General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
Peter did an awesome job with Paul's picture.
I'm folding it into the release... and posting it in the UN now...
I'm folding it into the release... and posting it in the UN now...
Preparing for a possible invasion.
- Thread starter donsig
- Start date
I have no idea how my subscription for this thread god cancelled - but after seeing the UN release, I can only say WOW! Utterly brilliant! 
Someone (Peter?) had already mentioned that the essence of the post, the 6-tile-zone might slip through the readers consciousness.
Should we find a way to make that one more clearly?
Or do we want to keep it in the fog a bit to punish some inattentive transport some day?
Should we find a way to make that one more clearly?
Or do we want to keep it in the fog a bit to punish some inattentive transport some day?
donsig
Low level intermediary
These modern times are more dangerous than ever. With at least one of our rivals going for a domination win we must keep our focus on preparing for a possible invasion. We need our Early Warning System (EWS), a way to eliminate transports picked up by our EWS, a way to defend our coastal cities if any transports manage to penetrate our EWS, and a way to contain any enemy landing force that manages.
Here's what I think we've come up with so far:
And here are some of my random thoughts:
Here's what I think we've come up with so far:
- EWS: a mix of subs, fighters and ships
- Sinking transports: subs (using stealth attack) and bombers
- Defending coastal cities: mech infantry to stop marines
- Containing a landing: modern armor as defenders against modern armor, forests to prevent a blitz
And here are some of my random thoughts:
- EWS: Using subs as part of the EWS makes them vulnerable to a first attack. Subs can be seen by destroyers, Aegis cruisers and other subs. Sunk subs can't use their stealth attack to take out transports.
- Sinking transports: We should consider keeping our subs close to port so they can move out and strike transports How far can our subs move? I just looked at this early when I saw the save but I can't recall the number. I did see that nuclear subs can move one more tile than regular subs can. How important is it to target enemy carriers in a stack with transports?
- Defending coastal cities: Mech infantry to stop marines. Would modern armor be effective defenders against marines? Would coastal fortress help?
- Containing a landing: Wouldn't a forest with a road be as susceptible to combat settlers as any other (non-mountain) roaded tile? It seems the key to containing a breach is to pillage roads. Forests would slow the enemy down though assuming we pillaged the roads.
Good points about the combat value of sunken subs... 
Nuclear subs would do 6 moves, that's exactly what we'd need in most cases to attack any safety zone violator from out of the harbor.
Upgrade however is 60g per ship. But this might well be worth it.
Still they bear the threat of carrying nuclear weapons - but not if they stay in our harbors and we don't have this Manhatten stuff.
How are the odds that a sub sinks a 4/4 transport?
Oh, we should keep in mind that sinking a transport does not mean that we also kill land units. They will probably be empty as receiving part of a ship chain
So sinking them will probably lose our subs to destroyers or other subs and just delay the landing unless we got subs in excess to face the second wave (by deploying them from other nearby harbors).
But any turn gained is priceless in such a situation so we should trade a sub for a transport any day.
Also valuable to sink escorted transports would be stealth bombers (extremely expensive (240s) - but great!) and fighters (quite cheap - 120s). Should we encourage SABER to research and share Stealth after Synt fibers?
I'll provide a map with some areas and key harbors marked on - unless anybody else feels to do so in the next 12 hours before I can play the next turn. The latest map from the Played Turns should be useful for that.
Nuclear subs would do 6 moves, that's exactly what we'd need in most cases to attack any safety zone violator from out of the harbor.
Upgrade however is 60g per ship. But this might well be worth it.
Still they bear the threat of carrying nuclear weapons - but not if they stay in our harbors and we don't have this Manhatten stuff.
How are the odds that a sub sinks a 4/4 transport?
Oh, we should keep in mind that sinking a transport does not mean that we also kill land units. They will probably be empty as receiving part of a ship chain
So sinking them will probably lose our subs to destroyers or other subs and just delay the landing unless we got subs in excess to face the second wave (by deploying them from other nearby harbors).
But any turn gained is priceless in such a situation so we should trade a sub for a transport any day.
Also valuable to sink escorted transports would be stealth bombers (extremely expensive (240s) - but great!) and fighters (quite cheap - 120s). Should we encourage SABER to research and share Stealth after Synt fibers?
I'll provide a map with some areas and key harbors marked on - unless anybody else feels to do so in the next 12 hours before I can play the next turn. The latest map from the Played Turns should be useful for that.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Oh, we should keep in mind that sinking a transport does not mean that we also kill land units. They will probably be empty as receiving part of a ship chain
So sinking them will probably lose our subs to destroyers or other subs and just delay the landing unless we got subs in excess to face the second wave (by deploying them from other nearby harbors).
We'd also have the initial turn to deploy our bombers. If we get hit from more than one direction at once things would get hairy. It seems Y.E.S. is very important. We need the bulk of our protection near our core. On the west coast we really might want those forests.
forests have a horrible impact on food or production or even both...
They won't prevent success of combat settlers as FREE used them in their final attack unless we also destroy our roads... :suicide:
If we did this now or in near future in great style, we don't have to fear an invasion because we won't be a threat of winning the game imo...
I'd agree to plant a forest belt around key cities (The Chamber!) on the final turns before our space ship is built. But not now.
They won't prevent success of combat settlers as FREE used them in their final attack unless we also destroy our roads... :suicide:
If we did this now or in near future in great style, we don't have to fear an invasion because we won't be a threat of winning the game imo...
I'd agree to plant a forest belt around key cities (The Chamber!) on the final turns before our space ship is built. But not now.
Yilar
Prince
What about barricades? I have never used them before, maybe someone with a bit of experince could share if they work well, or do they take over the field like an airfield?
Barricades can be pillaged by artillery some of us had experienced in the first MTDG.
EWS
We are save from being nuked until Manhatten.
Even after that we are save till Satellites - unless a nuclear submarine sneaks through.
How can we be make sure we see any subs?
It's only destroyers to discover them on any adjacent tile, and any ship that hits a tile a sub is on, right?
Can any other units see subs? Planes?
Should we ourselves build rather nuclear subs then regular because of that one extra movement point? Moving six instead of five tiles would allow to keep them in the harbors until some ship violates our 6-tile-zone...
Espionage
How expensive and risky is stealing others' military plans (once we got espionage)?
land units
Should we rather build tanks for later upgrade to Modern Armor or some more MechInf as long as our GA allows The Chamber and The Treasury to build them in one turn?
SABER seems to be heading for SyntFib and we could get that before FREE regrouped for the next attack...
EWS
We are save from being nuked until Manhatten.
Even after that we are save till Satellites - unless a nuclear submarine sneaks through.
How can we be make sure we see any subs?
It's only destroyers to discover them on any adjacent tile, and any ship that hits a tile a sub is on, right?
Can any other units see subs? Planes?
Should we ourselves build rather nuclear subs then regular because of that one extra movement point? Moving six instead of five tiles would allow to keep them in the harbors until some ship violates our 6-tile-zone...
Espionage
How expensive and risky is stealing others' military plans (once we got espionage)?
land units
Should we rather build tanks for later upgrade to Modern Armor or some more MechInf as long as our GA allows The Chamber and The Treasury to build them in one turn?
SABER seems to be heading for SyntFib and we could get that before FREE regrouped for the next attack...
Yilar
Prince
1. Stick to destroyers and subs, put destroyers on the line and the subs behind the line (3 squares off the coast). Of course if the shields permit cruisers instead of destroyers go with that. Battleships are to expensive, i almost laughed when i saw your first battleship. 1 Battleship = 2 subs. We got a large area to cover, the more boats we got the better. Only Aegis, Destroyers, subs can nuclear subs can see subs. Stick to regular subs unless we want to utility them for nuking purposes.
2. Miltary plans only work for 1 turn and should be rather expensive by now 1000gold+, quite useless if you ask me. The greatest upside of the spy is the fact that you can see the other guys army stock in f3 for free.
3. All depends on the shields, whatever fits the bill the best (20-21, 25-27, 34-36 and 50-54 shields = tank, everything else = mech). I'm not quite sure why we are building marines if we are not planning some kind of invasion, but a few would be nice i guess.
2. Miltary plans only work for 1 turn and should be rather expensive by now 1000gold+, quite useless if you ask me. The greatest upside of the spy is the fact that you can see the other guys army stock in f3 for free.
3. All depends on the shields, whatever fits the bill the best (20-21, 25-27, 34-36 and 50-54 shields = tank, everything else = mech). I'm not quite sure why we are building marines if we are not planning some kind of invasion, but a few would be nice i guess.
2. Even a snapshot will allow to derive the plans and the current threat as well as the whole strategy (if shot at a key moment).
I guess we need Espionage soon.
3. I already switched from Marines to Mech Inf and was wondering if 100s tanks would be a better investement than 110s Mech Inf. But I guess we'll rather get some more Mech Infs from our 110+ towns and tanks everywhere else.
How many jet fighters do we need?
Currently we build 1.5 per turn. We got 6 of them in 215. 10 bombers so far. I'd suggest building them till the end of GA and then switch to other buildings when we drop below 50spt in those three towns. How are they in attacks on ships?
What other units do we need?
Mobile SAM (100s)?
What buildings?
Civil Defense (120s)?
SAM Missile Battery (80s)?
Coastal Fortress (40s)?
I guess we need Espionage soon.
3. I already switched from Marines to Mech Inf and was wondering if 100s tanks would be a better investement than 110s Mech Inf. But I guess we'll rather get some more Mech Infs from our 110+ towns and tanks everywhere else.
How many jet fighters do we need?
Currently we build 1.5 per turn. We got 6 of them in 215. 10 bombers so far. I'd suggest building them till the end of GA and then switch to other buildings when we drop below 50spt in those three towns. How are they in attacks on ships?
What other units do we need?
Mobile SAM (100s)?
What buildings?
Civil Defense (120s)?
SAM Missile Battery (80s)?
Coastal Fortress (40s)?
I painted our EWS into a recent map (214) and marked our submarine harbors.
Our EWS is marked by the red line. Note there are areas beyond the yellow lines that our submarines could not reach from any harbor. These are also areas no opponent's transport can enter any of our towns. Still their transports can reach adjacent tiles and attack with Marines. So any harbor town is still threatened.
Not sure if our announcement would allow to push the border one tile further and if we want that. 6 tiles is already quite comfortable imo...
Marked as submarine harbors are 14 towns. Some of them should take 3 or more submarines, some less because there are many overlaps of course.
I don't see us having ~40 submarines so soon though...
I hope this map can be downloaded without any problems...
I had also drawn some green lines to indicate the reach of our submarines but rather showed the areas out of reach.
Note that all is based on movement 6 submarines, i.e. nuclear subs pushed by Magellan's.
Our EWS is marked by the red line. Note there are areas beyond the yellow lines that our submarines could not reach from any harbor. These are also areas no opponent's transport can enter any of our towns. Still their transports can reach adjacent tiles and attack with Marines. So any harbor town is still threatened.
Not sure if our announcement would allow to push the border one tile further and if we want that. 6 tiles is already quite comfortable imo...
Marked as submarine harbors are 14 towns. Some of them should take 3 or more submarines, some less because there are many overlaps of course.
I don't see us having ~40 submarines so soon though...
I hope this map can be downloaded without any problems...
I had also drawn some green lines to indicate the reach of our submarines but rather showed the areas out of reach.
Note that all is based on movement 6 submarines, i.e. nuclear subs pushed by Magellan's.
I could download the image even though it took some time. Both xs.to and imageshack usually have spells of slow access unfortunately.
Why do we want to keep the subs in the towns? Wouldn't it be better to keep them in places where they could reach further?
Why do we want to keep the subs in the towns? Wouldn't it be better to keep them in places where they could reach further?
I'm not sure using Nuclear Submarines is a good idea. As I mentioned in another thread, the existence of nuclear a nuclear sub may cause an enemy to believe (correctly or not) that we intend to nuke them.
This could have the unwanted effect of forcing that enemy to attack us before we can attack them; if we never intended to attack them in the first place this would be a disaster. If we are planning on attacking someone, we want the attack to come at a time of our choosing, not theirs.
That said, we could nullify this risk by publishing the Council White Paper on Nuclear Weapons, which will state that The Council will not use nuclear weapons unless someone else builds Manhattan.... or something like that. Point being, we want everyone else to understand that though they may see a nuclear sub, we have no plans on arming them.
This could have the unwanted effect of forcing that enemy to attack us before we can attack them; if we never intended to attack them in the first place this would be a disaster. If we are planning on attacking someone, we want the attack to come at a time of our choosing, not theirs.
That said, we could nullify this risk by publishing the Council White Paper on Nuclear Weapons, which will state that The Council will not use nuclear weapons unless someone else builds Manhattan.... or something like that. Point being, we want everyone else to understand that though they may see a nuclear sub, we have no plans on arming them.
Somewhere in these frequented threads we had developed that it would be good to have the subs back in harbors...
I think we (I?) wanted to save them from detection in a surprise attack. If some destroyers would hunt them down in the landing area, we would have trouble to take out the transports in an escort...
That would also hide that we have any nuclear subs unless a spy steals our military plans. That again would publish that we have them distributed in harbors which is absolutely inefficient if one plans a nuclear strike...
I think we (I?) wanted to save them from detection in a surprise attack. If some destroyers would hunt them down in the landing area, we would have trouble to take out the transports in an escort...
That would also hide that we have any nuclear subs unless a spy steals our military plans. That again would publish that we have them distributed in harbors which is absolutely inefficient if one plans a nuclear strike...
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
Problem with using lots of subs as our anti-transport mechanism is that they stop being useful once the ships have landed. yes, we'll be able to kill all their navy, but bombers have the advantage that they can kill land units, as well.
donsig
Low level intermediary
True, but bombers will hit the strongest ship first meaning we need lots of bombers to sink escorted transports. I think it is clear we need a balance of subs and bombers.
Keeping the subs in a city is a good idea. If we put all our subs out in the EWS then they can be sunk before they get to attack any offending transports. I'm not so sure our rivals would automatically think we are heading for nukes just because they see nuclear subs. In this game nuclear subs have one more movement point than regular subs. Our opponents should realize this and see that it is possible we want nuclear subs for the extra movement point.
PrinceMyshkin
King
I agree we need a balance between bombers and subs. I don't think we should be afraid of building nuclear subs or keeping them a few tiles out from our harbors behind our EWS. If Saber or Free are going to penetrate our EWS with destroyers just to spot subs, then we are going to going to war anyway. Gong built several destroyers and subs and the only Free ships we ever saw were cruisers and transports. They didn't even have enough transports to form a chain in the first few turns of war.
I like jet fighters since they can help with EWS using recon missions and are great for air defense, meaning we probably don't need mobile sams or sam missile batteries. But they are pretty weak on bombard missions and should only do so if the enemy has fighters also before sending in the bombers. I think we are already ahead in air force and navy, though, so we should cut back on these a bit until we build more tanks and mechs. A good reaction force will be an even better defense if a landing is made. Destroyers are our best ship build until Aegis cruisers. They are faster than cruisers, have the same air defense, can spot subs, and pack 80% of the punch for 75% of the shields. It's a good thing that cruisers upgrade to Aegis cruisers for free, though.
I like jet fighters since they can help with EWS using recon missions and are great for air defense, meaning we probably don't need mobile sams or sam missile batteries. But they are pretty weak on bombard missions and should only do so if the enemy has fighters also before sending in the bombers. I think we are already ahead in air force and navy, though, so we should cut back on these a bit until we build more tanks and mechs. A good reaction force will be an even better defense if a landing is made. Destroyers are our best ship build until Aegis cruisers. They are faster than cruisers, have the same air defense, can spot subs, and pack 80% of the punch for 75% of the shields. It's a good thing that cruisers upgrade to Aegis cruisers for free, though.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I wouldn't cut back on our navy - we have so few good shipyards I'd keep them busy. Now that we're done with wonders we can use The Treasury and The Silo for tanks r mech infantry.
