Pinning GS down on the invasion beaches

[vondrack]

Watching GS build new and new combat settlers (they have 5 of them ATM), I can't help getting memories (and so must be Leo ). In the DoN game, Hot Enamel effectively "crawled" through Leo's defense line using several combat settlers. Ugly as hell, but deadly effective.

The problem is I've never been able to figure out a counter-strategy.

But today, an idea crossed my mind.

Correct me if I am wrong, but... you cannot build a city right next to an existing city, right? No matter if it's yours or not.

So... what about building a fort city right next to where GS lands, wherever it is?

I assume they'd follow the usual "safe" landing pattern - first, a big stack of infantries plus 1 combat settler. We won't have the power to kill them all, so they will build a fort city on the following turn, and pour the remaining forces in. More combat settlers make way for the tanks, which roll into our interior pretty much at will.

Now, what about if we had a spare settler ready, building a fort right next to their landed stack? They will either have to attack the fort with all they will have landed (and we will be prepared for that, stuffing the fort with so many arties and so many infantries that they will be out of luck - hopefully), or they will have to withdraw, or they will have to land the remaining forces without the fort, getting stuck.

Either way, we get a free turn of artillery barrage. With 60 some arty pieces, that's quite something. Plus, we will be able to move our fast ships closer.

In order to make this possible, I suggest we change the current Port Hammer build to a settler - the city produces the same number of shields at pop 10 as at pop 12, so the only difference is some commerce. Plus, it grows quite fast on its own.

Anyone sure about the assumption I base this upon (no fort possible next to an existing city)?

[ZargonX]

That is correct! That's actually a pretty darn brilliant counter-strategy! We'll have to have a large number of settlers ready to roll (at least as many as they do). We'd best start putting some of them into production now, as this war could be coming sooner rather than later.

[Tiberius]

Good idea but Zargon is right, we need more than one settler, to counter the landing in more then one places in the same or in several consecutive turns.

Don't forget that GoW could take part in the invasion, with their own combat settler(s).

In the end, they won't be able to split their forces too much, because they will become an easy target at some point. However, several landings are possible.

One other big advantage of a fort city is that they won't be able to see how many units we have near their army, in the fort city.

Seeing that they are delaying the attck so much, I am actually starting to hope that we may build a sizeable navy, capable of stopping them. If not the first, then at least the second wave, the reinforcements.

It is obviously though that we will need to crank out arties, infantries, battleships, destroyers and combat settlers as long as the danger persists.

[vondrack]

We can keep Port Hammer doing 4t settlers, slowly losing pop in the process. We could also use Tiberium to effectively transform 2 workers into a single settler in a single turn, this coming turn (in case we can spare two workers, it would be good idea, I think). I do not think we'll need that many settlers... the more the landings, the easier to wipe (every) one of them separately - eliminating the need for the defensive fort altogether.

And Tibi pointed out one thing I forgot to mention - the fort would prevent GS from determining what they're facing. As GS is right after us in the turnplay order, they will have no means to find out what is inside the fort (only their own spy could do that for them - but it seems they are not going to have one with us, still lacking espionage).

[lmtoops]

I missing something (as usual), how do they build a fort city within our cultural boundries?

I suppose I'll have to look at the save to figure that out.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by lmtoops
I missing something (as usual), how do they build a fort city within our cultural boundries?

Just like that, Leo. ::snaps his fingers::

There is nothing preventing you from building a city in someone's territory - just that it's considered to be an act of war. Of course, you first need to get your settler to the tile you want to build the fort upon - it's easier if you are invading a neighbour sharing a common border, since your enemy has zero turn warning then. You just move your settler next to the common border, build a fort, move all your invasion force (including more combat settlers) next to the new border, disband the first fort, build a new fort (one tile further inland)... rinse and repeat. That's what H_E did to you in DoN.

GS will have to use a slower approach, because their invasion will be seaborne. Turn 1: land infantry stack with 1 combat settler, leave the tank core out in the sea. Turn 2: build fort, bring the tanks and more combat settlers through the fort city in with no movement penalty - and from here, it's the same.

Effectively, with combat settlers enough, they will be able to crawl from the landing beach to Legopolis or Karina in a single turn (because everything is railroaded).

It's crucial they do not get a chance to start crawling... means we need to prevent them from building the first fort city.

[redstar1]

This is an excellent idea. May I suggest that noone discusses such a strategy in any context with anyone?

Not that I'd have to remind anyone of our National Security intersts

[lmtoops]

Well the light has decended and touched my balding head.

Seriously, I thought the game would not allow you to plant a city within someones cultural borders. Obviously I never tried it. Since the AI never does this, I have never seen it.

In DoN, I though HE planted his first city inside his border, right on the edge (as you described). Oh (an other light), I see that IS what he did, so that he used zero turns. I see now that this is really cheating. Ah, here I am opening old wounds.

Just to clarify, the use of combat settlers is acceptable (in my book), but it's the extreme use of combat settlers that is a cheat. But since it was not discussed in this game, we must assume that they may use extreme combat settlers.

[Kloreep]

Sounds good. We just have to make sure to defend the city well if it's also in a place that would allow them to cut through our rail network.