Preparing for a possible invasion.

[Yilar]

Depends if that one unit has odds, because if you leave crappy unit in city vs good unit, you are just wasting units. It takes 1 movement to capture an empty city and it take 1 move to attack and capture a city. The only way to stop the blitz is to see it comming.

 

[General_W]

Maybe what we need to do, is try to plan this attack as if we were Saber and/or FREE - and we wanted to take over The Council lands.

How would we do it?

I think AutoTeller has come the closest so far to projecting a likely attack strategy.
If I were on team Saber or FREE, I'd propose something like this.

Stage 1: Spy out The Nursery (if Saber attacking) or The Bayou (if FREE attacking) and make an estimate of how many marines are needed vs. how many Modern Armor to bring along.
Stage 2: Move Bombers into position on 11-tile island. Move SOD of transports (carrying Marines and Modern Armor) covered by Battleships/Cruisers into range. Sweep area with Destroyers looking for subs.
Stage 3: Do as much damage with Bombers to The Nursery/The Bayou defenders as possible. Hope you brought enough marines to take out the wounded defenders and capture the city. Move in fleet of Modern Armor - and use The Council's rail network against them to capture & burn as many cities as possible.
​

As has been mentioned - even losing 25% of our cities is probably enough to sufficiently handicap us from ever winning this game.

Now - I'm not an expert C3C player by any means - so maybe my proposed strategy has some serious flaws and/or there is a better option?
Let's figgure out what Saber/FREE is likely to try - then we can focus our defensive strategy around that.

 

[peter grimes]

I posted that link to demonstrate that it is entirely possible for us to open the save only to discover that our only city left is Babe Colony

We can't let an enemy get control of a city on our continent, whether they found the city themselves or take over one of ours.

And barricades and forests don't prevent an enemy from moving, they just cause the turnplayer to spend a little more time with their save

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Well.

that was exciting.

I ran some tests.

4 vet mechs in a size 13 city, being attacked by 25 regular bombers

1) No other defenses
2) With a civil defense
3) With a civil defense and a SAM missle battery
4) no civil defense and 4 mobile SAMs

Results:

1) lost 3 citizens, some other improvements, 2 mech infantry and 2 redlined.
2) lost 4 citizens, other improvements (including civil defense) and a mech (I think)
3) lost 2 citizens, no improvements, 1 mech scratched, 13 bombers shot down.
4) lost 3 citizens, didn't have improvements so don't know, 3 mechs at 3/4, 1 at 2/4, 12 bombers shot down.

My conclusion: if we don't have SAM's in cities we see as very vulnerable, we are nuts. The MIA plan was to bomb cities empty, then land unopposed. If they can't bomb cities empty, then it becomes much harder to land. the cost is minimal (2 gold per city improvement) and considering the cost in citizens and improvements lost, not too mention the toll on bombers, we need to do it (or use jets, if they do the same thing)

 

[General_W]

Good work A.T. Assuming that Saber/FREE are planning the "MIA strategy" / something similar to what I outlined above (post #442) - then we should get those mobile SAMs and a SAM battery in The Nursery and The Bayou asap.

It looks like the Nursery is currently building a Sub – I propose we switch it to a SAM battery with the next save.

The Bayou is building a Destroyer – it'll be 1 turn from done with the next save… that's a fair number shields to ditch at that point… do we let if finish, then start a SAM battery next? Or should we just eat the wasted shields in order to rapidly boost our air defense capability?

Based on that AA article that Hasdrubal linked to, I think We should also seriously consider switching a few cities over to rapidly producing some Mobile SAMs (100 shields each) – and try to have 8 of them [4 for each city] asap. (for those that didn't read the article, only the 4 best AA units are used for calculating air defense anyway… and it's cumulative with a SAM battery – so it's best to have both).



I am not – note: NOT – saying I favor a forest barricade, but I think we should fully discuss the possibility.
If we built one like this:


Key:
GREEN circles represent planted forests
ORANGE represents Saber forces / Culture on conquest

I think an arrangement like this would contain any Saber Modern Armor from over-running us in a single turn. The forests (and Mountain tile) outside of their cultural boundaries would prevent them from blitzing into our next closest cities.

I still think our effort is better placed into not losing The Nursery or The Bayou in the first-place… but we could consider something like this as a containment strategy?

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Actually, we don't need a forest blockade and one would work against us, assuming that the three cities around The Nursery's culture boundaries have expanded, is pillage the rail and the underlying road in the 4 tiles in orange and the invasion stops dead in it's track in the Nursery, assuming that the invaders don't have modern armor or cav armies, of course.

if they do have 4 move units, we'd have to pillage and plant forests.

 

[donsig]

Here's a link to the last turn of the first civ3 MTDG, for those who weren't there. It was a 1 turn bulldozing to the domination limit. When the turn starts, MIA hasn't taken any towns. By the end of the turn, TNT are down to just a handful of cities.

Ummmm, TNT didn't make it to the last turn peter. I think you meant the Donuts, right?

I posted that link to demonstrate that it is entirely possible for us to open the save only to discover that our only city left is Babe Colony

I don't think so. There are some differences between the end of the last game and the state of the current one. IIRC, MIA had a tech lead in the last game, getting to bombers when their rival had only infantry. There was a very narrow straight between the contestants then - we are on an island. We also have our EWS, which is precisely why we're not going to open the save one day expecting a full continent, only to find a city or two left.

My conclusion: if we don't have SAM's in cities we see as very vulnerable, we are nuts. The MIA plan was to bomb cities empty, then land unopposed. If they can't bomb cities empty, then it becomes much harder.

I agree about the SAM's. We need them in The Bayou and The Nursery at the least.

 

[Paul#42]

if they do have 4 move units, we'd have to pillage and plant forests.

Just forests won't work indeed, there need to be no roads on those tiles.

Otherwise they'd just be moving settlers on tiles north and east of The Nursery, disband The Nursery and creep towards our other towns with combat settler as they did against GONG.

So the only defense against a landed enemy is unroaded forests.

I agree about the SAM's. We need them in The Bayou and The Nursery at the least.

Yep.

 

[Yilar]

Hmmm. I ran some tests to.

While jets did destroy the 5 first bombers it seems hasdrubal was right and they only have 1 shot, after they had fired, the bombers hit the jets instead of the mechs destroying all of them. Also air superiority need to be activated.

I also tested sams, while they are not as succesfull as jets 1v1 they do however fire multiple times and more importantly they do not take damage as the jets do. All the bombing was aimed at buildings, population and mechs.

Btw, how do you build vet mobile sams and is there a difference between vet and regular?

Im still not convinced they are gonna try this route, but I think we could build 4-8 mobile sams instead of some naval units.

 

[tomasjj]

I reckon SABER/FREE would spy out at least 2 cities before deciding on the landing. That means they would see if we had SAM's or not/Civil Defence or not.

Of course, if they know how much of an effect a SAM has on the defensive capabilities. I am sure such skilled players would know though.

Makes it harder to decide which cities to build SAMs in, or to be more clear, which cities NOT to build SAMS in.

 

[Yilar]

I also did some limited testing with sam site, they do offer quite a bonus, in the tests I ran the 4 sams killed almost half the bombers with sam site and only 1/3 without sam site. The problem with the sam site is the immobility and the fact that it can get hit by lucky bomber shot. I'm all in favor of building a couple of sams for defensive reasons, as the Saber at least has some bombers, but im not completely convinced on the sam site, as it may move the bombers elsewhere.

 

[General_W]

Im still not convinced they are gonna try this route, [attacking The Nursery or Bayou] but I think we could build 4-8 mobile sams instead of some naval units.

Then what do you think they will try?
We should consider every angle of possible attack - and try to have a plan to defend against it.
If YOU were running FREE/Saber - how would you attack The Council?

im not completely convinced on the sam site, as it may move the bombers elsewhere.

If we build just 2 SAM sites (in The Nursery and The Bayou) the only way for them to "move the bombers elsewhere" is to build a 180 shield Carrier for every 4 Bombers! That enormously reduces their effectiveness... and, in that case, at least we'll still be able to deploy the Mobile SAMs.

 

[tomasjj]

Aha.. so these two cities are the ones they can reach with bombers from their airfields then?
Then it makes sense...

 

[Yilar]

Then what do you think they will try?
We should consider every angle of possible attack - and try to have a plan to defend against it.
If YOU were running FREE/Saber - how would you attack The Council?




If we build just 2 SAM sites (in The Nursery and The Bayou) the only way for them to "move the bombers elsewhere" is to build a 180 shield Carrier for every 4 Bombers! That enormously reduces their effectiveness... and, in that case, at least we'll still be able to deploy the Mobile SAMs.

Yes, but we can simple disband the Bayuo or The Nursery should they try that. That's why i'm doubting the whole 50 bomber strat.

It's like I said earlier, once we get 50 modern armors we will become almost unstoppable, if you ignore nukes or a massive combined attack by Saber and Free. Because we can simply disband coastal towns. The EWS is very powerfull if used correct.

 

[Yilar]

Airfields also provide instant defense to air units, in case of an invasion enemy bombers will target in cities: 1st airplanes,2nd boats, units/improvements. Our bombers will be readlined in airfields but most likely will survive. 4 Airfields around our square continent should provide suficient cover.

This is actually true. I did some testing and our jets(backup ews) would be eliminated if the enemy were to bomb our cities a bit.

I uploaded a picture showing how we could get an invincible ews with 21 jets spread on 4 airfield around our land. There might be a better solution, as I did this quite quick (note that the picture is rather old). The trick with the airfields is that if you try to bomb them with bomber nothing happens, the bomber simply loses its movement if it tries to bomb the square and no jet is injured.

 

[Paul#42]

If we build just 2 SAM sites (in The Nursery and The Bayou) the only way for them to "move the bombers elsewhere" is to build a 180 shield Carrier for every 4 Bombers! That enormously reduces their effectiveness... and, in that case, at least we'll still be able to deploy the Mobile SAMs.

That's convincing to me. I'd rather take building and upkeep costs for these two SAM sites than the option to disband those two important towns at the first sight of an enemy fleet.

This is actually true. I did some testing and our jets(backup ews) would be eliminated if the enemy were to bomb our cities a bit.

I uploaded a picture showing how we could get an invincible ews with 21 jets spread on 4 airfield around our land. There might be a better solution, as I did this quite quick (note that the picture is rather old). The trick with the airfields is that if you try to bomb them with bomber nothing happens, the bomber simply loses its movement if it tries to bomb the square and no jet is injured.

So those airfields provide shelter for our jet fighters.
And they provide shelter for nearby cities (range < 3?) if the jets are on sentry duty, right?
How many jets would be necessary to do the recon for our invincible EWS?

Sounds like a good plan to me. Our ships could then scout the outer circle beyond our EWS zone so any two-turn-attack has to be launched directly from the closest landmasses. This also reduces the possible landing sites for any enemy. Or we get warned a turn earlier.

 

[donsig]

I like the air based EWS, especially if it allows us to spread our sea based EWS out further. I'd use a few more jets and an airfield on SCI as long as our rubber supply is critical. I'd rather build the needed jets at the expense of some land rather than sea units. Once we get the jet based EWS up we can make up for any modern armor we held off on.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Just forests won't work indeed, there need to be no roads on those tiles.

Otherwise they'd just be moving settlers on tiles north and east of The Nursery, disband The Nursery and creep towards our other towns with combat settler as they did against GONG.

So the only defense against a landed enemy is unroaded forests.

Yep.

Well, if we pillage the roads next to The Nursery, they won't be able to settler there the first turn.

If they get a large stack on land, we may have trouble, cause I assume they will start airlifting units.

I ran some tests and it looks like, if we had good bomber support, a stack of modern armor could take out a stack of modern armor twice it's size. I tried 30 bombers and 30 MA vs. 60 MA, on a clear tile, with a radar tower in support - I ended up with 10 pretty beat up MA on both sides, which, if that was it, would end up with us dying a fast death, as their MA would rip us apart, I think.

So, we need more than 1/2 as many MA as our opponents, or we need some mech infantry. One thing to think about is that a modern armor can attack 2 or 3 times... but an army of modern armors gets only 4 attacks, so if we get an army, we'd be giving up 5 potential attacks from 3 armor, to gain 4 super attacks from the army.

Back to the example: if, however, they opposition lands 30 Mech inf and 30 tanks (which is closer to what FREE might land now - do they have computers and rocketry?), the stack was brought down to 5 mechs and 1 tank, all redlined, while I had 19 MA left over in various stages of pain.

 

[General_W]

if, however, they opposition lands 30 Mech inf and 30 tanks (which is closer to what FREE might land now - do they have computers and rocketry?), the stack was brought down to 5 mechs and 1 tank, all redlined, while I had 19 MA left over in various stages of pain

Yet another example of why Modern Armor are superior to Mech Infantry &#8211; even on defense.
Edit: I think we're the only team with Computers at this point.

I like the air based EWS, especially if it allows us to spread our sea based EWS out further.

I really like this airbased EWS idea. It avoids the biggest problem our sea-based EWS has&#8230; namely, that it can be destroyed (at least in places) rendering us blind.

I also agree with Donsig that we MUST always include Subcommittee Island in our coverage plans. Hanging on to that rubber until we've completed our Exterior Casing SS build is critical.

I'd rather build the needed jets at the expense of some land rather than sea units. Once we get the jet based EWS up we can make up for any modern armor we held off on.

I'm not so sure about this.
I'd much rather keep up the rapid pace on building Modern Armor (see: AutoTeller's tests) and just plug the EWS gaps with ships until we can get the needed number of Jets.

Ships are an "ok" substitute for our Jet-based EWS. There is NO substitute for Modern Armor if we're invaded.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I think FREE has computers. I don't think SABER does.

Here's the bad news:

Based on our military and the formulas from the war academy on the military advisor, FREE could be BARELY strong to us and have 20 marines, 30 mechs, 20 bombers and 50 tanks... and transports to carry them all. course, that would leave no sea escorts, so I'd assume it would be less. But still... I wonder why FREE isn't attacking someone.