Official Military Debate Thread

MrWhereItsAt · May 30, 2002, 12:20

Due to reasons specified in the War Minister poll, I am likely to be largely absent from here for a couple of days (and ONLY a couple of days). In order that the ppl may take out their frustrations, I present to all this thread for members to put it to the Ministry what our soldiers should be doing now we seem to be having some success against the corrupt Egyptian regime, and the dangerous Americans.

Personally I hope to get the support to continue the assault until the Egyptian lands are liberated, and the American threat contained. Once these objectives are reached, I believe we can divert our efforts into more infrastructure and science. That will of course allow more potent armies for future War Ministers!

I can see it now...

Let the furious arguing commecne...

War Minister,
MrWIA.

Kropotkin · May 30, 2002, 12:32

I feel the war should not be run at all costs (ie a total war). Limitied warfare should be enough so that the development of our heartland woun't suffer.

MrWhereItsAt · May 30, 2002, 12:36

But what exactly do you mean? If we set ourselves some targets, we can achieve them (or find they are too hard and change them), and then be done with it. That's what I'm hoping for, some concrete things to achieve before ending the war.

CannonFodder · May 30, 2002, 13:01

I think total war is the answer! We must take more lebensraum for the fatherland!!!

Marquis de Sodaq · May 30, 2002, 13:19

I keep plugging the idea of ironclads for two reasons:

1. They are unaffected by city walls, and should thus have a much much better kill ratio than even cavalry would, and
2. This effectiveness means we will need far fewer unit to conquer the desired territory.

Just a few ironclads to pop the defenders, and a few land units to move into the undefended cities. Voila! Conquest.

Using fewer units means there will be no need to alter production of improvements and camel breeding in our core cities. Ergo, our borders expand while our cities get richer.

civman2000 · May 30, 2002, 13:26

Total war is too extreme. Take our best 8 cities or so, have 1-2 doing wonders, and the rest working on military. Of the next few cities the caravan building gets passed around, and occasionally one of the tops cities builds one. Then have the outer cities work on defense/improvement.

JCP · May 30, 2002, 13:57

At this stay of our action, we have to go at the end of our war with Egypt and America.

For that, cf. the posts in the http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=51503 link.
Our army is sufficient and will be completed if we take foreign cities by bribing (after their capital).

We may progressively balance our effort between improvement, caravans and new units.

But we must keep ourself strong, because, as the diplomacy screen shows, all the AI Civ are unfriends.

Even without our will, we'll be at war with Carthaginoys, then Babylonians or Indians, and early than we hope, with Romans which will not accept our Citadel stopping their expension, in some (how ?) years.
In that situation, we are communists for a while, and we may become democrats only after building happiness improvments and wonders (temple in each city, JSB's, and later Women Suffrage).

cavebear · May 30, 2002, 15:27

I agree with current Minister of War Sodaq. Ironclads are a great way to attack walled coastal cities. They ignore the walls, and they have 3 hit points to a Crusaders 1 hit point. Unless we through a half dozen Diplomats at the walls Crusaders will have a hard time getting past even Phalanxes, never mind Pikesmen.

And since Thebes is the Capital, we can't bribe it. I'll be very interested in seeing the first military recommendation from the new Minister of War.

-Jrabbit · May 30, 2002, 15:47

Further, as soon as our ironclads kill *anything* they will become vets! Hail Magellan!!!

Kuciwalker · May 30, 2002, 16:16

Will our Caravels upgrade to Ironclads? It's been a while since I've played civ2.

Zedd · May 30, 2002, 16:34

I think caravels only upgrade to galleons.

Space05us · May 30, 2002, 16:46

correct me if I'm wrong but when ships "bombard" in Civ 2 doesn't thier attack rate get cut in half?

Gen. Hancock · May 30, 2002, 17:25

Ok people, ugh hmmm,

I suggest this as a possible alternative to our current Imperialistic, tyranical, blood, thirsty, savage way of doing things.

1) There is no other way right now of completely getting out of this war with Egypt so flatten them and forget about em.

2) Seek revenge on the Americans by destroying one unwalled yet key city and then negotiate peace and establish trade with them.

3) Build Marketplaces, Temples, Universities, and Stock Exchanges in all of our cities save but four or five.

4) in these four or five cities build up defence.

5) also focus on building roads to conect our cities to eachother as well as to our neighbors' cities.

Let us have World Peace rather than World Domination, rather let us Dominate as a more technologically advanced people that the rest of the world rather than just having the largest Military and destroying the rest of mankind.

Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock
Comanding II Corps
Union Army of the Potomac

Space05us · May 30, 2002, 17:41

well for one thing I say flatten the Americans and Egyptians! We can be good neigbors with the americans after we take thier cities that we can see. As far as I'm concerned any other civ that goes to war with us deserves nothing better than to be a puddle of goop.

About the Americans, if we take the cities of thier's that we can currently see than wouldn't that make people more willing to explore in order to find the other American cities?

Besides in all of the games I've played the Americans and Egyptians have always had attitude problems.

SQUISH THEM

I've been really sloppy at writing things lately, perhaps sleep would be a good thing to consider...

H Tower · May 30, 2002, 20:49

So far i've only seen a diplomat plan and a ironclad plan of attack on the egyptians and americans.

Votes for the ironclad plan:
Marquis de Sodaq
cavebear
-Jrabbit
H Tower

Votes for the Diplo Plan
JCP

Quite a few others of you say squish the enemy, but how?

Kuciwalker · May 30, 2002, 21:08

Quote:

Let us have World Peace rather than World Domination

World Peace on Deity??!! Is that possible? Deity MGE??!!

cavebear · May 30, 2002, 23:17

A Diplomat attack on an AI city reqires one Dip for every structure built because (in my experience) the city walls always come down last. And it costs another Dip just to find out how many structures there are in the city.

Ironclads are brutally lethal to land units (well, I'd rather use Battleships, but those aren't available yet). Still, Ironclads are extremely effective against the kind of units our enemies have.

We are maybe 6 turns from Steam Engine (Ironclads), and then we have to build the darn things and get them to Thebes. So I propose to just advance our civ tech to that point, finish Marketplaces and such to improve productivity, and build a few more Caravels to carry land troops. A few more Caravans, too.

Bear · May 31, 2002, 06:23

Ironclad attack..?

It'll be like the charge of the Light Brigade..

My plan:

Pillage their land, siege a city, destroy everything possible with diplomats, and wait.

Just wait.

And some more.

And a bit more..

Ah ha! Civil disorder!

Now bribe 'em

Ok, its not as quick as Ironclads, and a bit more complicated than diplomats, but at least our casualty stats stay pretty low..

Remember, once the siege is set up, we can put all our effort into flattening the evil Egyptians.

Bear · May 31, 2002, 06:37

One more thing..

I've brought the idea up of inadvertedly creating a new super power by destroying the wrong people.

The Americans have 4 cities, and we can see 2, right? If we destroy 2, as someone suggested, it would leave the Americans with just 2 cities. That would make them very weak (a formidable opponent to us, but who knows what kind of army the Romans/Babylonians/etc are building up?), so another civ could march straight over them. That would give them a foothold dangerously close to our core, and open up a whole new front for us to fight on. Basically, we'd be pretty much surrounded.

So, we have to take one of their cities, or all of them.

If we take one, we have a beachhead with which to attack them if they are aggressive in the future, and also to attack anyone who might invade the Americans (i.e. Romans).

If we take them all, we open up a whole new border, stretching our forces dangerously thin. Our casualties would be high to take 4 well defended cities, and we would still be fighting the Egyptians. It could take us *centuries* to build up a formidable defence force for the "liberated" American land, by which time the Romans may have invaded. Then, like I said earlier, they would have surrounded the core of Apolyton.

If you, President Cavebear, and Supreme Millitary Commander MrWIA, are willing to take the risk of creating a massive war in the future, go ahead. But to my eye, the only option is to take one American city and defend it well.

This is the same for the Egyptians.

Heres an example (just made up):

The Romans are to our north. The Egyptians are to our south. The Americans are to our east. The Carthagians are to our west.

We take the American and Egyptian Empires. We've now opened up a new border, to our south and our east. We would have to withdraw defending forces from the North (defending against the possibility of Roman attack) and the west (defending from the Carthagians) to defend the south and east. That would, like I said, stretch us thinly. Too thinly.

Keeping one city on the American land and one on the Egyptians would work beautifully. If somebody became aggressive, we would have a beach head to attack them from. If the Romans became aggressive, and allied with the Egyptians or Americans, we could easily attack their allies.

In conclusion:
Take ONE Egyptian city on the coast. Take ONE American city on the coast. Become good neighbours, and hopefully build up relations to get alliances (so they can defend our East and South for us).

Sorry to ramble

civman2000 · May 31, 2002, 08:03

get alliances

?? And pillaging is a waste of time, you just have to rebuild it and it diesn't hurt them much unless your besieging a city for like 20 turns, in which case it's better to just have a huge army to put on every square of the radius and not have to pillage!

But I only remember having units weak enough in comparison to some ultra-defender in scenarios (when they have an unbuildable defensive unite given).

JCP · May 31, 2002, 12:17

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
Votes for the Diplo Plan
JCP

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
A Diplomat attack on an AI city reqires one Dip for every structure built because (in my experience) the city walls always come down last. And it costs another Dip just to find out how many structures there are in the city.
Ironclads are brutally lethal to land units ...Still, Ironclads are extremely effective against the kind of units our enemies have.
We are maybe 6 turns from Steam Engine (Ironclads),

Well, I must specify things

: several links deals with connected matters : Military debate, Egypt and America, Our world in 1640...
My contributions in these different links was not only a Diplo plan but a mix of diplos and military units.

I'm for a diplo plan against Egyptians : Thebes is the nearest city of them but has walls : I agree that wall destruction may cost several diplos, with assigned objective, but if we take it (by crusader after wall destruction)

, the last Egyptian cities will be very cheap and easier to bribe than to conquer by force.
This plan take in account that Ironclads are not yet available and that the navigation to Thebes from our main productive cities is long (even via Panama Canal )!
But for Americans, due to our knowledge of them, the ironclad tactic is the one to be followed !

Space05us · May 31, 2002, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
So far i've only seen a diplomat plan and a ironclad plan of attack on the egyptians and americans.

Votes for the ironclad plan:
Marquis de Sodaq
cavebear
-Jrabbit
H Tower

Votes for the Diplo Plan
JCP

Quite a few others of you say squish the enemy, but how?

I don't think we have enough information on troop locations to create a good plan of action. I think we should take a few crusaders and test the deefenses of the enemy, if they prove too much, say three crusader in a row get killed, then I suggest waiting for the development of metallurgy and sending 5-6 cannons at one city at a time. of course those units will require gaurds, but if we really have an excess of units in all of our cities than taking one from each of the three cities on the continent with A&E

wouldn't require building more.

oh yeah and...

SQUISH THEM

Space05us · May 31, 2002, 13:00

In my thread American and Egypt there have been a few suggestions:

1. Make peace with America and concentrate on Egypt

2.Bribe the non-capital cities, destroy the walls in Thebes and take it with Crusaders.For the Americans it has been suggested to just wait for better tech

3.and lastley fortify the area between America and us, instead of making peace, and concentrate on the Egyptians

H Tower · May 31, 2002, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Space05us

I don't think we have enough information on troop locations to create a good plan of action. I think we should take a few crusaders and test the deefenses of the enemy, if they prove too much, say three crusader in a row get killed, then I suggest waiting for the development of metallurgy and sending 5-6 cannons at one city at a time.

thebes has city walls, so our crusaders don't stand much of a chance. i envision them attacking the city, and the damage explosions occuring only on our crusaders, that or our crusaders simply dissapearing because they were killed so quickly. so in my mind, we wait for the ironclads or the cannons like you suggested

ixnay · May 31, 2002, 15:40

My vote is for the ironclad plan. I will have my science minions begin developing a working steam engine as soon as possible...

H Tower · May 31, 2002, 16:57

Votes for the ironclad plan:
Marquis de Sodaq
cavebear
-Jrabbit
H Tower
Ixnay37
Xenozod
atawa
Skywalker

Votes for Diplomat attacks follwed by crusaders Plan
JCP

Votes for pillaging and a siege coupled with diplomat attacks on the city walls
Bear
Big Cash
Gen. Hancock

Votes for the Diplomat/Cannon Plan
Space05us

Quite a few others have mentioned squishing the enemy, but how?

maps that shed some light on the situation:

current military forces in theater
6 crusaders in heliopolis
1 caravel in heliopolis
2 crusaders enroute to heliopolis by caravel just north of shade
1 crusader and 1 musketeer 1 space NE of heliopolis on guard duty.
1 musketeer will be finished in heliopolis within the next turn.

Support for the ironclad plan(it would take approx 5 turns for ironclads to arrive off egyptian shores once they have been built)

marquis de Sodaq
keep plugging the idea of ironclads for two reasons:
1. They are unaffected by city walls, and should thus have a much much better kill ratio than even cavalry would, and
2. This effectiveness means we will need far fewer unit to conquer the desired territory.
Just a few ironclads to pop the defenders, and a few land units to move into the undefended cities. Voila! Conquest.
Using fewer units means there will be no need to alter production of improvements and camel breeding in our core cities. Ergo, our borders expand while our cities get richer.

cavebear
I agree with current Minister of War Sodaq. Ironclads are a great way to attack walled coastal cities. They ignore the walls, and they have 3 hit points to a Crusaders 1 hit point. Unless we through a half dozen Diplomats at the walls Crusaders will have a hard time getting past even Phalanxes, never mind Pikesmen.
And since Thebes is the Capital, we can't bribe it

-JRabbit
Further, as soon as our ironclads kill *anything* they will become vets! Hail Magellan!!!

Support for Diplomat attacks follwed by crusaders
JCP
For the following, as main cities are walled, let us not waste our brilliant units in front attacks.
As communist, bribing is not a bad thing if it is for a good goal !
The aim may be to conquer Egyptian Capital, by sabotage of the walls with diplomats, then attacking by crusaders and, after conquest, bribing their poor remaining cities. "

Support for pillaging and a siege coupled with diplomat attacks on the city walls

bear
Pillage their land, siege a city, destroy everything possible with diplomats, and wait.
Just wait.
And some more.
And a bit more..
Ah ha! Civil disorder!
Now bribe 'em
Ok, its not as quick as Ironclads, and a bit more complicated than diplomats, but at least our casualty stats stay pretty low..

Big Cash
I say we land cheap troops who set fire to their countryside, pillaging as they go till the infrastructure is ruined for both countries. Our shock troops then retreat to the hills, where they periodically swoop down to check down on the starving cities. Thereby they pose no threat whatsoever

Support for the diplo/cannon plan

Space05us
I think we should send a few diplomats to scout the enemy cities. Then I suggest waiting for the development of metallurgy and sending 5-6 cannons at one city at a time.

compiled from the America and Egypt thread, Our World in 1640 thread and this thread.

cavebear · May 31, 2002, 17:11

Pretty much all our available forces are in Heliopolis at the moment, though there are 2 more Crusaders in the Caravel just North of Shade. There are also a Crusader and a Musketeer 1 NE of Heliopolis, on guard duty.

Heliopolis:

Space05us · May 31, 2002, 17:19

that city looks rather ill defended

cavebear · May 31, 2002, 17:21

H Tower, how did you get such a large image to post? I can't post anything larger than 600x600 pixels. I'm using jpeg files. Does something else work better?

cavebear · May 31, 2002, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Space05us
that city looks rather ill defended

The Musketeer outside will stop attacks. And I will be moving the Musketeer to a Hill next turn to be more directly in the way. The Musketeer being built can be rushed.