The Provopromo Romo War

Provolution

Sage of Quatronia
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
10,102
Location
London
THE PROVOPROMO ROMO WAR

I made up this fun idea for the next and last Roman War. Since this will be our last war before the continent is ours, I think we need to handpick our men that are about to get a promotion (1-2 XP short), and only use these and a few specialists in the final war against Rome. This means that our future overseas expeditionary corps would have a very very high quality, and when we send them out to stop another civs victory (cultural or space, or even diplomatic) or send them out to expand our own victory options (domination), we use these specialized units.

Is this an ok idea to you? This war will take place after a short interlude.
 
I agree on the cannonfodder part, that is part of the parcel, just to prepare the free kills.
 
Sounds good - though I would probably use some unpromoted units as cannon fodder if odds are not too good to make sure the veterans get easy kills :evil:

City Raider 2 riflemen have got a 99% chance to win against a fortified longbow. I had fun this TC :)
 
City Raider 2 riflemen have got a 99% chance to win against a fortified longbow. I had fun this TC :)
:lol: if our army consists only of these: disband the others (or use them as cannon fodder anyway for the odd kill maybe we get one more rookie promoted - and Rome will take care of disbanding the others for us ;) )
 
Well, finally you guys see the Genius behind my hopeless struggle for Vassalage. Vassalage have given this specialized monster army. If I had some control the last term, it would even have been better tuned. :)
 
Well, finally you guys see the Genius behind my hopeless struggle for Vassalage. Vassalage have given this specialized monster army. If I had some control the last term, it would even have been better tuned. :)

Yeah, thanks to a good military production, research and civics strategy combined, we had only 4 accidental losses. This war strategy also removes any doubt that was shed on my proposal to go all infantry and forget cavalry, and this holds true for other issues as well.

Even then, the war proved my points 100 % on my strategy and predictions. All criticisms to my warplanning is hereby rebutted, and I want no monkey talk about cavalry again for a long time! (HAIL Double City raider riflemen).

I think you're tooting your own horn a bit too much here. I'd like to remind you how the debate about this war went. I've selected a few of the relevant posts from the thread discussing the start of the war.

Spoiler :
From Grant2004:
Personally I'm still in favour of a delayed war on Rome, once we've developed a new technology which will allow our forces technological superiority over the enemy, whether that is riflemen or cavalry, I don't see the need to rush into a war with Rome

From Joe Harker:
I think we should get cavalry and take Rome in one go personally, or get rifling, but that will take longer than the other option

From Dutchfire:
While looking at the save, I noticed that Rome had some quite nasty stacks of promoted longbowmen and horsemen. I think that attacking them with our medieval army would work, in the end, but it would be costly, long and painful. So I think that we should get some (at least one) new military techs, to facilitate our attack.

There are three paths/units we can easily get, Chemistry/Grenadiers, Military Tradition/Cavalry and Rifling/Riflemen.

From Provolution:
I think the Medieval scenario works best, since we can get some critical promotions and get two cities. I am certain losses will be almost like zero, if the campaign is played smartly. I say go for 2-3 cities, call for peace and prepare for a decisive cavalry war. War Weariness is a big argument for this approach.

I'm glad you've decided to listen to citizen input this term but don't go preaching about your infallibility when in fact the key to our victory was waiting for this one kind of advanced unit which you never supported until time ran out while the military was assembling. I hate to be a nit-picker but claiming responsibility for the plans put forward by every member of this community, besides yourself, is something I just don't want to see.
 
I think both Vassalage and Infantry-based units (above cavalry) was a major part to this, and that point still remains. I also think we have been cooperating better, but that is because people have both researched and contributed, not flamed and criticized on weak grounds.

Even with Macemen with double city raider promotions, this would have worked well. I did not know about the interest for early rifling (which you and another one voted against with "Economics", basically making you a continuous opposition to a strong military, going from the elections, the vassalage argument, the upgrade plans, timing of the war and even war objectives), but is happy we managed to get it.

Since I got most blame before, of course I take credit when things go good. You also purposely failed to include other arguments in your quotations.

However, I am happy that someone brought forward riflemen as an option, which I lent ear too. Yet, the Cavalry Army and the anti-Vassalage movement, these are the issues I have contested.
 
Remember there's no 'i' in either 'team' or 'lead'. I think we built the available units and gave the available promotions. The key was getting the right techs researched so those units would be available.

Yes, those of us who argued for the enabling tech choices and civics (such as Provolution and myself to name two) gave good advice to the citizens, and some credit is deserved, but it was a pretty easy task in retrospect.
 
I agree there was "We", that made it, but "some", sure fought hard to make it not happen.
 
Top Bottom