Originally Posted by Ronnie1
I am not overly concerned about the 3rd galley, we will need a chain to get reinforcements over so a galley trailing a few tiles is not always a bad thing. With our movement advantage, we can also play dodge the Trireme and keep it moving back and forth. If you want another Trireme from us, we can definitely do that.
1) What are you going to do if Vicky has a trireme in London and another 2NE of Nottingham on the DOW turn? Or the DOW teleport puts the lagging galley next to a threatening boat? We know she's got three galleys right now... If you land the force as planned and split the defending triremes, she'll throw 2 triremes and 3 galleys at the landing stack, probably win, and if she doesn't block the next landing, our follow-up trireme and galley are vulnerable also.
Under our plan, a stack of 2 triremes and 2 galleys that's already landed its units will still take some hurt if she throws 2 triremes and 3 galleys at it, but she's less likely to do so, we're about even money in that fight, and we don't have a strategic constraint on T185 of landing new units. We can run away with our three movement points.
2) Galley chains using that third galley are just as effective from PC to Nottingham, as Nottingham to London - and easier to defend. I also don't think reinforcements will ever be an issue. We might roll her with what we already have, or have her tech Feudalism T185, or find her squatting on her iron fort T184 with an axe... Most of the time, we'll take London and maybe York and bunker down until we can sue for peace.
I agree with mabraham's points 1 and 2 here. I have played through the war with Vicky a few times and she definitely does attack our fleet when we are weak. Remember as well that she is in theocracy so her triremes which she will whip will have 2 xp and will get even odds against our triremes. She could whip triremes in London and Nottingham before we want our navy to leave even if she doesn't have any triremes by T184.
3)We'll also want two galleys ready to move into London the turn we take it, so that the straggling units can move in and potentially load up to land on York the next turn. If Vicky's whipping boats out, then we could well take London defended by an axe and three archers with only one suicide catapult, so that there's a cat with movement points to load on galleys with other unused units in London. Speed is of the essence with Feudalism threatening - not setting up galley chains for reinforcements that are not yet built and about 6 turns' movement away.
Certainly movement advantage is very useful, but only if we know where the threats are, and we're not going to know if Vicky or a barb has a unit in the fog north of Nottingham on the DOW turn, or charging out of Nottingham on T185-6.
Yes, I agree here as well whipped triremes in Nottingham have hunted down and killed my galleys in the test game. I don't think we can reasonably expect to both protect our navy near london and run galley chains through the water north of Nottingham safely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie1
2) Yes we can bomb down to 0%, but then we are attacking across the river. My plan gets more cats there sooner so we can get to a better offensive position.
Under either plan, if we have 12 units on London, and two cats are bombarding on T187, then we have two cats to attack not across a river, and then six swords and axes to attack from the main stack and the northern iron - all not across a river. The last two swords, if they see action, are likely to be attacking quite injured units, and the river effect will be negligible. We don't need to deliver maximum force with every unit if that compromises something - we need to deliver maximum force with enough of them to break her best units, and then mop up. I think that accepting some uncontrollable risk with a third galley isn't worth the last two swords not having to attack across a river...
Under your plan, I'd consider doing two bombs T185, four bombs T186, and then moving two swords and 2 3XP cats to the hill on T187 while the two 0XP cats finish the bombing. I reckon Vicky's unlikely to make an offensive move on those unprotected cats still on the forest, because we're looming on London, and the road tile she'd have to occupy to avoid the river is threatened by the London stack and the northern-iron axeman. If so, on T188 we have two 3XP cats for suicide runs and will still have the option of two 0XP cats across the river to follow up. If she's got several CG2 archers and several axes, we'll need that extra collateral damage, and the river is really only hurting us for about 5% of survivability...
I agree with mabraham's points here and I think the hill is actually not all that desirable location for our catapults and swords for the reasons he suggests.
3) What is wrong with taking a position on the hill? Unless you can attack a turn earlier, why NOT take a position on the hill would be my argument. It is better for us both offensively and defensively.
It is actually significantly worse defensively at least for those swords and catapults. Those swords will not have protection from the axe walking down from the iron until T188. So if they move to the hill on T187 to attack on T188, Vicky could hit that stack hard at favorable odds. I can easily see Vicky attacking with a straight up 5 xp axemen to kill a sword or catapult. Or attacking with a stack from York and support from London, with us losing multiple units.
If they remain in the forest the swords can fend off axemen at reasonable odds, and thus they are in a better defensive position. And their offensive position as mabraham suggests isn't that critical with the latest proposal.
mabraham suggest a similar idea here
Both plans attack the same turn. What's better is not *needing* to take a position on the hill, where Vicky might be able to pick off wounded units, or 0XP cats IBT T187-8. (We know she has Theocracy and at least one C1+C2 sword floating around...) Admittedly, the stack on the hill has better terrain than the stack in the open, but we won't know what units are in the fog to the south-east of London.
But I disagree with him. It could be worse than he suggests for units on the hill and not as bad as he suggests for the units in the open. Vicky could pick off healthy units here with 5xp axes at favorable odds. The stack in the open is significantly larger and composed of both axes and swords and thus less vulnerable to being smashed as badly. And as he points out it is not as close to York and as vulnerable from units reinforcing from there. Since units from York could attack in 2 turns where as units from York would take 3 turns to get to the units in the open.
In fact moving to the hill actually might draw units out of York since they would be able to strike at them the next turn after they moved.
Now I don't know where your 12 units have come from. You haven't got that last one out of BF, and the 12 units in each plan are 6 0XP units, 5 3XP units and 1 5XP unit, not counting the archer. So the extra 0XP unit must have come from Fish Hills, but I don't see how it can have done so...
he is counting his archer as the part of the 12 units. In our latest plan we have 5 swords 3 axe and 4 catapults. He has 4 swords, 2 axe, 1 archer, and 5 catapults.
On T188 we could attack with 3 swords, 3 axe, and 2 catapults without the river penalty and 2 swords with the river penalty. (and 2 catapults that can't attack since they bombarded defenses to 0% on T188)
On T188 he could attack with 4 swords, 2 axe, 1 archer, and 3 catapults without the river penalty (and 2 catapults that reduced defenses to 0% on T188) assuming vicky doesn't attack the swords and catapults on the hill at favorable odds with an experienced axe. Or units from York. And assuming no problems with naval assaults.
I agree that his plan puts us into a similar military position on T188 but assumes a greater risk with the galleys and with movement onto the hill. Both of these are not small risks in my opinion. They could amount to nothing but they could spell disaster too. I think there is a significantly lower risk with our plan.