Turn 243: 1265 AD

[DeepO]

A few last questions: I would want to keep the fighters (both of them), on air superiority. They could bomb a DD (25% success), or a BB (16% success), or prevent one bomber from bombing our stacks (100% success, but about 50% survival rate).

Further, I'm not sure on the N CV. It could do 2 things: stay at Hub 2 (making it near certain the Hub would survive the turn), or move towards Hub 3 (can't exactly reach it). I vote for Hub 2, because if that (and Hub 1) survives, we can almost certainly chain more units to us next turn, we've got enough TRs layoung around, even if Hub 3 wouldn't survive.

I would take 2 empty TRs to Hub 3... maybe even 3.

DeepO

[DeepO]

That's about it for the moment. I think this concludes all planning for the turn, so I'm going to keep it here for a couple of hours before playing the turn. This way, the American part of our team has ample time to comment as well. I'll play the turn at or around 3 am GMT (4 am for me).

Recap:
- this means we'll land all our land forces, including 6 new MIs and 1 settler on Abilene 78.
- In the empty TR next to the square, I propose to take 3 settlers, and 13 M.
- Further, in the position forking Abilene and Tiperrary, I would put 3 settlers, and 26 M. On top, there will be 3 empty TRs (2 needed for chaining next turn), 3 DD, 3/4 DD, and a CV (with F on air sup).
- On Hub 3, I would put 2 empty TR.

All movement as indicated, only the DDs on the S fleet are going to fan out to see if we could catch a sub.

DeepO

[Cort Haus]

Yes, bombarding the DD stack looks a better bet than ramming it.

[Cort Haus]

I can't wait to see what GoW land. Hopefully it'll take some of those 60+ arty off our stack. Speaking of GoW, I think MZ is away this weekend, so we haven't had a reply to our Computers negotiation. If we have some MI and GoW don't that helps us even more, and the only way they can have them is if we sent Computers accepted - which we presumably don't have to do as the deal's not been concluded.

[vmxa1]

I don't remember on PTW, but in C3C fighter bombing is nearly useless. This means anything else is better, except for deperate measures.

[Aeson]

I'd attack those DD's now. Defensive bombardment will have a 40% chance to hit. The 4/5's (50-66%) are break even or in our favor. The 2/3 (80-90%) and 1/4 (82-94%) are almost sure kills. (odds DB hit-DB miss)

Let those ships go and we face them at full health in the near future, with them being able to hide in coastal cities and strike out, or strike from under cover of BB. We could also lose Hub 3 very easily or lose a couple extra Transports.

[Theseus]

Guys, I am a little uncomfortable with the plan as it stands, in that the combined fleet will be subject to Arty attacks.

How about we instead execute the landing at Q77 if possible, and then stand off at Landing44?

Yes, we would then be vulnerable to all of the Lego BB and DDs, but they don't have that many effectives in any case.

[Theseus]

BTW, this would still provide a fork onto Quanto and Sando.

[Aeson]

The empty Transports aren't worth much to us right now, having finished their job. If they draw Artillery fire, then at least they are diverting that from our land based stack. Basically, every Lego Artillery which shoots at a Transport saves us a Tank. In some cases it may even save us 2 Tanks.

[Theseus]

I disagree... the Marines are still one heckuva part our attack force!

[Theseus]

I guess that I am further advocating another point: Enough messing around with split forces... one does that for surprise, among other reasons, and one must admit that the cat is now well and truly out of the bag.

Unload all land forces (only 1 Settler) onto Q77. Consolidate ALL forward ships at Landing44. Thusly, we have a fully protected and semi-unknown Marine threat on Sando, but most importantly the threat of ALL of our Marines and ALL of our forward fastmovers on Quanto.

[Theseus]

And our landing is not next to a fort.

[Aeson]

Back to the DD vs DD warfare.

When attacking a DD is expected to lose:
.4 HP from defensive bombardment one time
.33 HP for each round of combat.

When defending a DD is expected to lose:
.66 HP for each round of combat.

1 round losses: .73a .66d
2 round losses: 1.06a 1.32d
3 round losses: 1.39a 1.98d
4 round losses: 1.75a 2.64d

It's better to attack than defend if the battle lasts more than one round.

We can bombard first, then have defensive bombardment though. That gives us .8 one time when "defending".

1 round losses: 1.13a .66d
2 round losses: 1.46a 1.32d
3 round losses: 1.79a 1.98d
4 round losses: 2.15a 2.64d

Still it's better to attack than defend if the battle takes more than 2 rounds.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Theseus
I disagree... the Marines are still one heckuva part our attack force!

And they won't be in empty Transports...

The Marines will mostly be in Transports that can't be bombarded from shore and can't be hit by the BB's.

[Theseus]

Just fleshing out the idea:

With a full land force landing at Q77, one would anticipate the vast majority of their Arties to bombard that stack from Q.

We could either go ahead with an attack on Q if enough Tanks are still healthy, starting with the Marines to absorb the Arty counter-fire, and finish off with the Tanks.

Otherwise, we could depend on a Marine only attack on Sando, which must surely then be underdefended compared to Quanto... and still be able to pick up the land forces from a newly built landing city, unload them into a captured Sando, and disband the landing city.