Filling requests for military plans:

[rcoutme]

I am currently in the process of obtaining the security clearances from Rik (not email addresses or anything else, so don't get too excited), just the level of clearance.

If you would like me to give you information on future plans, please let me know and let me know how you would like this information sent. My email is rcoutme@hotmail.com as is my MSN instant messenger. I can also be reached by pm in this forum and will send what I can to you through pm's if you have given me access to do so...

 

[Goonie]

Why not post them here?

Lets think about this logically. If there is a spy here, he will simply email you and get the plans. Just like that. Please save everyone the hassle and posts them.

PS : I am very excited to see what you have in store!

 

[Provolution]

City of God Take 3

We are at turn 115, and the Brazucan Peace ends 127, right after our first election at turn 125, and we have still no long term plan on how to strike at them militarily, even less on how to build for that non-existant plan.
I met several cold showers within this forum, from some, but have decided to present this final draft (Still open to discussion, but not whimpering and further procrastination). This will set the initiation of the plan at turn 135, and landing at turn 146.

As Thunderfall and Cheetahpolis got more than 6 pop at the time of the invasion, thanks to rivers, and we certainly have 4 more cities at that time, we can maintain 50 units for free at that point.

Target OOB: 100 Units towards target period 135-145

20 Galleys INVASION (17 short, 2 for DIVERSION NW)
10 Ancient Cavalry (4 projected) INVASION
20 Warriors (3 short, requires a 1200 Gold Upgrade to Swordsmen) INVASION

2 Catapults (2 short) INVASION
4 Javelineers INVASION
4 Horsemen NAVAL DIVERSION NW IRON, PILLAGE EXPEDITION
10 Horsemen (10 short) DEFENSE/DECOY
10 Swords (Built 135-145) DEFENSE/OFFENSE

10 Spearmen (4 Short) DEFENSE
10 Workers DEFENSE

We need to build 34 new units in 20 turns time to make this plan work.
This also means 50 gold in upkeep per turn, so our science will suffer badly in
the period 135-142, when the completion of the Forbidden Palace wil reduce corruption and waste tremendously. Most defense units built to cover KD and Kamina as well as our Northcoast will be built in this period. However, as we incur losses on them and take own losses, and take their cities, our income will increase from turn 145 onwards. Turn 135-145 will require max gold and luxury for a transition period, until Forbidden Palace is complete.

However, this plan will only require the following cities full dedication:

Charnel, Ryttyla and Savannah for Galleys (17)
Fanatazuma , Borodino, Cheetahpolis for horsemen, spearmen, warriors, catapults (17), add other cities in to assist

Zoi will be kept for settlers, Thunderfall for FP and Ferrania for general development.

Also notice we need gold for investigating 2-3 cities prior to attack.

Galley Production

Charnel* grows next turn, use forest for two more shields

115-119, 119-123, 123-127, 127-131 all deployed at departure point by 135.

4 Galleys

Savannah, one garrison short, send spear from Fanatazuma

115-119, 119-124, 124-129, 129-135 (may create an extra galley, given mining and micormanagement prior to deployment)

4 Galleys, maybe 5

Ryttyla
115-118, 118-121, 121-124, 124-127, 127-130 130-132, 132-135

7 Galleys

Starting number of Galleys:
NE Galley, poised to pick up 2 JT in DMZ
Iron Island Galley Settler Ferry
Ryttyla Galley

Projected number of Galleys ready to depart turn 135: 18

Force Composition, base 18 Galleys.

NE DMZ Galley: 2 Javelineers
5 Zeus Galleys: 10 Ancient Cavalry (6 present, 4 projected)
Javelineer Galley 2: 2 Javelineers
11 Swordsman Galleys: 20 Swordsmen/2 Catapults

Total Invasion Force: 36 Units, 20 Swords/10 Mounted/4 Javelins/1 Catapults, settler

We intend to use the automove/barbarian turn-our last turn PBEM bug slingslot, so we can swiftly move past Recife ina double move and land at Fortaleza, then we are free to land our troops and attack Fortaleza.
This stealthy landing should be matched with a diversion of 10 horsemen in the south DMZ and a 4 horsemen diversion in 2 galleys heading for pillage iron road NW peninsula.

About the City of God Plan:

Capturing Fortaleza after the Automove PBEM last turn double move slingshot, and sailing past Recife unnoticed in turn 145, enables us to capture Fortaleza with 10 Ancient Cavalry landing directly. As a follow up, we sail and settle that green hill square, and land most units in there in order to gain full 2 moves for Ancient Cavalry, may enable us to capture the iron very swiftly, as
iron is within reach from the green tile. Adding 20 swordsmen and 4 Javelineers (Minus the Fortaleza Garrison, remember to rush barracks, harbor and city walls here in three turns, then upgrade swords to M infantry with the survivors) We also bring captured workers back as we conquer them with our galleys.

 

[akots]

Certainly need to study this closely. Is it possible to please draw the roads in C3B territory as per the most recent save by the "right-click method"?

 

[Provolution]

NW of Fortaleza there is a tile without a road, but even their mountain got a road. This means that the green tile city may allow us direct entry with 1/3 movement in the entire target region. However, I recon Fortaleza will be fully covered with roads at the time of attack. The Rio Gold mountain is a very attractive siege base. Imagine a stack of some 20 units on that (swords and Catapult).

Notice

Red Roads
Blue Attacks
Yellow Fortifications and Sieges
Orange Pillage Roads to Delay Reinforcements.

 

[akots]

There are a few immediate comments:

1) Harbor in Fortaleza will be useless since we will not be able to trade (coastal route is blocked from there by C3B cultural borders in both directions).

2) Automove exploit might be highly undesirable to use if not banned completely by the UN rules but we don't need it imo.

3) After our galleys are noticed, C3B might want either block the coast or enforce Fortaleza with additional defenders/attackers so that our force will be hit and hard after landing. How can we counter that?

4) And major one. If they attack on their own towards Khazad or Unlucky H, how this would impact the plan?

5) Minor point. Just in case they are ready with naval counterstrike against our fleet, it is better not to run all galleys full with troops but instead run a few (3-4) veteran ones empty with troops being loaded into regulars.

6) Another major point. Each galley equals to a sword. Having that fleet means we will lack the similar number of ground troops. Will we be able to hold Khazad if they approach it with large number of Immortals?

Another point added later after some more thought
7) Do we need Feudalism (pikemen at least are relatively cheap to upgrade) for the benefit of the plan?

 

[Provolution]

1) Harbor in Fortaleza will be useless since we will not be able to trade (coastal route is blocked from there by C3B cultural borders in both directions).

Fair enough, we get our iron from Rio then, and upgrade in a barracks there.

2) Automove exploit might be highly undesirable to use if not banned completely by the UN rules but we don't need it imo.

Fair enough, we will manage, and they do not necessarily see our Fortaleza feint. Maybe they think we go farther North?

3) After our galleys are noticed, C3B might want either block the coast or enforce Fortaleza with additional defenders/attackers so that our force will be hit and hard after landing. How can we counter that?

Block the coast, against 18 Galleys? If you mean their beaches, they may not be able to do so in time. Again, we can maneuver around them.

4) And major one. If they attack on their own towards Khazad or Unlucky H, how this would impact the plan?

We can gauge how many units they send south with Scouts, and from there assess how many we HAVE to send back, how many we need to cut the roads and then gauge how much we should send for Rio. We got early warning on their moves, they don't. We could also have a city on tobacco hill.

5) Minor point. Just in case they are ready with naval counterstrike against our fleet, it is better not to run all galleys full with troops but instead run a few (3-4) veteran ones empty with troops being loaded into regulars.

Good amendment, these should be 1 tile ahead, but not represent early warning.

6) Another major point. Each galley equals to a sword. Having that fleet means we will lack the similar number of ground troops. Will we be able to hold Khazad if they approach it with large number of Immortals?

this dilemma has faced all naval invaders throughout human history. However, the advantage with a naval strike is that we dislocate their forces, strike at their iron, remove Hanging Gardens, block all transits on mountains and hills, and finally remove a significant part of their production capacity. By the time they can respond, we will replace our losses in the South with pikemen and medieval infantry, as well as Knights, and inthe North, we can use the Galleys to disband/rush new units in Green Tile City/Fortaleza, connected both to Iron and Rio via Gold mountain. So we use the 18 Galleys as a source of new unit build disbands. The remainder can transport captured workers back, as well as have some galleys to cover that lake and maybe naval Raid Recife.

So the Immortals may go South, KD will be stacked with all defenders we got, we can destroy retreating Immortals with horsemen scouting DMZ, and fill in the ranks through the battle. Our Alamo/Stalingrad would be Kamina Mts, defensible terrain, where we pour all we got into the battle. I guess they will run out of immortals before we do run out of reinforcements. We may lose KD
initially, but they will lose Rio/Fortaleza/Iron/Hanging Gardens.

Again, whatever we do or does not do there is a risk.

 

[Ankka]

IIRC the automove exploit thing is banned by the rules.

But... the coast is easily blockable by them. galleys only have a move of 3... so they'll only need to block some 8 tiles or so... and if they have roads that movement is fairly fast.

But I'm all for this. Just make sure it won't be a disaster if we can't land or are attacked against similarily.

 

[Provolution]

This is why we have put in a stack 10 feint in the DMZ, to draw attention south.

 

[Provolution]

I would also name Galleys like Sao Paolo, Brasillia and so on, so they think we go for a regular naval landing, using the better mountains as landing zones.

 

[rcoutme]

I would like to endorse this plan wholeheartedly. Provo and I worked on this together. He did the bulk of the leg work (and deserves all the credit) as I have CFIDS and have a hard time being able to get the numbers down in time. We both agreed that such a strike was needed and needed to be planned soon. We agreed on the time frame and the approximate force structures as well.

Well done Provolution, and thanks for all the hard work.

One note on this plan: I recommend that we poll this soon and that we cut down our research. It is my opinion that when one goes to war, one fights war.

 

[Provolution]

Thanks to Rcoutme, for constructive input and leadership on how to streamline the plan, and thanks to Akots for putting himself in the other sides shoes and adding more scenario thinking as well as excellent improvements to the plan, I believe this plan is the only presented, now 8 turns into the Brazuca agreement. I have not seen any alternative presented, so I assume the hardcore skeptics had little to offer of alternatives. Since we are running short of land to expand, it is a now or never, since our strategic advantage may be soon gone. We can never remove risk 100 % from the game.

 

[croxis]

Logic and I were talking (these are mostly his thoughts but I'm mostly agreeing with him).

The first problem is that we are landing most of our force into one landing site. This will make our target easy to predict and allows them to attack out cities. We can not be sure if they will send their main force down to attack our lands or just use it as a distraction. By having our forces land at multiple sites it will devide their forces putting them on the defencive making them more easy to squish.

Also taking one city wont be enough. They lead us by 60 points. We must do anything and everything possible to make sure that they are not just crippled but seriously set back. There will be no second chances if this wave fails or is unable to take out more than a couple of cities.

 

[Provolution]

Again, time is over for skepticism, if there is no alternative plan, it is irrelevant criticism.
Spreading our forces thin is the worst thing we can do with slightly inferior forces, our only chance is maximum concentration where it hurts most. This is indeed a surprise attack, and we have been considering other alternatives. We also remove Iron from their arsenal in 3-4 turns following the landing, which is a gameshifter, as well as making them lose Hanging Garden. They will indeed think we go for Brasillia and Sao Paolo, as we rename ships with these names. And if noone comes up with an alternative, I really don't take criticism seriously any longer. we already squandered 8 full turns of the peace treaty on whimpering, skepticism and ineffective fears of the future. Whatever we do, there is a risk. But being on their land, taking their workers, pillaging their infrastructre, taking their iron and wonder and finally splitting their Empire is the best we can do.

However, do not assume they have predicted all this. Building a city in their middle, by the lake, is the last they will expect. If you exaggerate their counterplanning too much, you can say we already lost. In fact, they probably play on having 4-5 hardcore
skepticists keeping complex and bold plans hostage in order to guarantee further apathy, staticsim and in general lack of direction, strategy fatigue and in general paralysis, lack of long term plan and vision. I did not run for COMA thanks to this culture, and hope it will die away as Brazuca will do with this plan.

 

[croxis]

1) You are seriously putting off new players (logic) and oldtimers (me) by that attitude of yours. Your plan has faults and is high risk. If you can not accept critizm then you have no right to be in a position of power.

2) An alternative plan was given but was shot down without any discussion of it on the forums. I'm going to ask logic to put forth his plan again and hope you will pull your great and magnificant head out of that deep dark hole in your backside and accept other possibilities.

3) This plan has faults which Logic raised and I added onto. To say that they are irrelivant is not just rude but outright insulting because I raised valid concerns. I am not a planner I do not have enough understanding of the fine details of the game to be one. I can however point out things which i find troubling.

4) I more or less did the same basic idea as akot did but in a more general form. Why did you listen and address hsi concerns and not mine? Is it because akot is in office? Is it because he agreeded with your plan while I took a more critical stance? Or are you nothing more than a weak minded hypocrite?

5) I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post because of your insultive nature. Quite frankly I don't respect you enough to spend my time doing so. You have issues when people object to you, its a pattern I've seen you start to develop.

Amazing the power of just once sentence.

Again, time is over for skepticism, if there is no alternative plan, it is irrelevant criticism.

[edit]700th post w000t![/edit]

 

[croxis]

Why dont we get other plans and put them up for a vote?

 

[LogicSequence]

ok u know what? i'm trying to offer an alternative idea here and all i get met with is arrogance and intolerance for any idea other than the one on the table.

then i get called a skeptic and a squanderer for trying to formulate a plan to efficiently invade and capture their civ, which i thought was the goal. If all you want is a pat on the back and praise for your plan, don't ask for alternate ideas. All i see is that you have your plan, u believe it's better than anyone else's, and you shoot down any other ideas that come your way.

Such a hostile attitude, especially to newcomers like myself, doesn't paint the best picture for atmosphere here. I mean if u want it to be YOUR game why let other members join?

And don't assume for a minute they don't know this attack is coming. As soon as their punishment was handed down i have no doubt they began planning an attack on Fanatica. Your assumption that they could have NOOOO IDEA your planning to attack that city is reckless. and commiting our forces to taking one city at all costs is reckless. Fools rush in.

 

[Provolution]

You are seriously putting off new players (logic) and oldtimers (me) by that attitude of yours. Your plan has faults and is high risk. If you can not accept critizm then you have no right to be in a position of power.

I am new here too. I know the plan has faults and some risk. I do accept CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, as you can read from the threads, where we improve on the plan. If I denounce destructive criticism, that is only healthy for all of us. Notice in other posts I have adapted position when people come forward with constructive inputs. I am also not running for COMA, so you will not get the opportunity to insult me in an election. I am already in a position of power elsewhere, so I don't really need your recognition.

2) An alternative plan was given but was shot down without any discussion of it on the forums. I'm going to ask logic to put forth his plan again and hope you will pull your great and magnificant head out of that deep dark hole in your backside and accept other possibilities.

Here we agree, the culture in here is conducive to shoot down new ideas and alternatives and indeed highly insultive and aggressive. I can see from your other posts you already had some brinkmanship with other posters, which is fair enough given your nature. And since you need to stoop down to character assasination and degrading this plan without considering pros and cons, saying logics plan is best and my head belongs in my "deep dark hole in my backside", you remind me of the "welcome" I got in my early positive and optimist days in this forum, where I met some of your kindred spirits.
The proposal I forwarded is third revision, and always had a strong support here, and now it is not even my ownership anymore, since I am not gong for the COMA elections. I clearly see that your attempt to discredit me, first and foremost, and then the plan, is your method for carving out a position for you in the game, standing shoulder to shoulder with Logic here.
Why not simply propose the plan, in place of insulting, referring to "deep dark hole in my backside", saying the plan has too many flaws etc etc.
I certainly know how to separate constructive from destructive criticism, and I admit I should have elaborated on that. I really meant destructive criticism.

3) This plan has faults which Logic raised and I added onto. To say that they are irrelivant is not just rude but outright insulting because I raised valid concerns. I am not a planner I do not have enough understanding of the fine details of the game to be one. I can however point out things which i find troubling.

Every plan got faults, and if you mentioned these in particular, we could figure out ways to improve on the plan. Valid concerns? I just saw a heap of insults and a couple of worries, but no reference to how the battle would work out. You are talking about rude? Reread your post, compare them, and see who is rude here. To all the rest of you, just compare notes. If you are not a planner, but an insulter, that is an entirely different debate.
I know you can point out things you find troubling, and I also read your signature, "Elite Troublemaker"? Well, point out things you find troubling, cause trouble, sustain trouble, mess up this place if you want, it is a free country. Some of us are through with attitudes limiting our direction, causing apathy and stasis, and you would know that understanding prior points of contention in these threads. You are just adding to that frustration now, what others laid down of troublemaking before you. But feel free to join them.

4) I more or less did the same basic idea as akot did but in a more general form. Why did you listen and address hsi concerns and not mine? Is it because akot is in office? Is it because he agreeded with your plan while I took a more critical stance? Or are you nothing more than a weak minded hypocrite?

Akots wrote in specifics, his view is balanced, and he sees the potential in the plan without outrighly rejecting it in a spinal tap reaction. He pointed out risks, but recognized that all plans do have an inherent risk, and he weighted pros and cons. If the idea is too basic, primitive, simple and banal, not to mention destructive, you only know that people do not like it for emotional reasons. I am not a Sycophant as you are hitting at, I let no one go free, but I talk about specifics, not trying to besmudge, character assassinate and be an elite troublemaker like you, something like Sturm-Abteilung lead by Ernst Röhm or something. He talked about the game specifics, you talk about my deep dark hole, me being a weak minded hypocrite and so on. A more critical stance? If you backed your NEGATIVE stance with a minimum of deeper analysis and not a maximum of degrading comments, I may have answered you totally differently, even embraced you like a disagreeing brother.

5) I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post because of your insultive nature. Quite frankly I don't respect you enough to spend my time doing so. You have issues when people object to you, its a pattern I've seen you start to develop.

Again, spinal tap reaction. And Logical Sequence must really be happy to have a loyal, eloquent, analytical and polite friend as you, as well as ethically consistant, tolerant, pragmatic and foresighted. People are free to object to me, as long as they separate the person from the issue. I said the criticism was irrelevant without an alternative, not that you were, unless you are trying to convince us otherwise. I am on good terms with a large number of people here, and your filthy and ugly attempts to exert Ernst Röhm, Embryon, Sycophant, Brazuca-friend and in general "elite-troublemaking" tactics just to get your proposal to the top makes you no more than a forum-thread-skinhead on a rampage. Maybe you are more worthy of power than I am, but I am not on the ballot.

Amazing the power of just once sentence.

Amazing the power of an "elite troublemaker" and the logical sequence developing from a series of politically motivated insults.



[edit]700th post w000t![/edit][/QUOTE]

 

[croxis]

1st: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2396369&postcount=11

"I do accept CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, as you can read from the threads, where we improve on the plan. If I denounce destructive criticism, that is only healthy for all of us."

So only if you get your way will you accept criticism? And sence when were you considered the moral authority on such matters? I found my criticism highly constructive (abit from general standpoint). Unless I am mistaken, it was you who threw the first insult at me. I DO NOT like your plan and I have proposed other options to consider. You don't want to see yoru baby hurt and so you will only accept citiziem that will conform to your wishes. This is highly selective of you.


"I am also not running for COMA, so you will not get the opportunity to insult me in an election. I am already in a position of power elsewhere, so I don't really need your recognition."

You enjoy power, don't you. And yes you do need our reconition otherwise you would not have had the reactions you are having now. You are clamoring and begging to be in power, even though it is informal.


"Here we agree, the culture in here is conducive to shoot down new ideas and alternatives and indeed highly insultive and aggressive. I can see from your other posts you .... I got in my early positive and optimist days in this forum, where I met some of your kindred spirits."

The reason why you got the reaction you did was because you were not humble. You came of as full of yourself (as is still the case). While my insults were in poor taste I did so consciously because I did not have your attention. Now I do. I suggest you review my entire posting history if you wish to have some idea of my online persona. My reactions in the Civ IV threads are out of the highly repetative questions and comments and people just not doing their homework. I have not said logics plan was the best, his plan I have issues with as well I I told him what they were. We both agree that a hybridization of your plan and his would probably be the most powerful. YOU created that statement befcause of your them vs us mentality. (Sounds like my president)


"Every plan got faults, and if you mentioned these in particular, we could figure out ways to improve on the plan. Valid concerns? I just saw a heap of insults and a couple of worries, but no reference to how the battle would work out. You are talking about rude? Reread your post, compare them, and see who is rude here. To all the rest of you, just compare notes. If you are not a planner, but an insulter, that is an entirely different debate."

Paul made a statement which realized my concern. I was always uneasy with the presented plan I just did not have the means to articulate it. I also remind you that it was your attack I responded to. I am not a detail planner and I only insulted you to finally get your attentions. Once again I have it.


"I certainly know how to separate constructive from destructive criticism, and I admit I should have elaborated on that. I really meant destructive criticism."

I am just going to flat out say that I don't think you don't.


"I know you can point out things you find troubling, and I also read your signature, "Elite Troublemaker"? Well, point out things you find troubling, cause trouble, sustain trouble, mess up this place if you want, it is a free country. Some of us are through with attitudes limiting our direction, causing apathy and stasis, and you would know that understanding prior points of contention in these threads. You are just adding to that frustration now, what others laid down of troublemaking before you. But feel free to join them."

The elite troublemaker comes from my British heritage. The reason why england was united was partly my ancestors doing. We have been questioning and challenging authority ever sense. Probably before but there was no written documentation of it. AS far as adding to the frustration why don't you talk to the regulars in the main chatroom what they think about me.



"Akots wrote in specifics, his view is balanced, and he sees the potential in the plan without outrighly rejecting it in a spinal tap reaction. He pointed out risks, but recognized that all plans do have an inherent risk, and he weighted pros and cons. .... A more critical stance? If you backed your NEGATIVE stance with a minimum of deeper analysis and not a maximum of degrading comments, I may have answered you totally differently, even embraced you like a disagreeing brother."

Again, I still stand my ground that you patted his back because it supported his views. I raised concerns that may prove to be faulty down the road. I did not have a knee jerk reaction but have been pondering over it for the past few weeks. My interest in strategy has increased with pauls participation and so now I am going to throw my meta-theories into the mix. You are still hung up over my insults? ok fine you have the right to do so. now get some substance. I still hold the ground you wont let go of your plan because you still are showing high levels of elitism.


"Again, spinal tap reaction."

And didn't you do the same?


"And Logical Sequence must really be happy to have a loyal, eloquent, analytical and polite friend as you, as well as ethically consistant, tolerant, pragmatic and foresighted."

Loyal - to the point of causing serious depression
Eloquent - nope never been a good speaker except in education or counseling settings
Analytical - you have no idea how bad I over analyze everything. It even killed more than one relationship I've been in.
Polite - Something I was always complimented on. It why people tend to think I'm 2-8 years older than I really am.
Ethically Constant - Everyone is a hypocrite, its just a matter of us acknowledging it and trying to better ourselves to reduce the effects
Tolerant - Yup
Pragmatic - I'm a science major, small vocab
Foresighted - Understanding IS a three edge sword


Now, may I use you for my psychology research paper I am working on?

 

[Provolution]

5) I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post because of your insultive nature. Quite frankly I don't respect you enough to spend my time doing so. You have issues when people object to you, its a pattern I've seen you start to develop.

Now, may I use you for my psychology research paper I am working on?

I see a clear evolution here my friend. And for the Scientific Paper in Psychology for your Bachelor Degree, I would remind you to use spellcheck. But an adept editor like you would probably not need such a friendly advise.