General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
lol - ok captain gloomy - how do you propose we deal with that scenario?
Not quit now, I hope!
Not quit now, I hope!
Grand Strategy Thread
- Thread starter General_W
- Start date
We should be sure to build up our submarine navy before then, so we can take them out before they land this time.
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
what about tactical nukes against naval stacks? someone posted earlier how that works, but I can't remember now... 
However, I'd really rather not build Manhattan and open pandora's box if not absolutely necessary.
re: Subs
Our Nuke Subs will have range equal to enemy transports - but if we keep them stationed in port, we'll be one short of hitting invader stacks (if they're smart - and they clearly are).
What about Stealth bombers as potential naval unit killers?
They're expensive - but could precision target transports, right?
However, I'd really rather not build Manhattan and open pandora's box if not absolutely necessary. re: Subs
Our Nuke Subs will have range equal to enemy transports - but if we keep them stationed in port, we'll be one short of hitting invader stacks (if they're smart - and they clearly are).
What about Stealth bombers as potential naval unit killers?
They're expensive - but could precision target transports, right?
No, Stealth Bombers cannot pick targets like Submarines can.
Tactical Nukes would work, killing roughly half the units in the tile on one hit.
Tactical Nukes would work, killing roughly half the units in the tile on one hit.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
well, that was kind of gloomy, wasn't it?
I guess what I think is that we cannot defend ourselves passively and build the SS.
We could:
1) Build Manhatten and time a bunch of tactical nuke builds and wipe out their biggest cities with tactical nukes all at once, then land forces to keep them from connecting uranium.
2) Invade someone's island with 90+ MA, cutting rails and roads around our target
3) Build stealth bombers and precision bomb factories, coal plants and markets to cut out in the 4 best cities for each civ, which would probably cut their production capabilities by 25-30% - neither of them is commercial, so their less good cities aren't quite as strong as ours.
the big worry, in my mind, is that FREE is taking so long because they are planning a 1 turn sweep of former BABE land that will put them near 60% and an invasion someplace that will give them the extra 6%.
I guess what I think is that we cannot defend ourselves passively and build the SS.
We could:
1) Build Manhatten and time a bunch of tactical nuke builds and wipe out their biggest cities with tactical nukes all at once, then land forces to keep them from connecting uranium.
2) Invade someone's island with 90+ MA, cutting rails and roads around our target
3) Build stealth bombers and precision bomb factories, coal plants and markets to cut out in the 4 best cities for each civ, which would probably cut their production capabilities by 25-30% - neither of them is commercial, so their less good cities aren't quite as strong as ours.
the big worry, in my mind, is that FREE is taking so long because they are planning a 1 turn sweep of former BABE land that will put them near 60% and an invasion someplace that will give them the extra 6%.
We've signed treaties that forbid us from using nukes. 
Only with SABER...We've signed treaties that forbid us from using nukes.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Yes, we can nuke FREE all we want. Should we approach SABER about renegotiating our nuke treaty? 
Of the options suggested by AT, the second seems best to me - but can we build that many units (including transports) and then actually land them on another continent? We don't have much of a navy left.
It does seem we need to get more transports built, if only to be able to help repel whichever of our foes approaches the domination limit. This is not suggested as a winning strategy. It's more or less the same strategy SABER (and probably FREE) used on us: prevent another team from winning. It is bad enough we cannot research right now nor move ahead with our spaceship plans. It's worse to think either SABER or FREE will attack the other and drive for domination while we sit in our fortress/prison and watch.
Of course, we could use FREE's strategy and just sit back. They held tight which forced SABER to take the initiative against us. Perhaps we should just continue with our efforts to secure some rubber, build what units we can and save up some gold.
Of the options suggested by AT, the second seems best to me - but can we build that many units (including transports) and then actually land them on another continent? We don't have much of a navy left.
It does seem we need to get more transports built, if only to be able to help repel whichever of our foes approaches the domination limit. This is not suggested as a winning strategy. It's more or less the same strategy SABER (and probably FREE) used on us: prevent another team from winning. It is bad enough we cannot research right now nor move ahead with our spaceship plans. It's worse to think either SABER or FREE will attack the other and drive for domination while we sit in our fortress/prison and watch.
Of course, we could use FREE's strategy and just sit back. They held tight which forced SABER to take the initiative against us. Perhaps we should just continue with our efforts to secure some rubber, build what units we can and save up some gold.
With SABER yes. With FREE, we suggested it but got no response.
But we could likely wiggle the wording of our treaty with SABER. IIRC we've agreed not to use nukes on each other, which could be interpreted as not nuking each others' lands. Ships in the sea could still be fair game though.
But we could likely wiggle the wording of our treaty with SABER. IIRC we've agreed not to use nukes on each other, which could be interpreted as not nuking each others' lands. Ships in the sea could still be fair game though.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
So, no nukes on SABER. There's really no wiggle room there (which is fine, since we have so much more to lose to have nukes land in our 4 biggest cities)
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
Yes, we can nuke FREE all we want. Should we approach SABER about renegotiating our nuke treaty?
Of the options suggested by AT, the second seems best to me - but can we build that many units (including transports) and then actually land them on another continent? We don't have much of a navy left.
It does seem we need to get more transports built, if only to be able to help repel whichever of our foes approaches the domination limit. This is not suggested as a winning strategy. It's more or less the same strategy SABER (and probably FREE) used on us: prevent another team from winning. It is bad enough we cannot research right now nor move ahead with our spaceship plans. It's worse to think either SABER or FREE will attack the other and drive for domination while we sit in our fortress/prison and watch.
Of course, we could use FREE's strategy and just sit back. They held tight which forced SABER to take the initiative against us. Perhaps we should just continue with our efforts to secure some rubber, build what units we can and save up some gold.
As it turns out, I didn't understand how precision bombing worked - I thought it meant you could choose targets, but it just means it bombs cities. Stealth bombers are, however, a lot less likely to be shot down by SAMS - I ran a test of 14 bombers vs. a city with 4 mobile sams and a sam battery and lost 3 bombers. They don't even have any mobile sams in their cities and I'm guessing few SAM batteries.
We can have a force of, i dunno, 6 carriers and 16 stealth bombers in 10 turns - with that, we can kill most of the improvements in 2 cities a turn, while maintaining a cover of 8 jets, with sams in transports. While we do that, we can build a bunch of destroyers. If they sail against us, we can pound their naval units with stealth bombers, then clean them up with destroyers.
Right now, we have > 90 modern armor, which should keep our homeland safe from anything but a 2 team invasion (which we can't defend against anyway) - I'd like to be able to take the fight to SABER and FREE.
I presume you mean Stealth Bombers, right? If so, this is encouraging news indeed! Wipe out the markets and factories, crippling their ability to rush naval units - we'll be home free if they can't bring the fight to our shores
What we really need is naval supremacy. The reason SABER can threaten us and thwart us is not because of their armies or air support, it's because every ship we sail outside our home continent runs a big risk of being sunk. That has serious negative implications on our chances to grab offshore Rubber sources. If we were the ones controlling the seas, we wouldn't have had this problem, at all. And SABER couldn't bring the fight home to us, regardless of their production capacity.
So in that light, I'd rather build up our navy again, instead of "wasting" research on going for Stealth.
So in that light, I'd rather build up our navy again, instead of "wasting" research on going for Stealth.
I agree with Niklas.
building stealth bombers is more a reactive solution, where as building a navy also has other benefits and is not just a reaction to their actions either.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
should I set a bunch of builds to destroyers? I think that we can build 1-2 turn destroyers in some of our cities.
Yilar
Prince
It is to late for naval supremacy, we lost that opportunity when we decided to leave our boats in the open. If we are to build destroyers it should be as escorts for carrier/transports. I would start by building a few subs and a few jets to make sure we got enough for full EWS and then move the destroyers we got, back into our ports so we don't lose these, we can't kill anything with them without being destroyed anyway. And with an airbased EWS we don't need to check the seas at the risk of losing our sentries.
We only need a few subs to sit in some strategic cities so Saber/Free cannot move into tiles and threaten multiple cities without being at risk of getting hit by subs. Without further look I would say between 5-7 subs should be enough.
Also now that Saber has 4 carriers they may try and bomb our core cities, we should maybe build a few mobile sams and place these in our 3 120spt cities.
We only need a few subs to sit in some strategic cities so Saber/Free cannot move into tiles and threaten multiple cities without being at risk of getting hit by subs. Without further look I would say between 5-7 subs should be enough.
Also now that Saber has 4 carriers they may try and bomb our core cities, we should maybe build a few mobile sams and place these in our 3 120spt cities.
Oh, I definitely agree with that. We shouldn't send our ships out on the high waters hoping to take control, but we need to have enough of a naval force that we can consider moving out of our own waters. Right now we can't, which will kill us in the long run.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
We need a strategy and then a way to implement it.
To me, there are three choices:
1) Turtle up, power research, and build a spaceship.
2) Invade someone and try to take out an opponent militarily
3) Bomb someone into the early industrial age
Am I missing anything that isn't a variant on one of those things? Nuking someone into subsmission would count in 3)
Right now, we are on 1) - we are turtling up and saving money for power research.
To me, there are three choices:
1) Turtle up, power research, and build a spaceship.
2) Invade someone and try to take out an opponent militarily
3) Bomb someone into the early industrial age
Am I missing anything that isn't a variant on one of those things? Nuking someone into subsmission would count in 3)
Right now, we are on 1) - we are turtling up and saving money for power research.
I'd add one attenuation to 1):
we can only do this if we have a secure source of rubber. Failing that, we can't win without going on the offensive to get rubber. In order to go on the offensive to get rubber, we will need at least some navy.
Read some as quite a bit, say, a stack of 20ish destroyers?
we can only do this if we have a secure source of rubber. Failing that, we can't win without going on the offensive to get rubber. In order to go on the offensive to get rubber, we will need at least some navy.
Read some as quite a bit, say, a stack of 20ish destroyers?
donsig
Low level intermediary
Would be difficult to invade someone without rubber, too. We need to focuson getting some rubber - but we need to research again so that when we do get rubber for a turn or two we can get the casing started.
Similar threads
