IstariAsuka
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 68
ROSTER:
Symphony D - Up.
Own - On Deck.
Abegweit
Andronicus
IstariAsuka - Went.
Symphony D - Up.
Own - On Deck.
Abegweit
Andronicus
IstariAsuka - Went.
I'd advise 30. They won't take that much longer to build and wiping out opposition from the sky is superior to having to waste tanks to do it. The more Bombers we have, the fewer Tanks we'll need. Bombers are pretty much Artillery, but better, and Artillery already pretty much owns CivIII.Andronicus said:I think we have enough bombers - only really needed for Romes bigger cities - currently have 21
Removing an enemy's resources is a pretty good cornerstone tactic, though I agree it won't be near as important as it could be considering we have a tech lead. But we can cripple their luxury resources if needbe. It's not like it's a huge force drain either.Not sure of need for explorers - I see little need to worry too much about pillaging - we should have the technological upper hand with tanks or cavs v rifles or muskets (or even less)
That's why more are cued up for 35 total... and I don't really see the point of Settling at all. We won't need science or money at this point, and producing more Settlers does little other than waste production that could be spent on units and bring us closer to the Domination limit (even though we're quite safe currently). We don't need more cities. We need more ass-kicking capability. Score doesn't matter - end time does.We need settlers for our foreign cities - we could also do with a few more infantry ( have 21)
I know Tanks take Airfields. Why else would I have built a bunch of them? That doesn't change the fact that the AI has likely got a fair number of units roving around - especially Rome - and you need a strong punch to kill a city and set up an Airfiled to begin dropping in Tanks. 6 to 8 Helicopters is only 18 to 24 units. We should be focusing on hitting multiple targets at once, not just one. It's all about time now. It will take approximately 10 to 15 units per drop, minimum, depending on the enemy tech level.Not convinced we need 20 helis - 6 or 8 should be plenty, rest can be tanks and cavs as these will do most of the city razing. These need to be transported by airlift rather than by helis.
So do I. But you can't Helicopter in Tanks. You can Helicopter in Cavalry. Which makes them useful for setting up a beachhead which you can fly Tanks into. Unless you're going to dump your Infantry by Helicopter right next to the target city, you will need Cavalry to reach an objective in any reasonable amount of time.Do we want more cavs - extra movement or tanks - more expensive, slower, but blitz ability to double the casualties and more resilient so less time spent recovering and more time attacking -I favour tanks.
Symphony D. said:I'd advise 30. They won't take that much longer to build and wiping out opposition from the sky is superior to having to waste tanks to do it. The more Bombers we have, the fewer Tanks we'll need. Bombers are pretty much Artillery, but better, and Artillery already pretty much owns CivIII.
Removing an enemy's resources is a pretty good cornerstone tactic, though I agree it won't be near as important as it could be considering we have a tech lead. But we can cripple their luxury resources if needbe. It's not like it's a huge force drain either.
That's why more are cued up for 35 total... and I don't really see the point of Settling at all. We won't need science or money at this point, and producing more Settlers does little other than waste production that could be spent on units and bring us closer to the Domination limit (even though we're quite safe currently). We don't need more cities. We need more ass-kicking capability. Score doesn't matter - end time does.
The only thing it'd be good for is setting up Airports in enemy territory, and even that would take a lot of cash and defensive units. Waste of resources overall.
I am in favour of hitting as many places as possible rather than one place at a time if we want to even try and conclude this in a rapid manner.
But you can't Helicopter in Tanks. You can Helicopter in Cavalry. Which makes them useful for setting up a beachhead which you can fly Tanks into. Unless you're going to dump your Infantry by Helicopter right next to the target city, you will need Cavalry to reach an objective in any reasonable amount of time.
Why bother with cities and settlers? Burn an enemy city, use the resulting Workers to found an Airfield and put some Infantry on it for defense. No need to take with us what we can find in the field.I think that having 1 city on each major island (only require 4 - 3 more - settlers) will allow quicker deployment of tanks and cavs with rush build of airports (only req 1 per island). Not sure 35 more infantry is as valuable as 35 more tanks - may already have enough infantry - although before dow-ing Vikes should ensure infantry are defending our core cities.
Treat all land as roads and 3 movement - perfect pillager unit. 1 Infantry unit will also not make a huge difference if we tote along about 5 or 6. We can just use them to rush some other Infantry builds if need be if people are opposed to this idea. I just figured they might be useful.Each explorer takes a heli spot that could be used for another infantry thus protecting our beach-head - the best use I can see for explorer is to disband to rush airport (I confess I have never used an explorer in civ3 so perhaps someone can tell me what I'm missing)
Point. However, the Bombers can rebase halfway around the world and our opponents will have no counter to them - RNG can't screw us over with them in combat. Remember - for every unit we dump on a foreign continent we will need one Airfield or Airport to rebase it to the next target area.Bombers are powerful, however they have had their lethal bombardment capability removed in this scenario. The main advantage of bombardment is when the enemy has strong defensive units (ie Rome), otherwise I suspect 10 extra tanks (or cav) would do more damage than 10 extra bombers
Symphony D. said:We have four options to resolve this problem: 1.) ship in the remaining workers we have stored up on the Mainland to enemy territories to build these new "emergency" Airfields. 2.) Burn enemy cities on capture and use resultant workers to make Airfields. 3.) Keep enemy cities and rush Workers to make Airfields. 4.) Keep enemy cities and rush Airports.
I am in favor of 2 and 3 because 4 would be prohibitively expensive to do, and would result in a limited number of Airports to get troops to the next front, thereby delaying advance.
Symphony D. said:I am against Japan/Rome first. I think we should get Nationalism from one of them for Mobilization, then get the other one to beat on them. Let them wear each other down while we go kill Vikings and Chinese.