Our imperium 1180AD--> 1400AD

[cavebear]

We would, of course, use a Dip to check that before attacking. We are brave, but we are not reckless.

And I am thinking about calculations; walls 300% defensive bonus etc.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by shade
I guess 3 or 4 crucs/musket...ie at least 15crucs who should have to arrive and attack the same turn and hope we have at least one left that can take the city that turn.

(btw I would guess there would be 4 or 5 of them in Washington (if not 6), the AI loves a lot of defenders in it's cap)

Shade

I think we would need more units than that (3-4/musket). Musketeers have 2 hp, Crooks have but 1.

3 def, x1.5 for the river, x 3 for the walls...say about 12 defense? plus the extra h.p.

I don't like the odds of our att=5 (or 7, if vet) Crusaders against those. We need to knock down the walls, and it might be a good idea to build an instafort next to Washington with preworked settlers... and then we can park a Musket or 2 in the fort and settle in for a long siege

Without the instant fort, if we attack and fail, all our surviving attackers will be mulched the next turn by the Yanks.

[cavebear]

Yes, and if the Musketeers are vets, it's even worse.

I think we need to establish a city near Washington and pack it with at least 6 Dips (as a capital city, it probably has considerable infrastructure) to assure knocking down the walls. If we just built a fortress, we could lose too many units in one blow. That city should be located so that Diplomats can reach Washington in one turn.

It will be very difficult fielding an army of 12-15 Crusaders and 6 Diplomats, and we could well need that many even with the walls down. Even just fortified, Musketeers on river will be hard to kill.

Can we do this? If we succeed, it would seriously improve our situation, upgrading our own forces and stopping further upgrades for the Americans. Failing, the effort will have cost us so much that we will be in real trouble.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by cavebear
Yes, and if the Musketeers are vets, it's even worse.

Agreed.

I think we need to establish a city near Washington and pack it with at least 6 Dips (as a capital city, it probably has considerable infrastructure) to assure knocking down the walls. If we just built a fortress, we could lose too many units in one blow. That city should be located so that Diplomats can reach Washington in one turn.

I'm not sure what you mean - if we build a fortress, we won't lose a lot of units in 1 blow, that's the point of fortresses. A couple of preworked Settlers - or even one preworked Settler - could build a fort in a turn, right next to Washington. Then, we put in a couple of Musketeers for defense, and leisurely fill the fort up with attack units.

The other thing with a fortress right next to Washington is that we can put 1-move units in it (Catapults, Cannon perhaps?) and they won't expend any move points prior to attacking. Vet Cats are a lot more effective than vet Crooks (9 att vs 7 att).

And finally... units stacked in a fortress can't be bribed. I'd be very worried about building a city near Wash. and having it bribed away, filled with units I'm worried about our cities near America being bribed, as it is.

It will be very difficult fielding an army of 12-15 Crusaders and 6 Diplomats, and we could well need that many even with the walls down. Even just fortified, Musketeers on river will be hard to kill.

Yes... the walls will have to come down. But we have to be careful that we don't raze the city with the wonder in it!

Not to be a broken record, but having the fortress right next to the city will allow slightly wounded Crooks to attack twice... so that could be an advantage.

Can we do this? If we succeed, it would seriously improve our situation, upgrading our own forces and stopping further upgrades for the Americans. Failing, the effort will have cost us so much that we will be in real trouble.

Yup... a real Barbarossa (the 1941 one, I mean)

[cavebear]

I've never used fortresses much, so I wasn't sure that units in a stack were safe from one attacker. Good to know.

In that regard, we may be in luck. Here is Washington in 1180 and there are 2 fortresses existing (one of which might well be unoccupied when we arrive):

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by cavebear
I've never used fortresses much, so I wasn't sure that units in a stack were safe from one attacker. Good to know.

In that regard, we may be in luck. Here is Washington in 1180 and there are 2 fortresses existing (one of which might well be unoccupied when we arrive):

It's amazing the things we all don't know about Civ... I keep finding little surprises like that, too

Those existing forts are a big help - we can make a beeline for the rivered fort, and hold that one until we get some Settlers brought in to build another one adjacent to Wash.

2 units stacked are bribe proof, as well, which is something else a fort protects against

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Also - depending what sort of terrain is around Washington, we may want to try a denial-of-shields tactic if they are in a representative government. That might be the easiest way to kill defenders inside the city

Dropping a pikeman or something on the peat would be a good idea, anyway

[atawa]

I was thinking, why dont we build a road west to Americans? Our core city's are in the middle, let them Xin and the other sections deal with the Americans and incoming Greeks.

If we would take that enclave out and build west from there we not only have a shorter road to Americans but we can considder turning left at Zimbabwe for a moment and collecting GW

Its still a long march to Whashington.

[atawa]

Map:

[cavebear]

Originally posted by atawa
I was thinking, why dont we build a road west to Americans? Our core city's are in the middle, let them Xin and the other sections deal with the Americans and incoming Greeks.

That's exactly why I have been strategically viewing the separate parts of our empire as provinces dedicated to the fight against specific civs. Treating each province as a civ of its own yet having the benefits of aid from our core cities allows us to focus each province against one opposing civ and use the resources locally available.

[Ben Kenobi]

Since we have cannons, musketeers escorting cannons would allow us to take Washington much quicker than crusaders. The major problem is that they are much slower than crusaders, and any such army would take much longer to transport to Washington.

Perhaps we should wait for some of the better technologies before we batter such formidable fortifications.

[cavebear]

How can the slower movement of Musketeers and Canons be faster than Crusaders?

[atawa]

We cant take Washington without cannons, the Americans have fortified Musks on a river. Most are upgraded so few vets but still quite shocking odds

Railroad and Explosives would be very welcome now

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by atawa
We cant take Washington without cannons, the Americans have fortified Musks on a river. Most are upgraded so few vets but still quite shocking odds

Railroad and Explosives would be very welcome now

I like the idea of nabbing some nearby US cities via bribery. If they're in Demo, we could (instead) deprive the units in Washington of support by occupying shield producing tiles.

If we can grab some small cities to act as bases, that's where the Cannons can come from. Cannons vs Muskets - even with walls, we should have a good chance to take the city, much better than with Crusaders.

If the Americans are in Demo, then hopefully we can reduce the number of defenders via shield deprivation - we'd then need fewer units to take the city.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by cavebear
How can the slower movement of Musketeers and Canons be faster than Crusaders?

I think he means that with Cannons, we'd probably only need 1-2 of those per defending Musketeer, whereas we'd probably need 4 or 5 Crusaders per Musketeer (at minimum). The Cannon/Musket force could be assembled quicker, and might succeed on the first try. I'm dubious about the Crusaders.