Announcement

**DeepO** · September 26, 2004, 19:30

Just thought of something: from memory, it might be that I can replace the settler shortrush in Inchoff with a forest chop. I'm not sure anymore.

Oh, and I'll try to free some time tomorrow to look at the plans. At first sight, we have to delay shipping our invasion for at least 5 turns from now (so turn 241) to get near our preferred number of marines. We can do it in 4, but in that case we need an extra transport to ship the final 8 marines. Waiting has the added advantage we finish computers in time to upgrade our forces on our home turf (that means at least 242).

I don't particularly like the delay, but given the delay in amph. warfare, we really have no viable option left. If I followed correctly, Lego first can have access to tanks in turn 242. But we'll have a better idea once they finish electronics.

DeepO

**Aeson** · September 27, 2004, 20:52

I would rather go early without MI and face fewer Tanks than vice versa.

GoW will need to be notified if we are delaying further.

**DeepO** · September 28, 2004, 05:17

The way I see it is we have 3 options in this situation:

1. embark in turn 240. We've got some 45 marines ready. With chaining, we can add another 8 next turn. We don't have MI. We won't face tanks in the first turn

2. embark in turn 241. We've got our marines (or close anyway, we're looking at >53 marines). No MI, we discover the tech in turn 241. With chaining, we can e.g. ship 1 transport of upgraded MI to Lego as well. As we land in turn 243, Lego has at most 1 turn to build tanks.

3. embark in turn 242. Marines are ready, and all our infs are upgraded to MI. Further, we can already start on bombers and reinforcements, so that these will be ready at D-Day as well. Lego can have, at most, 2 turns of tank build at D-day.

Personally, the difference is so low that I would wait for option 3, or, go for option 2 and chain some MI to our invasion fleet (there should not be a problem with transports, we've got plenty). It only matters one turn, in which Lego can build some 10 tanks... which can cost us some 8 infs realistically, while it won't cost us many MI.

Oh, and GoW can't complain: it's because they were late in providing amph. warfare that we face this problem. Otherwise I would go for option 1 as well, and build barracks and upgrade our inf on Legoland.

DeepO

**asleepathewheel** · September 28, 2004, 08:11

tough call. Personally I think we should go for #3, as the MI will help us in case of something going wrong with GoW and we are left dangling in the wind alone on legoland.

**Cort Haus** · September 29, 2004, 06:49

How many turns btw embark and strike?

I like the idea of turning up with MI, but unsure of the level of threat posed by their tanks. Does a single tank get multiple ZoC shots against passing units? Lego have forts everywhere. If they had tanks in these on our path would they keep shooting at all our moving units?

**DeepO** · September 29, 2004, 07:10

IIRC, if we embark in turn 241, we unload in turn 243. I might be wrong though, it has been a while.

Tanks in forts: Well, I'm not sure. I thought it only has one ZoC shot, but haven't tested this and it has been ages since I last faced tanks in a game (could very well be a year ago). However, those forts are something else: If we're going to settlerhop our way to their FP (and we want to), we need to destroy all forts and their contents in our way. We can't go around them anyway. Besides, every tank we spot would best be destroyed if safely possible, they're better attackers then defenders.

Does anyone know if forts end movement, like they used to in Civ 2? This might be a problem for our settlers.

DeepO

**Krill** · September 29, 2004, 12:13

forts don't end movement, only barracades do that (in C3C, and AFAIK).

Announcement

Turn 236: 1210 AD

Turn 236: 1210 AD

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment