Plan Eagle

[Jon Shafer]

Introduction:
Plan Eagle is my proposition for the invasion and destruction of the American nation. Its purpose is to give us room to expand into, as well as gaining all of the usual spoils of a successful war.

Buildup:
Following the Case Blue proposal, we will have 4 cities by the time the war against America starts and Plan Eagle takes begins execution. A Barracks will be built in each city before the buildup begins to allow for maximum quality of our troops. This is a necessity in waging a short successful war.

Plan Eagle calls for the buildup of two armies, on our northern border with America. The 1st Army will start near the southern border between Washington and the Notylopa Jungle. It will contain 8 Archers and 2 Spearmen. The 2nd Army will be located to the south of New York near the coast. It will contain 6 Archers and 2 Spearman. All of these troops will be veteran status, due to their production in cities with Barracks. The Spearmen units positioned with each army will help reduce the damage caused by any potential enemy counter-attacks.

Goals:
The main goal of Plan Eagle is to hit the Americans fast, hard, and deal them a crippling blow before they will be capable of mounting a successful counter-attack. Speed and surprise are the main assets of this plan.

The ultimate objective of Plan Eagle will be the capture of Washington and New York in a lightning blow. Most likely, the main buildup of forces will be present in these two cities, the oldest ones in America. With the defeat of the majority of American forces within the first few turns, our success will be guaranteed. Following the capture (and possible razing) of the two American border cities, our armies will proceed to capture Boston and Philadelphia, which will more than likely have popped up between now and the execution of Plan Eagle. With the destruction of the American nation, Plan Eagle will be complete and our future success is assured.

[Jon Shafer]

1) Invasion

Once the 1st and 2nd Armies have formed and been positioned in their correct locations, the initial invasion will begin. The 1st Army will hit Washington the turn that war is declared, the same for the invasion of New York by the 2nd Army. Casualties will most likely be fairly heavy the first step of invasion, due to our armies assaulting well-defended and entrenched positions, however, our superior numbers will make victory assured. Casualties of 50% will be expected and accounted for.

[Jon Shafer]

2) Consolidation

Once Washington and New York have been captured, there will be a slight rest period for our armies, after the initial shock of our lightning invasion disappears. We will receive reinforcements, and increase our numbers as we advance on. Projected reinforcments are 1 or 2 Archers per army by the time the final phase begins.

3) Finishing Blow

Once the 1st and 2nd Armies have regained their strength, they will proceed to destroy the final American establishments. The 1st will proceed over the mountains to its west, and assault Philadelphia. The 2nd Army will move north through the jungle in between the mountains, pivot west and hit Boston. The 1st will rendezvous with the 2nd in its attack on Boston after it has captured Philadelphia. With the capture of Boston, the Americans will be successfully destroyed.

[Darkworld Ark]

Sounds great! We should rename Washington Triptopia in honor of the president who made our conquest of the American menace possible!

[Inverse Icarus]

the more armies you make, the more troops you will need for them. i demand at least 1 spearman and 5 archers per stack, and even that is cutting it close.

your plan requires mroe time to get up and running.

i would honestly rather have a single stack of 2 spearmen and 8 archers sack washington and then raze NY, but i'm open to suggestions.

we have plenty of time to debate.

[notyoueither]

Now it's 8 archers? That's another 6 turns minimum. When do we run into swordsmen instead of archers as that last unit in Washington?

The key to the archer rush is minimal forces against unprepared enemies. Is it not?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now it's 8 archers? That's another 6 turns minimum. When do we run into swordsmen instead of archers as that last unit in Washington?

The key to the archer rush is minimal forces against unprepared enemies. Is it not?

im just stating that his plan is grossly inflated, and if he was goign to do it, i'd rather have one smalelr stack. i'm sticking to case pink

[Spiffor]

I also think we shold strike as soon as possible (case pink). Plus, we'd need to take care of that river before attacking Washington : the way Trip puts it, we'd try to attack Washington by crossing the river, giving more defense bonuses to the troops there

[Robber Baron]

Building up two armies would divide our thin resources. It would also take more time to prepare. By the time we created, say, 3 spear and 10 archers, America will certainly have more than 3 cities. I'd favor a single stack: take Washington, hold it against the first wave of counterattack; move a smaller, second force against New York (some of it built during the first attack, some of it detached from Washington) once Washington has been secured.
That would keep the bulk of our army between our home cities and the Yanks' counterattack. (Which will be scattered; they always are).

[UnOrthOdOx]

I agree with maintaining one army, but woud sugest Boston as the second target, then sueing for New York when the initial thrust is over.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I agree with maintaining one army, but woud sugest Boston as the second target, then sueing for New York when the initial thrust is over.

Nice. Though it would leave our home cities a bit more exposed (by pulling our army further west). Also, the approach to New York would be less costly (since the advancing army would get the jungle terrain defensive advantage against counter attack -- especially important if the Americans have horsemen).
Are we wiping the Yankees off the map, or vassalizing them? If the former, we wouldn't be able to sue for New York.
On the other hand, if this is an oscillating war, securing Boston would put us in a better position for the next round. We do need more territory north and east of Washington.
By the way, I urge that our French scouting warrior head east, to scout the ground between France and America (as I think nye suggested in another post).

[Robber Baron]

Also in favor of Boston (sorry about the double post -- still thinking about this) would be the fact that it maintains our momentum. I guess taking NY after DC would mean wheeling our army south, then pushing it back north. Sounds ponderous. So on to Boston.
We should definitely bypass NY, though, and make our first strike a bid for Washington.

[JSeeds]

I would have to agree with Uber.
I think we need to hit Washington with one large stack. Also, I think the time required to amass the troops Trip has suggested is pushing it. If we want to hit the yanks fast and hard, lets take Washington out according to the build orders suggested in case pink.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UberKruX
the more armies you make, the more troops you will need for them. i demand at least 1 spearman and 5 archers per stack, and even that is cutting it close.

your plan requires mroe time to get up and running.

i would honestly rather have a single stack of 2 spearmen and 8 archers sack washington and then raze NY, but i'm open to suggestions.

we have plenty of time to debate.

Soon Apolyton will be producing 5 shields per turn, and Termina will be producing 4 per turn. In 20 or so turns, those two cities alone will have produced two Spearmen and nine Archers between them. Needless to say however, Banana HQ and Red City will be much less productive for the time being. Even so, in 20 turns you have your 5 Archers and 1 Spearman per army in addition to whatever our other two cities produce.

By the time we've amassed those forces, America will have no doubt built another city. Their expansion by the time we attack is inevitable. Unless we attack in 10 - 15 turns, then we'll be facing another American city, that's just how it will be.

Cutting down on the size of the individual armies is acceptable as long as success is assured. Our greatest asset is surprise... it's best to take advantage of that to capture 2 cities, instead of 1.

While I would agree that our priority would be to capture Washington, I feel that New York will be sufficiently weak to allow it's capture simultaneously. That will cut the Americans in half, reduce their army by half (or more, most likely, since their new city will likely only have 1 unit instead of 2), and their production capability for further units in a single blow in only a couple turns.

Washington's resource situation is as bad as ours is. They only have 1 mountain inside of their borders, and the 'all-knowing' AI didn't pick it out, it was assimilated through cultural border incrementation. If you'll notice the location of the new French city, I feel with 90% confidence that there will be iron inside that city's borders. I mean, just look at the location... and haven't you seen the AI do that every time?

An alternative to Operation Eagle (or a varied form if it, rather), would be for the 1st Army to strike from the South-East, in between Washington and New York to avoid the river, and for the 2nd Army to link up with the 1st after capturing New York, then moving on straight to Boston, massing our forces there. It's just a matter of relocating our resources, no major differences. I'm confident that with our resources, we can capture Washington and New York with two armies in the first turns. While time may not be our greatest asset, I'm highly doubtful that America will be able to find iron in their vacinity, making an invasion up until then almost assured as long as we have sufficient forces.

What are the drawbacks of my plan?
Well, one is the time it will take. Extra time over a more conventional "mass into one force" instead of two plan, since we will have to make both armies sufficiently strong. However, as I've stated, time (for once) is somewhat on our side, due to the American's position in regards to potential resource locations. As time goes on, our armies will be increasing in size, while America's will not (aside from natural expansion).
Another drawback is the splitting of forces. However, each city is likely to have 2 Spearmen. Even with UK's demands of 5 Archers and 1 Spearman per army, we can take twice as many losses and still be confident of victory. Reinforcements to Washington after the initial shock attack would bring our strength back up, and we would proceed to Boston.

I feel that the drawbacks of the plan are worth the potential success of taking a large portion of the American army and production capability out of the picture before things slow down.

Concerns are always welcome.

[LordImpact]

Sounds like a lovely blitz finishing off with a pincer attack on Boston. I hope it works well, but if something goes wrong what will our city defenses look like?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by LordImpact
Sounds like a lovely blitz finishing off with a pincer attack on Boston. I hope it works well, but if something goes wrong what will our city defenses look like?

The defeat of the front-line armies is highly unlikely. The AI rarely makes many offensive units until a war begins (which is one reason why I want to take out 2 cities quick instead of just 1), and with the Spearmen allocated with both armies, we should be able to hold off any potential counter-offensive. However, the chances of that happening are slim, since I would estimate the likelyhood of us capturing both cities within 3 turns to be 85% or more. In the case that, say, France attacks us, then pray to the Banana God to save us.

But really, the jungle will give us time to try and obtain peace with one nation or another (once the first step of Operation Eagle is successful, we'll be able to strip America of anything it has within 3 turns, guaranteed), then refocus our armies on the other enemy.

[Aggie]

I have a few questions.
1) How long will it take to build this force and how does this compare with earlier(single stack ) strategy.
1b) If the time is similar why was the earlier timetable off?, Did we underestimate our resources?
2) Will we destroy or vassalize the americans?
Now some comments.
If this plan will only take a few more turns (<5) Then i say it will be worth it imho.
But one reason i want the deal on IW to be completed soon is so we can see where iron is. If a miracle happened and it was on our mountain, I would say produce a few swordsman instead. However if we see that America doesn't have iron perhaps war with france would be more profitable if they do.
I also could see the possiblities of eliminating America instead of vassalizing them, especially if we have settlers ready to take some of the good land and we vassalize france later.
But generally I do like the concept and hopefully we have time to carry it out.
Aggie

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Aggie
I have a few questions.

That's what I'm here for.

1) How long will it take to build this force and how does this compare with earlier(single stack ) strategy.
1b) If the time is similar why was the earlier timetable off?, Did we underestimate our resources?

I was not involved with the initial creation of Case Blue, so I cannot comment on why things ended up off-track. I can however state that a thoroughly sufficient force can be mustered within 25 turns for this plan to be fully successful.

2) Will we destroy or vassalize the americans?

The plan does not specify, but I would like to destroy them outright. This would (as you stated), allow us space to move into. The plains and floodplains in their area will be very helpful in our expansion.

Now some comments.
If this plan will only take a few more turns (<5) Then i say it will be worth it imho.
But one reason i want the deal on IW to be completed soon is so we can see where iron is. If a miracle happened and it was on our mountain, I would say produce a few swordsman instead. However if we see that America doesn't have iron perhaps war with france would be more profitable if they do.
I also could see the possiblities of eliminating America instead of vassalizing them, especially if we have settlers ready to take some of the good land and we vassalize france later.
But generally I do like the concept and hopefully we have time to carry it out.
Aggie

Certainly the presence of iron will be important. I think that there will be iron near the new French city, and we won't be able to see any more. Mabye another source in the Great Rift, but I doubt it. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't plan on it.

I think that eventually we will gain our own source of iron though, so picking France as a target for that reason would be pointless as of now. France has no where to expand to except the jungle. That means as time goes on, it will get weaker, while after our successful war with the Americans, we in turn will get stronger. They will be easy prey for vassalization once the time comes.

[Aggie]

Good job Trip, so I give it the thumbs up , and hope others will too
Aggie

[jdd2007]

i like the plan. dont worry about france attacking though...

[Will 5001]

Great plan, but it all depends on how quickly these armies can be raised, but the 25 turns figure you quoted above seems to be reasonable!

[Panag]

hi ,

good plan , ....

, a road towards the front line might be intresting , ...

have a nice day

[jdd2007]

a road, interesting....

[Duddha]

the more armies you make, the more troops you will need for them. i demand at least 1 spearman and 5 archers per stack, and even that is cutting it close.

your plan requires mroe time to get up and running.

i would honestly rather have a single stack of 2 spearmen and 8 archers sack washington and then raze NY, but i'm open to suggestions.

I'm with Uber on this one.

[jdd2007]

i agree with trip. we have two stacks, take washington and NY, then combine them...

[jdd2007]

i have a short, quick, embaressing question that i should now the answer to:

how do you make the options in a poll?

[Jon Shafer]

Start a new thread, and check the checkbox at the bottom that says to post a poll.

[GePap]

ince we don't yet know where the Americans will make a new city, would it not be as good to make a plan in whihc we go for those cities we know exist while keeping a lookout for where their new city is? In this case, the two collumns would merge in boston and then as on move on any remaining American cities, so Army 1-DC- Boston while Army 2-NY-Boston, with the Grand Army from Boston to Philadelphia afterwards. That way, our Grand Army begin swingin our way (back home) at the end of the campaign.

[wervdon]

About iron, after looking at the world map on trips site, I'd be surprised if there isn't more iron in the mountain chain between our american province and the persian empire. We won't know for a bit yet, but I wouldn't let that influence who we attack first.

I'm all for burning a few yankee cities


As for how to do it, I think Ill side with Uber. Both plans should result in victory. Trips will probally result in a faster victory, but a more costly victory, he said himself he expects 50% or more casualties in the first assault. Uber's I dont think would cost us as much of our own blood. When faced with a choice of quicker assimilation of america vs less of our fine soldiers dead by an american arrow or spear, id go with the latter.

[Jon Shafer]

Casualties are always high. Archers VS Spearmen is a 1 to 1 ratio whether you go with my plan or his. Another important point I bring up is that if we don't eliminate American production centers as quickly as possible, then they will be able to build more units. I predict at least 1 extra unit being produced from New York if we bypass it initially, maybe more. That will lead to more casualties, the invasion taking longer, and so on. My plan will be costly, yes, but any invasion is. My plan addresses both the speed issue and the cost. Do you not agree?