The War: 1260AD

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I was thinking of forming a box around the transports with the BB.

Well, I am just looking at it, but it does not seem to be doable. The problem is that although we'd have ships enough to form a box around the transports that the transports themselves would be pretty much unable to break out through, we would most likely not be able to keep that box closed once GS brings their last 5 DDs from SGSF. And they would bring them in to get NGSF out of such a box, that's for sure...

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Jack_www
On anther note, in November our team turned a year old. Can you believe the game has been going on for a year now?

And on yet another note, would you believe it's in fact two years...

[Jon Shafer]

Man though, 2 years! Imagine what else you could have accomplished in life with that much time...

[vondrack]

OK, I am going to think aloud here for a bit...

First... with 5 DDs capable of striking at three different tiles around NGSF (W, SW, S), I don't believe it would be wise to "box" NGSF in - the SGSF DDs would break the siege and let NGSF transports out, no doubt about that. GS might lose a DD or two or three, but we would lose a BB or two, too... and if there is no real hope of keeping NGSF out at sea, let's forget about keeping it out at sea and plan for seeing NGSF cargo landed next turn. Let's just try to force them to land where we would like them to, rather than where they would like to...

NGSF can theoretically attack three cities: Forkmouth, Sandonorico, and Quanto Mechanico.

Out of these three, Sandonorico is the one with the worst defense situation. Just a city, on flat land... our fortified defenders here receive 10+50+25=85% bonus "only". Infantries still kill attacking marines in 87.2% cases, but basically this is where two marines get close to having 50% chances of killing one defending infantry. We would certainly be able to hold the city even against all 47 GS marines, but the losses would probably be quite high.

We could, however, make Sandonorico totally safe by using our three high-health BBs (5/5, 4/5, and 4/4) to block the tiles NW, W, and SW of the city. If you check the combat calculator, the chances of a 4/4 transport breaking through a 4/x BB are virtually nil. Even 4 4/4 transports combined still have less than 1% chance to break through. Despite my belief in "mathematical odds" having been shattered on more than one occasion (last time just few hours ago), I would still consider this as bullet-proof as we can get. GS would have to be totally nuts to even try anything like that.

This would take another city out of the defense equation (Tipperary is already out), leaving us with only 3 cities to defend against amphibious attacks on the West Coast (and 2 more on the East Coast). With 93 infantries available, we would be close to 20 infantries per every threatened city, which is again as bullet-proof as we can get (you need at least 4 vet marines to have slightly better odds than 50% to kill an infantry fortified in any of those cities). And I am not even considering our 27 tanks...

So... simply blocking Sandonorico would allow us to stuff our exposed cities up with defenders enough to rule out surprises.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Trip
Man though, 2 years! Imagine what else you could have accomplished in life with that much time...

Would... someone... close The Eye, please?

[vondrack]

Well, I am getting too tired. It's 3am here and I need to get some sleep. There is a number of ideas whirling in my head, but I have to force myself to shut the computer down and go to bed.

As we really have to think hard how to use our unexpected victory best, I suggest the following:

1) after waking up, I will post battle logs in the public forum
2) I will tell other teams that due to the unexpected outcome of the naval battles, we will need some extra time to discuss our strategy
3) throughout the day, I will do my best to post detailed plans on the defense, new builds, and everything else
4) after you come back home tomorrow, you will comment, suggest changes etc. - I will do my best to be in the chat and forum around that time
5) I will play the turn Saturday early morning, after waking up, forwarding it to the GS then

[Kloreep]

Great news.

/me is going to go play through the turn to see this himself.

Originally posted by Trip
Man though, 2 years! Imagine what else you could have accomplished in life with that much time...

I know our team's lack of a troll may look like a gap in the social fabric, but trust me, it's really not.

[Kloreep]

BTW:

36) U-Sa1 attacked a 4/4 GS transport N-N-N-NE; won, losing 1hp (3/4)

From the pic, should be N-N-N-E

43) H.B.S. Castor (from Abilene) attacked the 1/4 GS destroyer SW-SW-SW-W-NW; won, losing 2hp (1/3)

Attacked the 2/5 GS destroyer, you mean

[Kloreep]

Blocking Sand does seem to be all we can do. I was trying to figure out how to block both Sand and Forkmouth; but while a six-tile line NE of the transports would do it, we just don't have enough full-health ships to be able to do that reliably. We'd have to stuff Forkmouth anyway just in case they went for the unorthodox move of breaking through a weak part of the line with their transports.

Also, I don't know what uses you were thinking of for the workers, V, but we really should add some to Abilene so they can't bombard our +100% metro bonus there down to a +50% city bonus. Adding to Quantum, Dye Fields, and Jackson wouldn't hurt either; Quantum is only 3 pop points away from becoming a city.

And a miscellaneous note we'll hopefully be having to worry about down the road: Crossing doesn't have a barracks. Neither does Jackson now. They'll both need barracks in order to build civil defense.

[Kloreep]

A new worry of mine:

GS doesn't attack next turn; they wait it out while threatening as many cities as possible next turn with a transport mega-stack.

GoW lands a bleepload of units on a hill.

We now pound the GoW units with arty and attack with tanks and cavalry. But we still haven't killed their stack, so we are now faced with a choice: Do we attack with infantry, leaving them standing next to this GoW stack where they can't protect our cities, or do we leave the stack so we can properly defend our cities against marine invasion from GS or GoW remnants?

I'm not sure how realistic this is, but I really don't want to be stuck with a choice between killing a GoW stack and defending against marines.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Kloreep
BTW:

From the pic, should be N-N-N-E

Attacked the 2/5 GS destroyer, you mean

Correct - fixed. Thanks.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Blocking Sand does seem to be all we can do. I was trying to figure out how to block both Sand and Forkmouth; but while a six-tile line NE of the transports would do it, we just don't have enough full-health ships to be able to do that reliably. We'd have to stuff Forkmouth anyway just in case they went for the unorthodox move of breaking through a weak part of the line with their transports.

Yes, unfortunately, that's my assessment of the situation, too. While 4hp BBs are simply impossible to sink with eleven 4hp transports (unless you risk losing all their cargo before landing it), 2hp BBs are a different story. Three 4/4 transports would have 30%+ chance to sink it, breaking through our line (and let's not forget there is that GS carrier that can take an hp off the BB). I believe GS would risk 3-5 transports to break through - would be an acceptable price for taking an undefended coastal city of ours.

Originally posted by Kloreep
Also, I don't know what uses you were thinking of for the workers, V, but we really should add some to Abilene so they can't bombard our +100% metro bonus there down to a +50% city bonus. Adding to Quantum, Dye Fields, and Jackson wouldn't hurt either; Quantum is only 3 pop points away from becoming a city.

Will surely do.

Originally posted by Kloreep
And a miscellaneous note we'll hopefully be having to worry about down the road: Crossing doesn't have a barracks. Neither does Jackson now. They'll both need barracks in order to build civil defense.

Yeah, I was thinking about rebuilding the barracks in Jackson this turn (instead of doing a 1t fighter here). We could max the city growth out, adding 1 pop point naturally - and we will need those barracks in 1265AD, after GoW lands.

As for Crossing... dunno. It does not seem to be under any direct threat ATM. And will finish a submarine next turn. So, maybe afterwards. Probably after finishing the sub, yeah.

[Tiberius]

Some observations:
1. From their current position both GS stacks can reach Quanto mechanico. Not only that, but they can land on the hill south of Quanto with evrything the have, including marines, which is not good. Is there any way to block that hill? Probably not. (not enough defenders). Though we may put a few infantries there and build a fortheress.

2. Are we going to defend the fortified hill N-N from Quanto? Is there any way to block the access to it?

3. What about the fortress N-N from Abilene? Are we going to let it there? Probably not, but I thought I mention it.

4. OK, a bit of brainstorming: since GS doesn't have enough DDs to keep the transports maneuvering in the seas, they will land this turn. Now: where? There are 2 possibilities: either on a tile wher several cities are threatened (Abilene N-N, QM N-N, FM SE-SE) or on a tile right next to a city, if they decide to land he marines as well (though the southern fleet is pretty safe, so they may keep it on the sea and move the marines in tha stack). So let's check all the possible landing tiles and the possible counter-measures we can take.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Tiberius
1. From their current position both GS stacks can reach Quanto mechanico. Not only that, but they can land on the hill south of Quanto with evrything the have, including marines, which is not good. Is there any way to block that hill? Probably not. (not enough defenders). Though we may put a few infantries there and build a fortheress.

I would actually welcome such a landing. GS could not use their combat settlers and we could concentrate our defenses (infantry supported by a handful of artillery) on the West Coast into a single city, which would make taking it very difficult. There are much worse scenarios than this one, I am afraid.

Originally posted by Tiberius
2. Are we going to defend the fortified hill N-N from Quanto? Is there any way to block the access to it?

We can put two 1/4 DDs and a 2/4 BB right W of this hill fortress, and one 2/4 and one 1/4 BB right NW of it. GS would be able to attack the tile W with their 4/4 DD and the (probably empty) 4/4 transport, currently with the carrier. This would not be enough to break through and they would have to start throwing loaded transports at our ships. That would make no sense - better land the cargo somewhere we will have to engage it.

So, yes, I believe we can prevent GS from landing on this hill fortress. They may be able to land there, but their losses would likely be high enough to make the landed stack quite weak.

Originally posted by Tiberius
3. What about the fortress N-N from Abilene? Are we going to let it there? Probably not, but I thought I mention it.

This is one of the key tiles, I believe. This is the only tile GS can combine all their landed forces on, while getting into a position to choose from two different city targets on the following turn. Imagine their 68 tanks being able to strike at both Abilene and Q.M. - we would likely have to plan for losing one of the cities.

After crunching some defense numbers, I am afraid we do not have enough units to try preventing GS from landing here... more in a separate post later today.

Originally posted by Tiberius
4. OK, a bit of brainstorming: since GS doesn't have enough DDs to keep the transports maneuvering in the seas, they will land this turn. Now: where? There are 2 possibilities: either on a tile wher several cities are threatened (Abilene N-N, QM N-N, FM SE-SE) or on a tile right next to a city, if they decide to land he marines as well (though the southern fleet is pretty safe, so they may keep it on the sea and move the marines in tha stack). So let's check all the possible landing tiles and the possible counter-measures we can take.

Q.M. N-N we can pretty much prevent GS from landing on. Landing there would almost certainly cost them more than what the hill defense bonus would be worth.

F'mouth SE-SE I would certainly not mind seeing GS landing on. Forkmouth would only be attackable over a river (25% defense bonus to us), making the odds of a 4/4 tank to kill a 4/4 fortified infantry in Forkmouth just 27.1%. Considering that GS is unlikely to have all their tanks concentrated in NGSF, we'd be fine.

F'mouth W-NW would actually be a more likely landing zone, should GS go for split landings - same situation as with F'mouth SE-SE, but no river-crossing handicap.

Abilene N-N is IMHO the most likely landing zone. Allows GS to combine their landed stacks, allows them to combine transports still loaded with marines and give them maximum protection (6 DDs) - by positioning the marine-loaded transports at Q.M. W-W-W-SW (posing a threat to both Abilene and Q.M.). We'd have difficulties cracking through this escort - our BBs would be out of range. We would have to rely on bombing (3 bombers and 5 BBs max), submarines (4 of them could be around), and DDs - the way I see it, we would have 3 4/x DDs (H.B.S. Myrmidon and H.B.S. Apollon at 4/5 and 1 rushed 4/4 DD from Q.M.) and maybe 1 rushed 3/3 DD from Abilene. That's 5 bombings and 8 head-on attacks. We'd have to have 1260AD luck to crack through.

OTOH, though, with some successful bombing, we might be able to prevent the marines from this combined fleet from doing any harm to us - by simply blocking the tiles at Q.M. West and Abilene W & SW. Since we would be stacking a ****load of defenders in these two cities anyway, stuffing like 4-5 vessels per tile should do the trick with reasonable odds. Q.M. West would be within the reach of all 7 battleships and both 1/4 DDs. Abilene tiles would be within the reach of 3 4/4 transports, 2 4/5 DDs, one 2/4 & one 1/3 DD plus some subs and whatever we manage to rush in Tipperary, Abilene, and Q.M. Up to 10 vessels, 5 per tile - considering GS would have 6 DDs maximum to attack (hardly full health), that should be enough to prevent an amphibious assault at any of the two cities.

[vondrack]

I'e just had a thought... trying to see the whole defense strategy from a different perspective... looking beyond just this one turn, anticipating things to come.

GS has 2 fleets of 11 transports each. That's 2*(8*11)=176 units. Their rooster shows 5 settlers, 3 explorers, 47 marines, 40 infantry, and 68 tanks... that's 163 units. I'm not exactly thrilled to admit there would be space enough for those 18 mech. infantries, too... actually, it seems almost certain they are part of the invasion forces.

Well, whatever...

Let's look at it this way: GS most probably split their forces pretty evenly. NGSF was a bit stronger, but we sank two transports, so both groups are likely to be about the same strenght. If GS marines are split about evenly, that would be like 24 marines per fleet (3 full transports), leaving space enough for 64 land-combat units.

Now, if GS landed their forces split, we'd have 62 artillery pieces and about 35 tanks to strike them with. That should hopefully be enough to cripple one of these stacks so that we could kind of ignore it - focusing our defenses on the remaining two invading stacks, one of which would only be around 30-35 tanks.

I'd be suprised if GS didn't realize this (basically, they'd have to not know about our arty - if they know about it, they must know about the tanks, too, and in turn, they would know everything they need to know to avoid doing this splitting mistake).

So... I'd take it for almost granted GS will try to combine their land forces. There is only one area allowing that - between Q.M. and Abilene. Basically, only 2 tiles come into play:

Q.M. South - because it is a hill, granting extra 50% defense. The only hill within the GS range, actually (assuming we block the one between Sandonorico and Q.M.). However, if they land here and combine their forces, they will only be threatening one city: Q.M. And they would not be able to use their combat settlers either.

They would have to rely on taking the city - and that we should be able to prevent, I believe. Even if we had to abandon one other threatened city (on the East Coast) to allow for concentrated defenses of two cities only, we should be able to keep Q.M. - and grant us one more turn of tank production and arty barrage.

Abilene N-N - flat land, but allows threatening two cities on the following turn. Exposes landed units to possibly heavy arty bombardment with minimal cover. However - with the combined number of infantries approximately equal to the number of our arty pieces, GS would not have to worry. Their tank corps would remain intact, ready to unleash hell one turn later. We would most probably have to abandon Abilene on the following turn, so that we could focus our defenses on Q.M. only (and still be far from safe).

And let's not forget that we might be forced to abandon one other city on the East Coast to be able to ensure no city lost to the invading GoW hordes.

Mulling this over and over, this leads me to believe that preventing GS from combining their forces at Abilene N-N should be one of our priorities.