 |
| |
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
I was reading an article on the transformation of the American military, especially Rumsfeld's focus on renewing maneuver warfare.
Don;t some of these principals apply to us?
* We have the ability (almost) to deliver concentrated force sufficient to create overwhelming local advantage.
* We have a significant speed advantage at sea, due to both number of units and the GLight.
* There are sufficient avenues to engage the enemy (i.e., flanks and vulnerabilities) that we should be able to get them off balance.
* We have enough production power to both mount a significant attack and defend / build at home.
Quote from "The New Yorker":
"Their intellectual patron was the late Air Force Colonel John Boyd, whose cardinal tenet was a concept that he called the "OODA loop": success in war is a matter of of observing, orienting, deciding, and then acting faster than the enemy. Boyd's brainstorm generated others, and for military thinkers the great quest was figuring out ways to "get inside the other guy's loop."
[great stuff, BTW]
It seems to me that we are positioned to get inside of RP's loop RIGHT NOW, while they are vulnerable from REXing and we have relative strength AND maneuvering advantages.
I think we need to seriously look at attacking as soon as we are able, and depending on speed to bring the rest of our forces into action.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Attack on D+1. Level the city. |
Add in rebuild with Settler on NM 7 on D+1 and it sounds really good. If we control the road to Barcelona and the Hills in the area culturally, it makes everything much easier to hold onto, and we don't have to worry about counterattacks nearly as much.
At NM 7, the roads all have to pass along flats to get to/past our new city. It also means Toledo is cut off from Iron and Luxuries other than silks. It gives us a hill city with a river, and we could hold it basically forever. NM needs to be investigated the turn of the landing (before we commit troops), along with Barcelona.
Also, we might be able to land on RP's Iron on turn D. Likely that they have it blocked, but Pikes on the Mountains there could cause trouble (pillage gems, scout, ect.) for them, and divert forces at least.
Barcelona we should try to keep, and might be a good target for Knights. If we can keep the Harbor, it would be a huge benefit. If the investigation of Barcelona shows 2 Pikes or less, I'd think we should try to hit it with Knights and take it on D+2 if they don't sell off the Harbor.
I can't tell from the screenshots, does RP have a land connection to ND?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:29
|
|
So all their trade deals will be broken if we take NM and build NM7.
If we land on the Cow, that would allow us to build NM 7 the turn NM falls. It might be worth the extra defensive risk we put ourselves in with the landing. Mainly it would just be Pikes at risk (to Horsemen?) though, depends on what the investigations show. If RP is at war already, there shouldn't be too many units which could respond, and only Horses/Knights could make it in time to attack anyways.
Last edited by Aeson on 11-07-2003 at 03:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
A few quick questions and points.
What are the force estimates on the Bob civs?
Do we know if bob is researching invention yet? IF so, what would be the earliest eta, and more importantly, what is the eta on Gunpowder? Would not want to invade with knights/medival infantry against muskets.
As has been discussed, I think we should go ahead and get a NAP with RP. Maybe quiet down there fears enough to start a war. As it stands now, everyone knows we will jump into the battle quickly, perhaps the assurance of a secure east would kick start something.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vulture
|
 |
Leeds, UK
Jun 2001
time: 05:29
|
|
A bit of catapult analysis for everyone.
I assumed we had 10 spaces in our galleys that would be allocated to pikes or catapults, and each catapult therefore meant 1 less pike.
Pikes are assumed to be unfortified and on plains, so we are testing the survavibility of the landing on its first turn ashore.
First analysis was the pikes and catapults alone, against Med Inf stacks of various sizes from 5 to 10 MI (less than five, and we don't really have any problems, more than 10 and our invasion is in deep trouble before it starts). With 7 or fewer MI attacking, 3 catapults and 7 pikes were best, and with 8 or 9 MI attacking, 2 catapults and 8 pikes was best. Against 10 MI, 1 cat and 9 pikes was the best.
Second analysis was to assume that there was come knights along as well. The issue there was how likely the knights would have to defend. The rule here is pretty simple. You need one pike for each attacking MI. If there is one extra MI, you are running a 60% chance that a knight will have to defend. For n extra MI, on average n-0.5 knights have to defend. The catapults make very, very little difference to this, although they do affect the no. of surviving, injured pikes slightly (each catapult, up to 5, decreases the average pike losses by 0.08, and increases the average MI losses by the same amount, but that's a pretty small change - about a 15% chance of winning one extra battle with 2 catapults included, but at considerable risk to knights if there is a large defense force).
Catapults only really come into their own defending cities, when the enemy have to move adjacent to you, you bombard them, they attack and suffer the defensive bombard - cities double the effectiveness of catapults. Defending the initial stack, they don't make much difference, where attackers can move up and attack in the same turn. So the rule here could be that we need as many pikes as we expect in terms of med inf response, and the rest of the 10 slots can be bulked out with catapults.
But -- consider if we take 6 pikes and 4 cats - against 5 MI this means we lose on average 2.68 pikes (vs 2.32 MI), whereas with no cats, we lose 3.02 pikes (vs 1.98 MI). In either case we're most likely to lose 3 pikes, to 2 MI, and the 4 cats produce about a 30% chance that we lose 2, they lose 3. In either case the stack survives quite happily. At the other extreme, if they come with 10 MI, we are defending with knights 3 or 4 times, probably winning 1, losing 1, retreating 1 (exposed knight may be vulnerably to attack from another direction, or may not retreat if there are 0 defense units in the stack (in which case we lose 2 and win 1)).
So the cost of underestimating the number of pikes needed is very high, whereas the cost of overestimating is pretty small (too few catapults doesn't hurt us much, too few pikes does). I'd suggest no more than 2 catapults in the original landing for defensive purposes. For attacking purposes may be a different story.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
My instincts tell me to land at NM1 (forest), but I see your points re: being able to rebuild a new fortress city on D+1, and that means landing on the cow.
The other, much less appealing, option is to land next to Barcelona. But the fight to take/destroy their core is much harder then.
You know, if I'm RP, and I fear GSian invasion, I would stick a galley on NM 3, 6. That cuts off the 2 best landing sites, and forces us either to kill the galley or land elsewhere.
Ok, on the diplomatic situation...
GoW is a risk, I know that. Which is why I like NYE's idea of signing a NAP with them and thus creating the proper conditions for war. The more I think about it, the more I like a full NAP, instead of the limited one we were originally talking about. Hell, let's sign NAPs with both ND and GoW!*
Let's cover our asses as best we can and invade RP. LET'S GO BONK SOME HEADS!
-Arrian
* - However, I'd like those deals subject to a non-disclosure agreement (I know, I know) and to be timed for a turn or two prior to our landing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zeit
|
 |
Meet my blade!
Sep 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
We should seriously consider the diplomatic preparations prior to war. Jumping into the water with no preparations is close to guaranteeing we'll be ganged upon landing.
Letting Gow know about things might backfire, but we have to sign some NAP, as well as ignite the flames of war, so that no one can feel safe, and the unity of Bob dissolves completely.
My fear is that a state of stalemate will continue for quite a while, without making a "contract" with GoW, or at least making some plans together, I think us starting a war of invasion to Bob without some "backup" (that is, some conflict there, whether before or shortly after we strike) will make it look like us against Bob, which might be problematic.
I'd also support a NAP, or at some comforting message to ND some short time before we attack, just so that they'd know we have no plans of attacking them- this might further isolate RP, and would reduce the risk of gang up...
But how do we approach GoW- I think that's the urgent question...
One more thing- I tend to believe that 'GF at Panzer' were the "active" members of GoW in the fields of counterfeit and semi-childish schemes, perhaps GoW has changed its way now?
I wouldn't count on it, of course, but we should keep it in mind
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2003 01:05
|