Tweet
OK, gentlemen, sit comfortably back, have some drink, and get ready for another of those crazy, long posts of vondrack... this time, it's not a wonder build plan, but an idea about how to set our defenses up.
First: I assume that we agree on that Legoland does not even plan invading another landmass (and even if it happens in the future, I believe we would not really try to hold whatever we would be able to conquer there). So, our military doctrine shall actually a DEFENSE PLAN.
Second: I believe we will not be invaded in the near future. ND apparently is after someone - otherwise, they would not ask for a 50 turn NAP... which, considering the situation from our point of view, effectively neutralizes the whole of Bob - at least one civ there will be the target (ND would have to be insane attacking GS on Stormia) and the other one will, no doubt, try to get at least crumbs from the table. Plus, with only two pre-Astronomy crossing points, logistics would be very difficult for invaders (would have to be GoW, as we have a NAP signed with RPers - the one signed before the game started).
Third: we will not be left alone forever. Others will sure realize that unless they prune us before we have our landmass properly railroaded, they are out of luck. Invading a fully railroaded continent, loaded with artillery, is extremely bloody.
Hence, I believe that the moment we shall expect an invasion will come approximately with the age of cavalry. Before railroads (or before they make any difference), but (right) after cavalry.
The defense plan I am hereby presenting thus assumes the following:
1) no railroads
2) no marines
Let's start with a picture of our landmass:
red tiles are our existing cities
dimmed red tiles are our planned cities
yellow tiles represent the primary landing zones
blue tiles denote our naval defense (see below).
green tiles represent the secondary landing zones
Legoland Navy - The Naval Barrier
Let's start with the blue and green stuff. After some thinking (and quite contrary to what I used to think), I believe we should sort of limit our navy to basically one area - our Northwest. At least until true naval attackers appear (ironclads, or even better destroyers). Why? Because our coast is too long to be properly defendable with a reasonably sized navy. Just imagine how many ships we would need to have a "sufficient" naval presence around all of our continent... and still, when the invading fleet would appear, our ships would have to run for cover and wait for reinforcements, as they would most probably be heavily outnumbered by the incoming "armada". So, if the navy would be of little use because of being stretched too thin, let's focus on deploying it where it can really be of some use.
And that is what those four blue tiles in the Northwest are for. If we deploy two to four DEFENDER-vessels (read: caravels - the strongest naval attacker is A=1 until magnetism, and A=2 until steam power) per every blue tile, we will make it VERY difficult for any invading fleet to break through - such an invading fleet would have to use much of its armed escort to break that naval defense... naval attackers prior to ironclads are always handicapped against defenders.
Until Magnetism, I would stuff all our caravels onto the blue tiles, as they will be much better on defense then on offense. After magnetism, I would assemble a task force of several frigates in Port Hammer, ready to mop up anything that might break through our naval barrier.
With this naval barrier, Panama and Kloreepville actually become almost "inland" cities (that is illustrated by using green for their respective "landing zones"). Port Hammer as well, though Port Hammer would still need an extra defense for the case that invaders would land upon the tip of The Hammer and proceed on foot. This is not to say that Panama and Kloreepville would need NO defenses - just that that part of our defense system could be weaker, as landings in that area would be highly unlikely.
That leaves us with the yellow tiles. But, man, there is a lot of them!
Now, let's ask ourselves a simple question: what is one supposed to do in this situation? Properly defend all his coastal cities, deploying as many units in every one of them, right? Garrisoning every coastal city with units enough to hopefully hold against the invading stack. Hm. How do we do that? Eight or even more knights is nothing unreasonable to expect... and hell, how many mercs or muskets we'd need to be safe against such a force? 4? 6? Multiply it by the number of our coastal cities. And that's only defenders! But we would also need counterattackers and artillery... altogether, we (will) have 17+2 coastal cities (+2 is for Benelux/Invoice and Port Hammer, which will have to be handled separately - see below). 19 cities times about 6-8 units... that is an INSANE number of units... and I am not talking about reserves yet... plus, if you look at the map closely, you will realize that reinforcements from the "neighbouring" city would always be 2 turns away, as our cities are generally too far from each other to allow 1-turn unit shuffling.
So, here is my idea (picture, please!):
The idea may sound crazy at first... I suggest we generally leave our coastal cities UNDEFENDED. The only exceptions to this would be Benelux/Invoice and Port Hammer - because those do not really fit into the scheme.
Has vondrack gone mad?
Nope.
Try following me:
With a proper road network, we can position all our forces in such a way, that they will be able to move to and fortify in ANY coastal city of ours in ONE TURN. Our troops would need to be positioned where the white dots are on the map above (17 of them). The "tails" denote roads which units would move into the threatened city along.
What's the big deal? Why not station the troops in the cities right away? Simple: with this layout, you can move TWICE AS MANY units into the threatened city as opposed to having the units permanently deployed in the cities. There are exactly 17 white dots, which is how many coastal cities there are. Having 2 defenders at each post, ANY coastal city can have FOUR defenders instantly. See my point? With the same total number of units, we would be able to defend any city with twice as many units. Or, to be able to defend any city with a fixed number of units, we will do with roughly half as many total.
There are added benefits to this approach:
a) enemy does not know where your troops are - which makes it difficult to determine the "weak link"... all links appear to be equally weak.
b) enemy does not know how many troops you have - which makes it difficult to determine how many units he will need for an invasion.
c) for reinforcements, you are using roads leading from inland to the coastal cities instead of the roads running along the coast - which makes it difficult to disrupt the communications used to rush reinforcements to the area where thery are needed.
The last point brings me to a problem. If you examine the map with the "primary military camps" (the one above), you will find out it is possible to partially or fully "cut" some of them from "their" cities by landing along several coastal tiles. Let's sort them by the level of severity of this problem:
I. CITIES "OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER"
Port Hammer, Benelux/Invoice - these would probably have to use strong permanent garrisons. It would likely be "cheaper" than to extend the scheme to include even these two key cities.
II. CITIES THAN CAN BE TOTALLY CUT
Tipperary. The only city that could be cut by landing units on all three tiles adjacent to it. I would suggest using a worker or a military unit to block the key tile NE of the city. Problem solved, city moved to the category "no problems".
III. CITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE NO FORTIFIED DEFENDERS
Even though unlikely, Dye Fields and Sandonorico (btw, to make this defense system work smoothly, I moved Sandonorico by one tile) garrisons could be prevented form fortifying on the turn of the enemy landings, if the enemy landed on the "proper" tiles - forcing our units to take 3-tile routes to the cities.
IV. CITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME UNFORTIFIED DEFENDERS
Similar to III., but only one half of the units might be forced to go a 3-tile route - Logville, Tiberium, Abilene, Quanto Mechanico.
V. CASTLEA
Castlea has a bit of a problem, being too far from Jackson and Panama... but I believe that we could actually move the white camp E-E of Panama to E-E-NE of Panama (as Panama would be, thanks to the naval barrier, actually an inland city, needing much less troops ready to defend it).
Now, even if the 3 cities under III. and IV. just MIGHT BE invaded in a way preventing some/all of the corresponding units to get into the cities in time to fortify there, we should plan for the unexpected.
So, let's add few more posts:
The "yellow" military camps could probably use fewer units than the white ones, as they would basically serve the only purpose - to balance the fact that some of the defenders of the closest city could be unfortified. For the cost of 7 more posts (with less than "average" force, if "average" force is what we'd station in white camps), we have our defenses perfect.
Now, if you look at it... in the South, it almost looks like a second defense line, does it not? What about this:
This is a defense system I would dream of. Every city granted a strong garrison whenever needed. Every white camp receiving reinforcements on the turn of the invasion (means the threatened city could probably get more reinforcements on the next turn - unless the invaders blocked the access road... but that would take some of the invaders off the assault wave, which would be good, too).
So, this is basically all.
Let me briefly sum up the highlights of this plan:
1) our enemy would not know where our weakest defenses are - there would appear to be "none" at all (all "camps" would be hidden "further inland"... I believe they would be invisible to ships)
2) our enemy would not know how strong our defenses are (city investigation reveals only troops stationed in the city)
3) our enemy would have limited means to instantly disrupt our vital road communications
4) our cities would be able to field roughly twice as many defenders on average as compared to having permanent garrisons
5) our enemy would likely be confused, as this is a pretty unusual defense setup
Now, let's put the actual composition and strength of the individual "forces" aside, let's ignore the fact we do not have all the cities founded yet etc. - let's talk about the viability of this defense system first. Try coming up with its disadvantages (honestly, I was not really able to think of any... maybe just the need to build the road network ASAP... which may interfere a bit with our general terrain improvement priorities).
If we agree on that this is the way to go, we shall then determine how strong individual "military deployments" should be, what their composition should be, and where we should start with setting this up etc.
First: I assume that we agree on that Legoland does not even plan invading another landmass (and even if it happens in the future, I believe we would not really try to hold whatever we would be able to conquer there). So, our military doctrine shall actually a DEFENSE PLAN.
Second: I believe we will not be invaded in the near future. ND apparently is after someone - otherwise, they would not ask for a 50 turn NAP... which, considering the situation from our point of view, effectively neutralizes the whole of Bob - at least one civ there will be the target (ND would have to be insane attacking GS on Stormia) and the other one will, no doubt, try to get at least crumbs from the table. Plus, with only two pre-Astronomy crossing points, logistics would be very difficult for invaders (would have to be GoW, as we have a NAP signed with RPers - the one signed before the game started).
Third: we will not be left alone forever. Others will sure realize that unless they prune us before we have our landmass properly railroaded, they are out of luck. Invading a fully railroaded continent, loaded with artillery, is extremely bloody.
Hence, I believe that the moment we shall expect an invasion will come approximately with the age of cavalry. Before railroads (or before they make any difference), but (right) after cavalry.
The defense plan I am hereby presenting thus assumes the following:
1) no railroads
2) no marines
Let's start with a picture of our landmass:
red tiles are our existing cities
dimmed red tiles are our planned cities
yellow tiles represent the primary landing zones
blue tiles denote our naval defense (see below).
green tiles represent the secondary landing zones
Legoland Navy - The Naval Barrier
Let's start with the blue and green stuff. After some thinking (and quite contrary to what I used to think), I believe we should sort of limit our navy to basically one area - our Northwest. At least until true naval attackers appear (ironclads, or even better destroyers). Why? Because our coast is too long to be properly defendable with a reasonably sized navy. Just imagine how many ships we would need to have a "sufficient" naval presence around all of our continent... and still, when the invading fleet would appear, our ships would have to run for cover and wait for reinforcements, as they would most probably be heavily outnumbered by the incoming "armada". So, if the navy would be of little use because of being stretched too thin, let's focus on deploying it where it can really be of some use.
And that is what those four blue tiles in the Northwest are for. If we deploy two to four DEFENDER-vessels (read: caravels - the strongest naval attacker is A=1 until magnetism, and A=2 until steam power) per every blue tile, we will make it VERY difficult for any invading fleet to break through - such an invading fleet would have to use much of its armed escort to break that naval defense... naval attackers prior to ironclads are always handicapped against defenders.
Until Magnetism, I would stuff all our caravels onto the blue tiles, as they will be much better on defense then on offense. After magnetism, I would assemble a task force of several frigates in Port Hammer, ready to mop up anything that might break through our naval barrier.
With this naval barrier, Panama and Kloreepville actually become almost "inland" cities (that is illustrated by using green for their respective "landing zones"). Port Hammer as well, though Port Hammer would still need an extra defense for the case that invaders would land upon the tip of The Hammer and proceed on foot. This is not to say that Panama and Kloreepville would need NO defenses - just that that part of our defense system could be weaker, as landings in that area would be highly unlikely.
That leaves us with the yellow tiles. But, man, there is a lot of them!
Now, let's ask ourselves a simple question: what is one supposed to do in this situation? Properly defend all his coastal cities, deploying as many units in every one of them, right? Garrisoning every coastal city with units enough to hopefully hold against the invading stack. Hm. How do we do that? Eight or even more knights is nothing unreasonable to expect... and hell, how many mercs or muskets we'd need to be safe against such a force? 4? 6? Multiply it by the number of our coastal cities. And that's only defenders! But we would also need counterattackers and artillery... altogether, we (will) have 17+2 coastal cities (+2 is for Benelux/Invoice and Port Hammer, which will have to be handled separately - see below). 19 cities times about 6-8 units... that is an INSANE number of units... and I am not talking about reserves yet... plus, if you look at the map closely, you will realize that reinforcements from the "neighbouring" city would always be 2 turns away, as our cities are generally too far from each other to allow 1-turn unit shuffling.
So, here is my idea (picture, please!):
The idea may sound crazy at first... I suggest we generally leave our coastal cities UNDEFENDED. The only exceptions to this would be Benelux/Invoice and Port Hammer - because those do not really fit into the scheme.
Has vondrack gone mad?
Nope.
Try following me:
With a proper road network, we can position all our forces in such a way, that they will be able to move to and fortify in ANY coastal city of ours in ONE TURN. Our troops would need to be positioned where the white dots are on the map above (17 of them). The "tails" denote roads which units would move into the threatened city along.
What's the big deal? Why not station the troops in the cities right away? Simple: with this layout, you can move TWICE AS MANY units into the threatened city as opposed to having the units permanently deployed in the cities. There are exactly 17 white dots, which is how many coastal cities there are. Having 2 defenders at each post, ANY coastal city can have FOUR defenders instantly. See my point? With the same total number of units, we would be able to defend any city with twice as many units. Or, to be able to defend any city with a fixed number of units, we will do with roughly half as many total.
There are added benefits to this approach:
a) enemy does not know where your troops are - which makes it difficult to determine the "weak link"... all links appear to be equally weak.
b) enemy does not know how many troops you have - which makes it difficult to determine how many units he will need for an invasion.
c) for reinforcements, you are using roads leading from inland to the coastal cities instead of the roads running along the coast - which makes it difficult to disrupt the communications used to rush reinforcements to the area where thery are needed.
The last point brings me to a problem. If you examine the map with the "primary military camps" (the one above), you will find out it is possible to partially or fully "cut" some of them from "their" cities by landing along several coastal tiles. Let's sort them by the level of severity of this problem:
I. CITIES "OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER"
Port Hammer, Benelux/Invoice - these would probably have to use strong permanent garrisons. It would likely be "cheaper" than to extend the scheme to include even these two key cities.
II. CITIES THAN CAN BE TOTALLY CUT
Tipperary. The only city that could be cut by landing units on all three tiles adjacent to it. I would suggest using a worker or a military unit to block the key tile NE of the city. Problem solved, city moved to the category "no problems".
III. CITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE NO FORTIFIED DEFENDERS
Even though unlikely, Dye Fields and Sandonorico (btw, to make this defense system work smoothly, I moved Sandonorico by one tile) garrisons could be prevented form fortifying on the turn of the enemy landings, if the enemy landed on the "proper" tiles - forcing our units to take 3-tile routes to the cities.
IV. CITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME UNFORTIFIED DEFENDERS
Similar to III., but only one half of the units might be forced to go a 3-tile route - Logville, Tiberium, Abilene, Quanto Mechanico.
V. CASTLEA
Castlea has a bit of a problem, being too far from Jackson and Panama... but I believe that we could actually move the white camp E-E of Panama to E-E-NE of Panama (as Panama would be, thanks to the naval barrier, actually an inland city, needing much less troops ready to defend it).
Now, even if the 3 cities under III. and IV. just MIGHT BE invaded in a way preventing some/all of the corresponding units to get into the cities in time to fortify there, we should plan for the unexpected.
So, let's add few more posts:
The "yellow" military camps could probably use fewer units than the white ones, as they would basically serve the only purpose - to balance the fact that some of the defenders of the closest city could be unfortified. For the cost of 7 more posts (with less than "average" force, if "average" force is what we'd station in white camps), we have our defenses perfect.
Now, if you look at it... in the South, it almost looks like a second defense line, does it not? What about this:
This is a defense system I would dream of. Every city granted a strong garrison whenever needed. Every white camp receiving reinforcements on the turn of the invasion (means the threatened city could probably get more reinforcements on the next turn - unless the invaders blocked the access road... but that would take some of the invaders off the assault wave, which would be good, too).
So, this is basically all.
Let me briefly sum up the highlights of this plan:
1) our enemy would not know where our weakest defenses are - there would appear to be "none" at all (all "camps" would be hidden "further inland"... I believe they would be invisible to ships)
2) our enemy would not know how strong our defenses are (city investigation reveals only troops stationed in the city)
3) our enemy would have limited means to instantly disrupt our vital road communications
4) our cities would be able to field roughly twice as many defenders on average as compared to having permanent garrisons
5) our enemy would likely be confused, as this is a pretty unusual defense setup
Now, let's put the actual composition and strength of the individual "forces" aside, let's ignore the fact we do not have all the cities founded yet etc. - let's talk about the viability of this defense system first. Try coming up with its disadvantages (honestly, I was not really able to think of any... maybe just the need to build the road network ASAP... which may interfere a bit with our general terrain improvement priorities).
If we agree on that this is the way to go, we shall then determine how strong individual "military deployments" should be, what their composition should be, and where we should start with setting this up etc.
I think we can focus on the east coast only for now, though, which will make things easier; I don't think anyone's coming from the west until Magnetism.
Comment