Military Tactics T94-T120

[Indiansmoke]

I Read your post on the possible exploit, as well as Donsigs response... Seems like we can't prove anything except that we lost... possibly a result of an untraceable exploit, possibly a result of an extermely well planned attacks /suicide attacks and possibly a result of some lucky RNG's...

Either way, I would again repeat that I would like the team to reconsider withdrawing so that we can engage SANCTA with a much larger/more powerful force... one that is not as vunerable to SANCTA skill/luck/exploitation etc, whatever.

My problem at this juncture is, that our team was divided on several key issues, including:

1. Expansion
A. Sacrifice economy to Spam settlers and reach the bottle-neck first or;
B. Keep economy stable to stay ahead in tech, while expanding more slowly.

2. Military
A. Focus more on production and military units, assuming that we would be at war before Rifling or;
B. Focus more on economy and tech, assuming that we probably would not be attacked before Rifling

3. War with SANCTA
A. Building a large army and preparing to attack SANCTA before Construction or;
B. Holding off on our preparations for war with SANCTA, until Rifling

4. Relations with Saturn
A. Bringing Saturn in as a full partner in a 4 way alliance to isolate SANCTA, or;
B. Trying to slowly integrate Saturn through a side deal, while trying to keep the 3 way alliance secret

5. Cavalieros war-time role
A. Leveraging our commece to take the role as the military power of the alliance, or;
B. Accepting a role as the brains of the alliance, while assuming that Cavalieros would be the brawn

It seems to me that our team decided to go with option B on all counts, and option B was unsuccesful (so-far) on all counts. I am not trying to place any blame on anyone or engage in any pointless told you so's, or anything like that. There is no guarantee that any of the option A's would have been successful either, TBH...

The whole point is, that I am concerned that the way we have conducted this war so far has been at least partially motivated, (either consciously or subconsciously) by a honest desire (possibly even desperation) to vindicate all the 'option B's' we have chosen. Let's just admit that we need a new strategy (as a team), and find a way to back off from the war (at least temporarily).

Sommer this is pointless. I can go on and on saying what we should have done and did not...what matters is what we do now?

 

[Sommerswerd]

How many times did I say to not split the stack? But from now on you listen OK?

Smoke you are exactly right... Which is why I dont get your next post...

Sommer this is pointless. I can go on and on saying what we should have done and did not

You just did exactly that... see the above quote.

...what matters is what we do now?

Yes I agree, which is exactly why I said:

I am not trying to place any blame on anyone or engage in any pointless told you so's, or anything like that.
The whole point is... Let's just admit that we need a new strategy (as a team), and find a way to back off from the war (at least temporarily).

I am not trying to start a fight with Smoke... I just want the team to do what Smoke (and myself) originally wanted... ie. withdraw for now (until we can build a much strnger attack force). Can we at least agree on that Smokey?

 

[Indiansmoke]

I just touched a specific issue that happened last turn Sommer. You started talking about everything from the start of the game...it is not exactly comperable.

Also how can you say we did not make units? We made all the units we needed to make, we were just unlucky and made some mistakes when moving the units.

Now regarding the plan for the future I have already said many times...turtle while continue to reiforce the front city, develope our cities and wait for superior forces.

 

[Kaleb]

The big problem was that I/we got the healing calculation wrong. Units heal at the start of a turn. So all of SANCTA's units got an extra 25HP before they were able to attack (e.g. look at Waterstof - he's on full health - meaning he healed at the start of the turn). Looking at what SANCTA have left I think they would still have taken down our stack even if it was together

 

[Kaleb]

I Read your post on the possible exploit, as well as Donsigs response... Seems like we can't prove anything except that we lost... possibly a result of an untraceable exploit, possibly a result of an extermely well planned attacks /suicide attacks and possibly a result of some lucky RNG's...

Either way, I would again repeat that I would like the team to reconsider withdrawing so that we can engage SANCTA with a much larger/more powerful force... one that is not as vunerable to SANCTA skill/luck/exploitation etc, whatever.

My problem at this juncture is, that our team was divided on several key issues, including:

1. Expansion
A. Sacrifice economy to Spam settlers and reach the bottle-neck first or;
B. Keep economy stable to stay ahead in tech, while expanding more slowly.

2. Military
A. Focus more on production and military units, assuming that we would be at war before Rifling or;
B. Focus more on economy and tech, assuming that we probably would not be attacked before Rifling

3. War with SANCTA
A. Building a large army and preparing to attack SANCTA before Construction or;
B. Holding off on our preparations for war with SANCTA, until Rifling

4. Relations with Saturn
A. Bringing Saturn in as a full partner in a 4 way alliance to isolate SANCTA, or;
B. Trying to slowly integrate Saturn through a side deal, while trying to keep the 3 way alliance secret

5. Cavalieros war-time role
A. Leveraging our commece to take the role as the military power of the alliance, or;
B. Accepting a role as the brains of the alliance, while assuming that Cavalieros would be the brawn

It seems to me that our team decided to go with option B on all counts, and option B was unsuccesful (so-far) on all counts. I am not trying to place any blame on anyone or engage in any pointless told you so's, or anything like that. There is no guarantee that any of the option A's would have been successful either, TBH...

The whole point is, that I am concerned that the way we have conducted this war so far has been at least partially motivated, (either consciously or subconsciously) by a honest desire (possibly even desperation) to vindicate all the 'option B's' we have chosen. Let's just admit that we need a new strategy (as a team), and find a way to back off from the war (at least temporarily).

I don't know how you can say we've gone for option B in all of the above?!

Regarding 1: We've only built one library for a start and only have cottages for Shymkent outside of our capital. We've been building settlers as quickly as we can but it wasn't helped by the fact we had no copper and iron so far away. If we had rushed to build a city where Angle is it would surely have been taken by SANCTA already. So that was certainly a bad idea which I'm glad we didn't do.

Regarding 2: again, I can't see where the great 'tech focus' is supposed to have come from?? We got an early lead in tech mainly due to our traits and having a source of gold nearby. Not really because of any great tech focus on our part. We have 7 cities, no courthouses, no markets, and only 1 library. "tech focus" you say?!

Re 3: how exactly were we supposed to have done this without iron?? As soon as we got iron we went straight away into building military.

I don't see where all this revisionist history is supposed to get us tbh...

 

[Indiansmoke]

The big problem was that I/we got the healing calculation wrong. Units heal at the start of a turn. So all of SANCTA's units got an extra 25HP before they were able to attack (e.g. look at Waterstof - he's on full health - meaning he healed at the start of the turn). Looking at what SANCTA have left I think they would still have taken down our stack even if it was together

No they would not! Because the second mace would protect HA from the spear!

So even wounded mace would have better odds than HA and would defend against spear and HA would defend the wounded mace against axe...so no Kaleb we would not lose the units so easily!

 

[Kaleb]

Yeah, should have kept the stack together. Still think we'd have lost all units

 

[Indiansmoke]

Yeah, should have kept the stack together. Still think we'd have lost all units

possible but they would have lost at least 2 more units.

 

[Kaleb]

Yeah, sorry. Was too eager to get that longbow off the hill.

 

[damnrunner]

No point in arguing over what is in the past.

I think our strategy so far has been good and if we were to play the game again - odds are we would be kicking Sancta's ass right now. Our tactics were sound - but the RNG has given us a beating.

We could have played more conservatively, but then we would be questioning why we didn't attack sooner to stop Sancta from digging in.

Lets look forwards not backwards.

 

[donsig]

Do we have any military left to plan for now?

I don't have a problem with the way we've moved so far. We took a chance, we lost a battle. As long as we keep at it the RNG will even out eventually. We learned a thing or two (like healing times) so let's keep at it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I just touched a specific issue that happened last turn Sommer. You started talking about everything from the start of the game...it is not exactly comperable..

Not :"exactly comparable"... I agree, but at least somewhat comparable.

Also how can you say we did not make units? We made all the units we needed to make, we were just unlucky and made some mistakes when moving the units..

Huh? When did I say that we did not make units???

Now regarding the plan for the future I have already said many times...turtle while continue to reiforce the front city, develope our cities and wait for superior forces.

Yes I agree with this 100%

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't know how you can say we've gone for option B in all of the above?!

Regarding 1: We've only built one library for a start and only have cottages for Shymkent outside of our capital. We've been building settlers as quickly as we can but it wasn't helped by the fact we had no copper and iron so far away. If we had rushed to build a city where Angle is it would surely have been taken by SANCTA already. So that was certainly a bad idea which I'm glad we didn't do.

Regarding 2: again, I can't see where the great 'tech focus' is supposed to have come from?? We got an early lead in tech mainly due to our traits and having a source of gold nearby. Not really because of any great tech focus on our part. We have 7 cities, no courthouses, no markets, and only 1 library. "tech focus" you say?!

Re 3: how exactly were we supposed to have done this without iron?? As soon as we got iron we went straight away into building military.

I don't see where all this revisionist history is supposed to get us tbh...

OK so... I am engaged in revisionist history??? Fine, I can drudge through all the threads (if necessary) to prove:

1. You opposed quick expansion into the center because you thought it would hurt our economy (Smoke has already repudiated your claims about our center city being at risk, so I wont waste too much time on this)

2. You poo-pooed the concept of preparing for an early war against SANCTA, and assumed that they would not attack us.

3. We could have built a large chariot force even before we discovered iron. AND we could have expanded to the center to get the copper. We always knew copper was there and could have prioritized getting copper instead of prioritizing sheep. That is "what exactly were we supposed to have done" as you asked. Does that answer your question?

Anyway, you (and Damnrunner) are correct that looking backward will not solve our current problem. So I am willing to drop this issue if you are. Otherwise, I will research all your pro "option B" comments in the forum.

 

[Kaleb]

Dig around the forums and quote away to your heart's content, but what matters is what's in the turn log. i.e. what we actually did.

You can't have it both ways - we can't build more of everything. If we built more Chariots it would have meant less workers or settlers and vice-versa. If you are going to say "we should have done X" it means you also have to say "instead of Y". The facts are that we have built little else other than workers, settlers and military in all of our cities. The only buildings we have built other than forges and granaries (which I'm sure you'll agree are base essentials for whatever you want to do) is one library and one temple. We could haggle about the temple, but I'm sure you'll agree the library was sensible, otherwise what is the point of being philosophical?

The only significant thing we have done that does not fit your "expand to the centre" and "build military" mantra is the fact we built the Great Library. Are you saying that was a mistake?

And I don't get what you mean by this:

1. You opposed quick expansion into the center because you thought it would hurt our economy (Smoke has already repudiated your claims about our center city being at risk, so I wont waste too much time on this)

I was against it because it would have been vulnerable (and it would have been!!). Besides there was a BARB CITY THERE ANYWAY!!! remember? And SANCTA were camping around it for ages. So we couldn't have built there without destroying the barb city or capturing it and then defending against SANCTA.

 

[Kaleb]

also don't get this bit:

instead of prioritizing sheep

??

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've said my piece... As others have already said, there is little to be gained from prolonged arguing about this. The only thing I really wanted to gain from this discussion was a commitment to withdraw from the war.

Since it seems like that is what we are doing, I am happy.

So will we keep focusing on building military with the intention of upgrading the units later when we actually want to attack? Or will we focus on other things?

Also, are we going to plan a two front attack or do we want to just focus on capturing the bottleneck?

Lastly, we are going for Guilds next right? We talked about it some, but I don't remember if it was decided. I know some folks mentioned some other techs. If we have not decided, I would like to get Guilds. We cant expect MS to keep giving us Ivory forever.

 

[donsig]

Making peace now would not help us and it would only free SANCTA to become stronger. Rather than considering peace we should be trying to get Team Cav to start fighting SANCTA.

 

[Kaleb]

We can pull back but not declare peace. If you look at the wider map SANCTA have gone out of their way to bottle us in to our little enclave and must have been planning this a while as they had a good military presence (axes, spears and chariots) around Angle before we'd even hooked up iron!

This does mean though that they are spread out. Our spy can go around the back way to phoenix area to see what they have. We can strike them here if we've got enough galleys.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To be clear, I am not necessarily talking about making official peace with SANCTA. I think that ship has probably sailed anyway. The time to make peace was before SANCTA built Zero (and possibly Dragon Tears as well). Now that we are trapped and they know it, we probably won't be signing any peace treaties in the near future (unless the treaty is an alliance that includes a backstab of Cavalieros)

What I mean by withdrawing from the war is that we at least stop trying to advance into SANCTA land until we have a much larger army built. What I would like, is us having a specific goal for our attack (ie raze Zero and Phoenix or capture TKY and Tears), AND having all the units we need to acheive that objective so that we can move in fast, before they have alot of time to react.

If our goal is the complete destruction/capture of all (or most) of the SANCTA cities, we are going to need a pretty huge army to make that happen. Maybe we can build a bunch of longbows, stockpile cash and then upgrade them to Rifles as soon as we discover it... or maybe we can land a large force of knights near Phoenix... Just some ideas, but we definitely need to do something that SANCTA does not expect.

 

[Kaleb]

I agree, regarding this though:

What I would like, is us having a specific goal for our attack (ie raze Zero and Phoenix or capture TKY and Tears), AND having all the units we need to acheive that objective so that we can move in fast, before they have alot of time to react.

Isn't that exactly what we tried to do though

We were going to raze TKY (and then they built Zero). If our first stack hadn't fallen so easily we could have built up a solid beach head. Alas we got screwed by RNG