-2 mercs, 1 horse, 1 cat (all vets)
Zargonia: 2 vet mercs stationed in the city (since it has only one WC close by
Considering what we already have, we will need:
a) 1 merc, 1 horse, 1 cat for the Jackson-D.F. WC
b) 1 merc for Dye Fields
c) 1 merc, 1 horse, 1 cat for the D.F.-Tarzania WC
d) 1-2 mercs, 1 horse, 1 cat for the Tarzania-Zargonia WC
e) 1 merc for Zargonia
Total: 5-6 mercs, 3 horses, 3 cats. Considering we have Jackson, Panama, and Forkmouth producing units right now and Sharphaven in 6 turns, I believe we could make it - for the next ~10-15 turns like this:
Panama: finish the merc (2t), then worker (1t), merc (3t), merc (3t), worker (1t), then marketplace (~8t)
Jackson: finish the horse (1t), then worker (1t), walls (2t), cat (2t), worker (1t), horse (3t), worker (1t), cat (2)
F'mouth: finish cat (4t), horse (5t), merc (5t)
S'haven: finish barracks (6t), merc (5t), merc (5t)
plus:
Zargonia: naval units only, once the harbour is finished.
I would use the workers from these cities entirely for clearing & roading the four jungle tiles identified in the "road network goals" part.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
Oh, I forgot about one important thing: once we acquire Chivalry, we'll be unable to build horsemen. So we need to do it as follows (moving horses to the front slots, as it is better for us to build horses and upgrade them to knights then to build knights from scratch ATM):
Panama: finish a horse (2t; needs a switch), then horse (3t), worker (1t), merc (3t), worker (1t), then marketplace (~8t)
Jackson: finish the horse (1t), then worker (1t), walls (2t), cat (2t), worker (1t), merc (3t), worker (1t), cat (2)
F'mouth: finish cat (4t), merc (5t), merc (5t)
S'haven: finish barracks (6t), merc (5t), merc (5t)
|
|
| |
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 07:21
|