Discussion: a doctrine for the defence of our cities.

[DAVOUT]

There are two options:
1. The passive defence. Three spearmen, walls, behind rivers, preferably on hills, even Great Wall, and a mobile force reinforcing the garrisons under attack. Main drawbacks: does not protect the roads and improvements surrounding the cities, and costly (with the shields used for the Great Wall, how many units could be build?).
2. The active defence. One spearman and one archer or swordsman with barracks in every city, and a mobile force fighting intruders before they reach the cities.

I am convince of the efficiency of the option 2, but I would like a discussion on the subject before heavy decisions are made.

[History Guy]

I would suggest the active defense myself, for frankly their is much better chance of success in defense with that system than with the other, for the counterattack in battle is what has time and time again saved us in our early history. Look at Santiago. We were on the defensive until the enemy wore itself down by attacking our spearmen. Then we unleashed the archers and the swordsmen, the warriors, and the Visigoth fell in great number, and the shedding of blood was like nothing seen before or after in history.

Secondly, the active defense allows more elbow room for a counter-offensive, so that we can quickly manuever good troops into enemy territory in case of war.

Hernan de History Guy Calamari the Younger

[pikesfan]

I prefer 2 too, but with the Great Wall if we can get it.

[Arnelos]

Doesn't matter which one, but Great Wall would be ideal to have either way. You simply can't tell me that the relatively low shield cost for DOUBLING the effectiveness of our city walls at the same time that ND and GoW have their UU's isn't worth it...

[Togas]

We clearly need a mix of the two, mostly because war will likely come as a surprise to us, before we are ready to organize a suitable counter attack. Our border cities must be prepared to hold off a siege to buy time for our mobile counter-attack forces to mass and strike.

But we know that our enemies will use units with a 3 movement, we must have mobile units ourself, using roads, to match their mobility.

--Togas

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Arnelos
You simply can't tell me that the relatively low shield cost for DOUBLING the effectiveness of our city walls at the same time that ND and GoW have their UU's isn't worth it...

With a given amount of shields, I prefer build swordsmen and horses, because with walls and the Great Wall I cannot make preemptive attacks.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


With a given amount of shields, I prefer build swordsmen and horses, because with walls and the Great Wall I cannot make preemptive attacks.

Walls and the Great Wall do not PREVENT you from making pre-emptive attacks. What they do is make your cities so hard to conquer that the enemy (of necessity) will become bogged down in the attempt to lay a proper siege and give us opportunity to use whatever counter-attack forces we have developed to attack him while he is in the field.

You can have both cavalry for counter-attack AND good fortifications... it's not an either/or proposition...

I would expect city walls and AT A MINIMUM 2-3 spearmen/pikemen in each of our border cities (ideally 4), with a healthy force of swords+horsemen -> medinf+knights built afterward (increasingly built larger over time) to provide counter-attack and perhaps even build large enough to provide an effective assault force.

My point is that having city walls and the Great Wall will not HURT us, it can really only help us. City walls are incredibly cheap (only 20 shields) compared to their extreme value. The Great Wall is a relatively cheap wonder that, with the DOUBLING of our defenses, will more than be worth its price even if we have to sacrifice some swords and horsemen in the process.

Think about it...

Several Pikemen fortified behind Great Wall enhanced City Walls. That's what? 6.75 points each? Even spearmen are worth I think 4.5 points each behind those defenses. It would take god's own stack of Ansar Warriors and Riders to break 4 veteran pikemen worth 6.75 points each.

Then we can build a nice force of medieval inf and knights to go pummel the idiots in the field after their first attack bounces... because let's be realistic here... if we're being attacked by Chinese Riders or Arab Ansar Warriors, they move speed 3 and they'll probably attack our frontline cities in the intial sneak attack before we CAN counter-attack. Thus it's critical that those cities HOLD the initial rush so that we can counter-attack and wipe out their forces in the field while retaining the cities so that we don't lose all of their improvements or allow the cities themselves to be RAZED TO THE GROUND.

A counter-attack will do us a fat lot of good if we have 2-3 frontline cities razed to the ground in the initial rush... at that point, we'll already be doomed anyhow.

Seriously... making sure that initial rush of UUs bounces off is critical.

[History Guy]

Senor Clemente is absolutely correct in this above statement. The Great Wall is no barrier to such a strike, and thus we should, at all costs, attempt it's construction when the time is right. O, the glory Spain will achieve as any horseman who rides against her will find his mount flattened against our masonry!

Hernan de History Guy Calamari the Younger

[DAVOUT]

The Stack of Doom of 3 moves units, if deterred to assault cities thanks to the walls, will not stop their attack. They will enter our land, destroy roads and improvments, meet our mobile force and destroy it, and then take all the time necessary to weaken our cities. This is why I think that we should not allow them to arrive near our cities IMHO.

And I am not sure as you are that we can have both. An expense is always a choice made at the detriment of another.

[ThePlagueRat]

I think option 1 is just silly against human opponents.
We must be able to counter them at war. Option 2, agreed.


Ok, I remember I used such a Stack of Doom...
About 30 Numibian mercs(2.3.1), incl. Swordsmen. Pillaging, and fighting against my MP-opponent's counterattack was their first mission. He had used option 1, using few offensive units. So a counterattack worked considerably bad for him. Afterwards, my sieges worked somewhat fine. I gained two cities. (losing nearly all swordsmen and some Numibians, and we were then equally weak on offensive units). I meant it was time for peace then.

Anyway...
Opponents of Spain got the 3-speed mounted units (UU), and do make things more complicated... We need a plan to counter those too. Now, can someone recall when they will have those UUs ?

[OliverFA]

This "stack of Doom" will come when they discover Chivalry. Both UU come with the same tech. They will need horses and iron to build them, but I don't think this would be a significant problem.

The chineese Rider is 4/3/3 and costs 70
The arabian Ansar Warrior is 4/2/3 and costs 60
The normal Knight is 4/3/2 and costs 70

So, their real adavantage from the normal unit is their speed. This makes difficult for us to catch them, and they will no doubt use this mobility to end their turns on mountains and tiles with defensive bonus as often as they can. Our chances to win a round against them with a unit with attack of 4 are:

Against Ansar Warrior:
Normal terrain: 4/(4+2)=4/6 = 66%
Forest and jungle (+25%): 4/(4+2.5) = 4/6.5 = 62%
Hills (+50%): 4/(4+3) = 4/7 = 57%
Mountains (+100%): 4/(4+4) = 4/8 = 50%

Against Rider:
Normal terrain: 4/(4+3)=4/7 = 57%
Forest and jungle (+25%): 4/(4+3.75) = 4/7.75 = 51%
Hills (+50%): 4/(4+4.5) = 4/8.5 = 47%
Mountains (+100%): 4/(4+6) = 4/10 = 40%

They will likely reach our cities even if we don't want them to do that. That's why the improved city walls would be useful. If they choose to destroy our roads and improvements then they will expose themselves on normal terrain and be more vulnerable.

Also, by the natura of our playstyle they will likely attack before us, and catch us by surprise. That's why I consider defense more important, and the GW would help.

Of course, said that, I also want to remember that the GL is more urgent than the GW at these moments. Specially because we have already choosen the Literature path, and if we don't build the GL this will be more or less like a wasted researching time.

But, being all this chat about wonders, I would like to know the opinion of the Chief Architext Astrologix.

[Arnelos]

Oliverfa is correct.

We can quickly rebuild mines, roads, and irrigation.

Razed cities with all of their population and improvements are harder to replace.

Against 3-movement UU's, higher fortifications are the better option.

[LzPrst]

What about forts? Put a couple of units, it'll be like a substitute great wall, the enemy will have trouble getting in and they will NOT get out alive. btw, if we dont cut down jungle in the borderlands (between the forts) their 3-move will be less useful as they'll be bogged down and in range for our swordsmen in garrison.These are considerable defensive works i'm talking about not a mickey mouse band camp fort, here and there.

Theoretically it would be something like 2 squares between each fort, containing at least 1def+1off unit, jungle on and between all forts and mobile off. troops in the cities waiting.

of course there is a flaw in this great enterprise, it is called boats... but assuming that noone in their right mind will launch a large scale invasion by galley(caravel also somewhat inefficient), it might work.

Assuming my idea is dismissed as mad ramblings, I vote for option 2. counteroffensive mucho importante.
but they could be placed in forts...

[Togas]

Originally posted by LzPrst
What about forts? Put a couple of units, it'll be like a substitute great wall, the enemy will have trouble getting in and they will NOT get out alive. btw, if we dont cut down jungle in the borderlands (between the forts) their 3-move will be less useful as they'll be bogged down and in range for our swordsmen in garrison.These are considerable defensive works i'm talking about not a mickey mouse band camp fort, here and there.

I invite Senor LzPrst (or anyone else) to present an image of how this would be set up. Please download our world map, draw in where you'd put up forts and roads, and post it in the "Army of Spain" thread.

--Togas

[Crousto]

I'd go for option 1 in border cities, option 2 for the rest. Oliverfa is right, with their 3 movement points, GoW & ND's units will always reach our cities before we can stop them. So we need a defense solid as a rock to block the first wave, and a large offensive army to counter attack.