War Academy: SMC Generalized Plan: The Greeks

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by adaMada
Mss,

After we attack France, I really doubt they'll give us an ROP without a serious amount of money on the side, at least for a hundred turns or so, and we can almost forget about a military alliance with them...

Yeah you are probably right. But do you think that is a poossible way can"win them over" in time for an attack on greece? (say in 30 turns?) If not, Would it make sense to overrun france all together to begin staging for greece? I know that it would depend on the early sucess of the campaign. The luck would have to hold up to make it work. I know we do not really want a prolonged war.

Originally posted by adaMada
I'm 'reactivating' this thread since I think it's an important issue, even if this specific thread is eight days old -- the information contained within still applies.

-- adaMada

Thanks, I was beginning to feel likre a real thread-kill

Now is the time to look towards this future, because once we hurt France, we will need time to recover, build build build (infrastructure) and then mass another army. If we plan it carefully, I bet you that we can have the RoP and alliace in less than 40 turns. I hope we will be so ahead of france, they will be happy to help us.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by History Guy
It does not seem to me that the Greeks are now much of a threat. The Persians are indeed much more of a threat in my opinion, and I would say, sirs, not to get overexcited when it comes to war. If we have to have a war, sirs, would it not be best to strike at those who really serve as a threat right now, the Persians, who are close to having the iron they need for the Immortals to go into battle fully equipt? I say, sirs, that too much warmongering is unhealthy, and if there must be war, it must be with those who serve more of a threat, and indeed, we can't very well go after both the Persians and the Greeks before the former gets their iron, as then Apolytonia will be overrun, it will be in effect a dead nation, and I would rather lose everything I have here in the city of Apolyton than to see something as horrible as that occur.

If you want war, choose to attack those who really serve us as a threat. Anything to the contrary, now at any rate, is folly.

I absolutely agree. Here's what I think we should do (this is based on an idea I heard about a week ago, I don't remember who suggested it though):
Send a settler ASAP (if we don't have any spearmen available to send with him then send him unprotected, as this has to be done ASAP) and make him settle on the tile that contains the iron Persia is about to acquire (or if they will expand into that tile by the time we get there, the tile next to it).
Once we settle, give the town to the English. It won't be of any value to us since it's far away from our palace and is stuck between Persian and English territory but giving it to the English would mean preventing Persia from acquiring iron in the near and maybe far future. Heck, Persia and the English might even go to war over it.
Other than that, giving the town to England will improve our relations with this civ and we might be able to get some gold in return, but the main objectives of this move will be the ones mentioned above.

[Captain]

If you want war, choose to attack those who really serve us as a threat. Anything to the contrary, now at any rate, is folly.

exactly. I have said the same for a long time, but we do need to have a threat assessment for EACH civ and a PLAN for each civ. This is a good planning thread, but just because we have a plan, doesn't mean we have to carry it out. We should always have several plans.

The threat assessment I had hoped for was something that would factor in primarily [b]PROXIMITY, Current Relative Military STRENGTH, SIZE, Military Production Capability, Anticipated FUTURE STRENGTH, Attitude, Relative Cultural Strength, plus, of course, ALLIES and their threat assessment.

Example: The Greeks are close, near even, large, higher, potentially higher, polite/annoyed?, stronger?, none.

(I didn't check, that's just made up.)

[OPD]

I remember reading a post in a strategy thread (I think by Sir raplh) about attacking the greeks with a warrior early on so that they get their GA while still in REX and so get almost no benefit as prodution is limited by pop.

we don't a war with them but perhaps if we get them into the war on france/US one of their Hopites might be attacked.

Although we don't know how many of thier cities are building settlers/workers and maybe if left alone they won't ever get a GA.

[DAVOUT]

Many interesting ideas.

This is an arrangement of most ideas expressed in the above posts :

- main objective : reduce the strength of the Greeks by taking Thermopylae, Athens and Sparta
- secondary objective : reduce the Mycenae salient by taking Argos and Delphi
- last objective : adjust our borders by taking Herakleia.

Roads requirements :

- from Chicago through the mountains toward Thermopylae
- from the road between Chicago and Del Monte to Argos
- from Rheims to the border toward Sparta

Main stack (from Chicago) : 4 piquemen, 10 knights, 5 horsemen
- Assault on Thermopylae : 4 piquemen, 6 knights
- Pillaging roads and mines around Athens then Sparta

Second stack (from Rheims) : 4 piquemen, 8 knights
- Assault on Sparta

Third stack (from Del Monte) : 2 piquemen, 4 knights
- Assault on Argos

Reinforcement could arrive smoothly thanks to the roads.

Peace treaty : ask for Mycenae and Delphi, but Ephesus would be nice instead.

[Captain]

if we road to thermopylae and our knights stack is big enough, then thermopylae to athens is only 2 turns.

take the city, the cultural radius is ours. so we can use the road without penalty, right?

If, during the same turn, we shift the remainder of our knights stack through the city, we can have them in place for an attack on athens by the second turn, right (ending two tiles from athens). Knights have 3d, I think, so they'll be as safe as if they were stacked with pikes so moving ahead isn't too dangerous, right?

If they have 3 defenders, that means we'll need at least 6 knights. We should go in with 10 to Athens. And take the city immediately.

Then we need not pillage anything, unless we want to cut the roads from Sparta and Corinth to delay a counterattack. But since we're taking the city, the shrunken cultural borders will be ours - meaning, without knights, they can't counter effectively.


The one problem is that they're now got Eretria and are building more Ivory Coast cities, that will make it more difficult to hit Thermopylae in one turn as their cultural borders will be blocking off the access route I'm thinking of.

If it gets any bigger, we won't be able to hit the capital for at least three turns then, giving them plenty of time to counter and buildup -meaning we'd need an even bigger force.

[DAVOUT]

I think that some units could block or delay the blitz you plan, but I could be too pessimistic. We engage a lot in such a campaign, and I cant imagine that the field will be totally empty, so the horsemen would clear the way, or at least scout. With Thermopylae, Argos and Sparta taken early, and the production of Athens reduced by the pillaging, the assault on Athens would not be delayed much, and possibly undertaken with more forces.

[History Guy]

Shiber's plan is solid. I support it. Does anyone else wish to support this plan?

[Panag]

hi ,

we should wait a bit with them , ....

and look at this again in 40 turns or so , ...

have a nice day

[adaMada]

Originally posted by History Guy
It does not seem to me that the Greeks are now much of a threat. The Persians are indeed much more of a threat in my opinion, and I would say, sirs, not to get overexcited when it comes to war. If we have to have a war, sirs, would it not be best to strike at those who really serve as a threat right now, the Persians, who are close to having the iron they need for the Immortals to go into battle fully equipt? I say, sirs, that too much warmongering is unhealthy, and if there must be war, it must be with those who serve more of a threat, and indeed, we can't very well go after both the Persians and the Greeks before the former gets their iron, as then Apolytonia will be overrun, it will be in effect a dead nation, and I would rather lose everything I have here in the city of Apolyton than to see something as horrible as that occur.

If you want war, choose to attack those who really serve us as a threat. Anything to the contrary, now at any rate, is folly.

I totally agree with this statement, and have always been in favor of 'dealing' with Persia quickly.

Having said that, it can't hurt to have some plans about the Greeks too, especially when taking a few of their cities could enlarge our empire so much. As for the Persians, there are other threads about what to do with them , and I'm strongly in favor of Shiber's plan (reasoning for that being in the threads on it ).

Basically, I agree that Persia's a bigger threat, but we've got threads about that and how to stop it -- let's still come up with a plan for the Greeks, and who knows? Maybe we'll have a chance to use it sometime...

-- adaMada

[Panag]

hi ,

, we could wait until we have some 20 or so cav units , ....if they dont have cav , ......then we get them on a silver plate , ....

have a nice day

[Kickbooti]

A short, savage strike

Here is my modest assesment.

While the Persians may be a threat, our border with them is easy to defend. With roads connecting our cities, knights as a mobile reaction force, and plenty of jungle and mountains in the region, I believe that any persian threat can be containted. Or, if difficult, is worth containing since any conquest of Perisa would give create a long border with England far from our centers of production.

I think that thier expansive nature and geographic proximity makes Greece a bigger (if less agressive) threat. Coupled with the fact that after France is dealt with and America is eliminated, conquest of Greek cities will not put us in meaningful contact with any new threats.

With that assesment, my sugestion is as follows.

Greece is too big to take in one bite. I think a quick, savage, crippling blow sterngthening our position and weakining their future development is best.

We should make Sparta and Argos our primary targets. This would a) deprive Greece of horses, depriving them of knights/calvary in the future. It would also cut off their expansion into the basin. We may be able to gain Delphi and/or Mycenae through peace treaty, or, after defending Sparta our army could turn eastward and take them.

Eritrea could be a secondary target, cutting the Ivory coast off from the capital (although a new city on the coast would likely be necessary).

After a Greek war, I would then recomend a time of internal development and consolidation. I think developing our southern border would be necessary to protect against incursions from the sub-continent. A government change for tech advances and cultural development would be advisable as well.

But the Greek colonies in the Great Basin would be welcomed additions to our empire. Persia can follow when cavalry makes distance less of an issue.

Respectfully,

Kickbooti

[wervdon]

I agree with Kickbooti Taking their horses is a must. Id take athens to though to deprive them of culture making a flip back of sparta and argos less likely.

[wervdon]

Oh and how much of an effect is their great wall going to have? None if they dont have any city walls built, but if they do, wouldn't that make the hoplites 6 defense?

[Shiber]

The Greek are very different from the French. We can cripple France's production by simply taking Orleans, Rheims and Marseilles. Greece has towns with a large potential for production in the North, East and West.
A quick strike will be the way to deal with the Greek in our first war, but unless we take Sparta and Argos, thus depriving the Greek of horses, it will not cripple Greece's military production substantially enough to make the 2nd war any easier.