Advertisement
Civilization Fanatics' Center  

Welcome to Civilization Fanatics' Center.

You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to our site features. By joining our free community, you will be able to participate in the discussions, search the forum, send private messages, vote in polls, upload your own screenshots to the gallery, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so sign up today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support.

Go Back   Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION III > Civ3 - Democracy and Team Games > Civ3 - Multi-Team Demogame II > The Council

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Aug 26, 2008, 03:59 PM   #461
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
 
AutomatedTeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 7,477
true. That would suck - but they will still have to either take a city or spend a turn getting stacks of modern armor beat on.

And MA aren't all that much more expensive than tanks, anyway.
__________________

AutomatedTeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2008, 04:20 PM   #462
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
 
General_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington State (GMT -8)
Posts: 8,197
Radar Artillery and Civil Defense buildings are both brilliant additions to the Yilar Entrenchment Scheme (The Y.E.S. )

According to my combat calculator, a Mech Infantry (12.18.2) would win, even against Modern Armor, 78% of the time in a city with Civil Defense.
Obviously, this would be even better in a Metro with Civil Defense.
EDIT: Bah - I forgot that a Modern Armor is a 3 move unit... that means they'd be able to retreat from combat with our Mech Infantry. So, basically - we're looking at 32% win, 31% retreat, and 36% lose to the Modern Armor.

An attacking Marine would only have a 4.7% chance of killing a Mech Infantry in a city with Civil Defense.

This would vastly reduce the number of Mech Infantry we need to hold against even a very determined assault.
Of course, we'll need to maintain significant offensive forces/bombers in case they decide to land a stack of their own Mech Infantry and combat settlers.

Too bad most of this goes out the window when FREE/Saber get nukes.
I can't remember - in C3C does a nuke strike wipe out all the defenders? or just redline them?
__________________
~ C3C MTDG II ~
Advisor to the Council
Concilio "I" non exceptet


~ BTS MTDG II ~
Loyal servant of the King, Empire of Merlot, House of W
Illegitimi non carborundum


~ C3C MTDG I = Victory with MIA! ~ Civ4 MTDG I = Victory with Epsilon Team! ~ BTS MTDG I = Collapsed with team SANCTA ~

Last edited by General_W; Aug 26, 2008 at 04:24 PM.
General_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2008, 04:34 PM   #463
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
 
General_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington State (GMT -8)
Posts: 8,197
Hmm - sorry for the double post here - but I just stumbled across something pretty interesting.

When a Modern Armor [24.16.3] (120 shields) attacks a fortified Mech Infantry [12.18.2] (110 shields) in a City with Civil Defense (+135% defense) - the results are:
Defender wins: 33.5%
Attacker wins: 31.6%
Attacker retreats: 34.8%
However, if we were defending with our own Modern Armor - we give up 2 base defense points - but we take away the enemies ability to retreat! In a Modern Armor vs. Modern Armor scenario, the results look like this:
Defender wins: 61.3%
Attacker wins: 38.7%
Attacker retreats: 0%
So the attacker wins 7% more - but at the expense of of being destroyed nearly twice as often!

Not only do we improve our kill ratio against any potential invaders - but we would also have a much stronger counter-attack threat / be ready to deal with landings outside of our cities.

Perhaps we need to focus on building Modern Armor instead?
__________________
~ C3C MTDG II ~
Advisor to the Council
Concilio "I" non exceptet


~ BTS MTDG II ~
Loyal servant of the King, Empire of Merlot, House of W
Illegitimi non carborundum


~ C3C MTDG I = Victory with MIA! ~ Civ4 MTDG I = Victory with Epsilon Team! ~ BTS MTDG I = Collapsed with team SANCTA ~

Last edited by General_W; Aug 26, 2008 at 04:42 PM.
General_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2008, 04:38 PM   #464
Niklas
Fully Functional
 
Niklas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 57°47'55"N 12°09'16"E
Posts: 9,708
Yes! Of course we do! It's been so long since I played with Modern Armors - they are awesome, and only marginally more expensive than MechInfs.

We should start building Tanks for upgrades then. Good thing SABER is headed for SynFibers.
__________________
G |- \x.e : t1 -> t <= G[x->t1] |- e : t ..... Economic: -5.88, Social: -5.90 (081218)

Team Smurkz: BtS SGOTM 08 Wonderful Suryavarman
MTDGs: Civ3 MTDG II - The Council | CIV MTDG II - Team Cavaleiros
Current NESes: Pre-ChaNES - Peoples' Republic of China
Undefeated Board Game Champion :|: DipNES2, Council Diplomacy, BlaDipNES, DipNES3, RiskNESII, RiskNESIII, DipEuropeII, DipWorldIII: Victory!
Niklas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2008, 04:48 PM   #465
Yilar
Prince
 
Yilar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 538
We should consider going wartime soon.
__________________
MP Civer
Yilar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2008, 07:29 PM   #466
Ekibiogami
Chieftain
 
Ekibiogami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6
I concur with the modern armor idea. Not only do they take away the enemies ability to retreat and allow for inland skirmishing, they can also be used for an invasion if need be, although it seems that an invasion would not be prudent right now.

I would also like to point out that (radar artillery soon?) artillery can really make a dent in the modern armor's health, so if we can allocate most of our artillery to the general area of their attack, our armor won't have to work so hard.

A mutual nuclear protection pact would be a good idea.
Ekibiogami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2008, 10:17 PM   #467
donsig
Low level intermediary
 
donsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 12,874
I'm on the modern armor bandwagon. We need that tech treaty with SABER!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yilar View Post
We should consider going wartime soon.
Do you mean mobilization or are you suggesting we go on an offensive?
__________________
Still playing after all these years.
donsig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2008, 10:40 PM   #468
PrinceMyshkin
King
 
PrinceMyshkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 830
^^I'm pretty sure Yilar means mobilization, but he'll correct me if I'm wrong. I think it might be a good idea after the remaining 5 turns of GA and these last few infrastructure builds complete. Especially since I think it unlikely Free will accept peace except for an alliance against Saber. They probably want to get modern armor asap since they have built so many tanks and will look to go offensive soon to prevent either a Saber or Council Spaceship win. GA shields on units until the end of war sounds pretty

I would like to see a treaty worked out with Saber pretty soon as well.

Put another on the modern armor bandwagon as long as naval and air superiority are maintained.
PrinceMyshkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2008, 10:51 PM   #469
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
 
AutomatedTeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 7,477
I think we should consider going active in our assault and start taking out transports.

I think we can safely assume that FREE is mobilized, or at least was.

Transports do not get the shield bonus under mobilization, so those will always be the weak link in FREE's ability to make war - if they have no transports, I don't much worry about their ability to land units.

We are, what - 40 turns from being able build all the parts? There is no doubt in my mind that FREE will attack someone before then, probably BABE first, since they are backwards. If they take out BABE in the next 15 turns or so, they will be very close to a domination win - they won't be there yet, but they will be close - take over the islands, then start taking coastal cities that are lightly defended...
__________________

AutomatedTeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 12:02 AM   #470
donsig
Low level intermediary
 
donsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 12,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutomatedTeller View Post
If they take out BABE in the next 15 turns or so, they will be very close to a domination win - they won't be there yet, but they will be close - take over the islands, then start taking coastal cities that are lightly defended...
SABER has three cities on the BABE continent on turn 215. This means FREE has to fight SABER to take control of BABEland.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AutomatedTeller View Post
I think we should consider going active in our assault and start taking out transports.
We should certainly consider it. Trouble is our navy is small and we have few good ports for building ships. If we send our subs in search of FREE transports then they won't be available at home if FREE (or SABER come calling). But, wouldn't it be good for us if FREE uses those transports to attack BABE? Not that I want to see BABE go the way of GONG but if both SABER and FREE have units on the ground over there then they are sure to come to blows. Isn't that what we want? Wouldn't that bring SABER closer to us?

As for mobilization, that is tricky. We can't un-mobilize until we make peace with someone. I don't see FREE offering peace. If we're stuck in mobilization can we build Apollo? I know we discussed this before.
__________________
Still playing after all these years.
donsig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 12:18 AM   #471
PrinceMyshkin
King
 
PrinceMyshkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by donsig
As for mobilization, that is tricky. We can't un-mobilize until we make peace with someone. I don't see FREE offering peace. If we're stuck in mobilization can we build Apollo? I know we discussed this before.
I was curious about this and just checked some old saves to make sure. You can only complete the Apollo Program or any improvement or wonder in mobilization if it was already started. You cannot build it from scratch once mobilized until war ends. The UN and the Manhattan Project can both be built during mobilization if we would want to. Maybe mobilization should be put off until we have acquired space flight and only if we remain at war?
PrinceMyshkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 03:59 AM   #472
Yilar
Prince
 
Yilar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by donsig View Post
SABER has three cities on the BABE continent on turn 215. This means FREE has to fight SABER to take control of BABEland.



We should certainly consider it. Trouble is our navy is small and we have few good ports for building ships. If we send our subs in search of FREE transports then they won't be available at home if FREE (or SABER come calling). But, wouldn't it be good for us if FREE uses those transports to attack BABE? Not that I want to see BABE go the way of GONG but if both SABER and FREE have units on the ground over there then they are sure to come to blows. Isn't that what we want? Wouldn't that bring SABER closer to us?

As for mobilization, that is tricky. We can't un-mobilize until we make peace with someone. I don't see FREE offering peace. If we're stuck in mobilization can we build Apollo? I know we discussed this before.
Hehe, i see you don't use mobilization to often. The trick to get back to peace time is simply, just break peace with a friend and then sign peaty the next turn. We do it all the time over in the multiplayer community, though we do it instantly. You can even prebuild things, coastal cities producing 200 shields battleships for 10 turns and then switching over to something else.

I would advise AGAINST attacking free atm, we are VERY weak at home, and if free comes knocking on our door we are at risk of dying. We should finish up the things that can't be built under wartime (mobilization) quickly and switch to wartime. I don't think radar artilleries are worth it, while they do nice damage to units they cost the same as a modern armor, which can KILL the unit with very good odds. The only scenario where radars become variable is with units sitting on mountains and i would honestly rather use bombers for that. Lets not make the same mistake FREE did when they attacked us and give the enemy a chance to capture our units.
__________________
MP Civer
Yilar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 04:13 AM   #473
Paul#42
flyball chaser
 
Paul#42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 4,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yilar View Post
Hehe, i see you don't use mobilization to often. The trick to get back to peace time is simply, just break peace with a friend and then sign peaty the next turn. We do it all the time over in the multiplayer community, though we do it instantly. You can even prebuild things, coastal cities producing 200 shields battleships for 10 turns and then switching over to something else.
You are right, some of us are not familar at all with mobilization. From what I read though I remember that extra shields gained through mobilization are lost when you switch from military to civil build.

And the tricky thing about the "friend": WHO is our friend? Who is a friend of a nation close to win if being not friendly can spoil this victory?
Right now I'd just trust BABE but it's also a friend you never can be sure that he survives the next turn.
I'd hate to try to make such a deal with SABER (or FREE). They might stay at war just to spoil our plans.
We'd suddenly find ourselves in a must-win-war a turn before we could launch with ten towns busy keeping their prebuilds...
__________________
It's only a game if you win but if you lose it's a stinking waste of time. [Al Bundy]

If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life,
she will choose to safe the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base.
[unknown bachelor centerfielder]

Last edited by Paul#42; Aug 27, 2008 at 05:10 AM. Reason: spelling
Paul#42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 04:20 AM   #474
Yilar
Prince
 
Yilar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 538
Either way I think we should start working on a plan to get into mobilization, maybe after nuclear power?

oh and the shields are not lost when you convert.
__________________
MP Civer

Last edited by Yilar; Aug 27, 2008 at 04:39 AM.
Yilar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 05:59 AM   #475
Paul#42
flyball chaser
 
Paul#42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 4,458
We had already started a discussion on mobilization. Maybe we should discuss the topic over there.

Reading that thread reminds me that we should have gifted a town (The Stopgap) to GONG so they could hide a settler in our territory to keep ww up for FREE...

Not sure if this would have been good style...
But kuningas would certainly eat his keyboard while searching the world for the missing GONGers...
__________________
It's only a game if you win but if you lose it's a stinking waste of time. [Al Bundy]

If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life,
she will choose to safe the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base.
[unknown bachelor centerfielder]
Paul#42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 06:27 AM   #476
peter grimes
...
 
peter grimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 10,293
Mobilization is too risky at this point...

What infrastructure builds do we need before we can start on Apollo?

Also, I don't think that sinking Free's transports is wise quite yet. All that will do is serve to paint a target on us. Much better to hope that FREE goes after Babe, so that Saber and FREE will be forced to engage
__________________
"When faced with stupidity, I dont find 'critical thinking' useful."
chiteng

peter grimes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 06:57 AM   #477
donsig
Low level intermediary
 
donsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 12,874
So, if we need a friend, perhaps we should try to get a BABE settler smuggled over here. It would be quite ironic if this got to the point where BABE kept playing on just to help us.
__________________
Still playing after all these years.
donsig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 07:07 AM   #478
Niklas
Fully Functional
 
Niklas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 57°47'55"N 12°09'16"E
Posts: 9,708
That would be totally brilliant!
__________________
G |- \x.e : t1 -> t <= G[x->t1] |- e : t ..... Economic: -5.88, Social: -5.90 (081218)

Team Smurkz: BtS SGOTM 08 Wonderful Suryavarman
MTDGs: Civ3 MTDG II - The Council | CIV MTDG II - Team Cavaleiros
Current NESes: Pre-ChaNES - Peoples' Republic of China
Undefeated Board Game Champion :|: DipNES2, Council Diplomacy, BlaDipNES, DipNES3, RiskNESII, RiskNESIII, DipEuropeII, DipWorldIII: Victory!
Niklas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 07:10 AM   #479
PrinceMyshkin
King
 
PrinceMyshkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 830
Gong had a settler to put on a boat we were going to send your way this turn, but never got the chance. Of course, if all out nuclear war had occured turning most of the world to a desert and stopping all VC's we would have wandered off somewhere to rebuild with all the 2-food irrigated desert tiles and attempted a comeback.
PrinceMyshkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 27, 2008, 07:13 AM   #480
Niklas
Fully Functional
 
Niklas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 57°47'55"N 12°09'16"E
Posts: 9,708
So what would be the best way? Resettle The Stopgap, and gift BABE some gold for rush-disbanding with a settler there?
__________________
G |- \x.e : t1 -> t <= G[x->t1] |- e : t ..... Economic: -5.88, Social: -5.90 (081218)

Team Smurkz: BtS SGOTM 08 Wonderful Suryavarman
MTDGs: Civ3 MTDG II - The Council | CIV MTDG II - Team Cavaleiros
Current NESes: Pre-ChaNES - Peoples' Republic of China
Undefeated Board Game Champion :|: DipNES2, Council Diplomacy, BlaDipNES, DipNES3, RiskNESII, RiskNESIII, DipEuropeII, DipWorldIII: Victory!
Niklas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION III > Civ3 - Democracy and Team Games > Civ3 - Multi-Team Demogame II > The Council > Grand Strategy Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WW2 Grand strategy Danielos All Other Games 4 Jan 28, 2009 02:27 PM
Grand Strategy Question on my Game LowEndUser Civ3 - Strategy & Tips 17 Sep 30, 2006 08:38 AM
MIA Grand Strategy Meeting ! General_W Team M.I.A. 692 Sep 20, 2006 09:27 AM
Minesweeper Grand-Champion Thread SirJethro All Other Games 43 Dec 05, 2005 11:11 AM
Grand Vezeer of Foreign Affairs Nomination Thread Paddy the Scot Team TNT 4 Sep 06, 2005 05:08 AM


Advertisement

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is copyright © Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com | Amazon UK | Amazon DE | Amazon CA | Amazon FR