Plan Eagle - Page 2

wervdon · July 6, 2002, 22:13

Offensively, I imagine we'll lose about as many troops either way, the question to me seems to be how to minimize losses in a probable counter attack.

You do have a good point about their additional production if we delay. I'll therefore withold any vote Id cast for the plan until closer till d-day so to speak, hopefully we'll get some intelligence about their troop strengths and locations prior to the actual attack.

I don't know if we have an embessy or not, or if we have funds to pay for an investigation of their two largest cities, but Id recomend it be considered if it is possible.

Jon Shafer · July 6, 2002, 22:39

The best way to eliminate the chances of a counter-offensive is to eliminate the locations that enemy troops may appear. Needless to say, a country with 3 cities can produce more units than a country with 2. In addition to that, if the Americans do by chance have offensive units situated in their cities, then a dual offensive will quickly eliminate their initial defensive Spearmen units, while also leaving their offensive Archers (Swordsmen will be highly unlikely) vulnerable to the start of the offensive.

In regards to getting more intelligence about the Americans, if we establish an embassy, then we automatically get a view at Washington. If we were to do this, then we could investigate their capital the turn before our invasion begins. While this will 'waste' 30 or 40 Gold, we will know their exact troop count the turn we attack. Also, we need to research Writing first, since we can't establish an embassy until we do.

wervdon · July 7, 2002, 00:09

Your words ring true, President Trip, Im sold on your plan for a dual offense. An investigation isn't necessary, but if the opportunity presents itself, it couldn't hurt when it comes time to split our forces up.

Jon Shafer · July 7, 2002, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by wervdon
Your words ring true, President Trip, Im sold on your plan for a dual offense

I'm glad you agree with me.

My main purpose in being involved with this game is to assist in any way possible... in this instance, through a strategic plan for our invasion. I feel that this is the best way to achieve success (aside from loading the game into Gramphos' CMT and giving us 50 ICBMs

) is this plan that I propose, and I will argue for it as long as I can, until hopefully I get the chance to prove it can succeed. I hope I can reach others and convince them of the merits of this operation.

IceElement · July 7, 2002, 00:33

I'm all for the promotion of planning, scheming, hatching and naming a number of obscure plots... and a lot of turn estimations have been flying around the place for 'D-Day'...

I'm not asking about the viability of these plans... but it seems to me that the current govt. is plotting schemes that will take place AFTER the elections, and, however confident you are about winning, surely govt. should also be creating more short-term aims as well? I realise that there is very little to do in this banana heaven we are currently in...

25 turns has been mentioned above sumwhere... which will easily take into the latter stages of the next term, but what if the new ministers do not wish to see these plans through? Are they obliged to, or are these merely suggestions...

On the other hand it seems a waste that Trip or any other minister hatches a plan both for time and for resources-

IceElement

Jon Shafer · July 7, 2002, 00:40

Was Case Pink/Blue created by a minister? Of course not, but it was adopted as the most feasible course of action. Even if I'm not elected, that doesn't mean my ideas are any less valuable, and my plan any less effective. I just won't be the one moving the units.

Panag · July 7, 2002, 14:50

hi ,

just in case , it would be intresting to keep producing units when the attack is on the way , ....

have a nice day

Verto · July 7, 2002, 15:01

I agree with this plan, but think we do need to look at every possibility, however unlikely.

If France declared war with us, would we be able to defend our cities? Would it take so long for the French to reach us that we will have built additional units, or pulled some back?

Is there a chance that another civilization borders America that we will come in contact with, demand something, then declare war?

Like I said, just think everything needs to be discussed.

Potassiumopolis: the benefits of the Banana

Jon Shafer · July 7, 2002, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
I agree with this plan, but think we do need to look at every possibility, however unlikely.

Of course. A better plan may emerge, but this is the best idea I can come up with. Luckily we don't have to worry about supply lines, transport, etc. If that was the case then I'd have to think out things a bit more (which is both good and bad).

Quote:

If France declared war with us, would we be able to defend our cities? Would it take so long for the French to reach us that we will have built additional units, or pulled some back?

Operation Eagle would require constant reinforcements from Apolytonia, which would also allow for the creation of the 3rd Army if France attacked. They would hold off the French while in the jungle, while the 1st Army would support them once they got there. The 2nd would pivot around the line and help destroy the intial French assault wave from behind. From there, we could construct a new plan on how to deal with France.

Quote:

Is there a chance that another civilization borders America that we will come in contact with, demand something, then declare war?

It's possible, but unlikely. While in the vulnerable position of a war, we should try to appease our neighbors as much as possible. A good saying I've heard is "swallow your pride for now, so that you may drink from their skulls later."

Quote:

Like I said, just think everything needs to be discussed.

So it should.

Verto · July 7, 2002, 17:16

You've got my support.

Panag · July 7, 2002, 17:52

hi ,

a small fourth army might be good , together with some units that protect the cities , ...

have a nice day

ThePlagueRat · July 7, 2002, 18:09

One problem:
We do not have any information on the enemy forces, do we?

An expected American counterattack is likely to suprise our few spearmen, and scare away (or even slaughter) our archers.
I suggest we make the attackforce more versatile by adding a lot more defensive units!

7:5 att/def, is still an offensive army.

jdd2007 · July 7, 2002, 18:16

no, TPR, too many spearmen. our quick attack will wipe out any offensive units (which they probably wont have)
before they can ... be offensive ...

Robber Baron · July 7, 2002, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
One problem:
We do not have any information on the enemy forces, do we?

An expected American counterattack is likely to suprise our few spearmen, and scare away (or even slaughter) our archers.
I suggest we make the attackforce more versatile by adding a lot more defensive units!

7:5 att/def, is still an offensive army.

Sounds like a luxury we can't afford. Our rivals are growing stronger at a faster rate than we are. We need to strike before they are impregnable.
Besides, the AI rarely builds an offensive (counter) strike force before war is declared. If we hit hard and fast, I predict their counterattack will be scattered, piecemeal, and ineffective. We should be able to meet it in the jungle with a second wave of military units as they come on-line.

Jon Shafer · July 7, 2002, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
One problem:
We do not have any information on the enemy forces, do we?

As RB said, rarely does the AI ever build offensive units.

Quote:

An expected American counterattack is likely to suprise our few spearmen, and scare away (or even slaughter) our archers.
I suggest we make the attackforce more versatile by adding a lot more defensive units!

The amount of offensive units will allow for nearly ever unit in both Washington and New York to be destroyed in the first turn. With the capture of those two cities, a potential counter-attack could have no more than 2 archers maximum, which would still not get beyond our defensive Spearmen screen. That would leave the rest of the army to destroy their counter-attacking units the following turn.

Quote:

7:5 att/def, is still an offensive army.

I plan on having only about 7 units per army, 2 of which will be defensive. Unless we have at least 5 Archers, then there's a chance that the initial offensive will not have the shock value to completely destroy the city garrisons. 2 Spearmen per army will no doubt be sufficient to twart any real damage from even a fairly large counter-attack.

jdd2007 · July 7, 2002, 18:36

to add to what trip said: one spearman might even do it.

Donal Graeme · July 7, 2002, 19:23

I would have to agree that Plan Eagle is the best option on the table at the moment. Every turn that passes is another turn that leaves us toiling in the jungle. What we need right now is a "short, victorious war" to knock out the Americans, our greater foe at the moment. France is far less warlike, and we would do well to leave them as a brake against stronger enemies. Through America we will find better land, and thus a chance for survival.

Anything is better than jungle!

Jon Shafer · July 7, 2002, 19:32

I'm going to make a poll on whether or not people want to adopt this plan.

ThePlagueRat · July 7, 2002, 19:45

Concerning the AI (mostly militaritic ones), I am normally met by fierce counterattacks. On the other hand, this is early.
And Americans are usually kinda dull in civ3.
So I do not know. (Had they been Russians..... Heavy fighting, you bet! )

Ok, I just don't want you to get surprised!
As long as we do not know their numbers and types, we are not neccesarily driving towards a major victory... we are fighting the unknown.

In the essence of not having the time to wait for a complete buildup, this becomes dangerous. The AI usually operates by roughly organized counterattacks when they have both off/def units. Then it could be a draw, or our destruction?

Think, and think hard... and think even harder...

ThePlagueRat · July 7, 2002, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
I'm going to make a poll on whether or not people want to adopt this plan.

I guess the people will stand behind you on this one, and vote yes. Nice, but the consequences of too weak frontal defences (and cities, of course) according to your accurate plan, could maybe cost us our capital ! Build, build more, and build hard...

Or am I wrong? I've never before fought the Americans, really... just hardcore militaristic tribes and other sissy bastards.
What are the odds here?

Jon Shafer · July 7, 2002, 20:03

I'm well aware of what may occur with defeat, but I'm confident that we will win nevertheless. However, a must for this assault to succeed is for all of our Archers to be Veterans. That is what will win battles for us. Archer VS Fortified Spearman will be a very difficult battle to win unless we have that extra HP point to push things over the edge for the good guys. I would say that if all of our forces were Regulars and not Veterans, then the plan would most likely fail.

ThePlagueRat · July 7, 2002, 20:28

Mr. President sounds very reassuring.

That's fine, but I am not so sure, though.
We should not be overoptimistic about the odds.
Especially not when we do not know the odds.....

- Sceptical thoughts, in the night of the Thinkers awakening.

Benjamin_Berman · July 7, 2002, 21:53

My suggestion is that we should postpone the invasion and concentrate on the research of army-enhancing technologies like Mathematics. If we put all our resources towards science, we can research strong military units before our American rivals do, and have less of an army to deal with in the defeat of them.
For example, we should develop a few catapults, some horsemen (If we can get out hands on some horses), and some swordsmen (If we have the Iron resource). Then we can overrun the American archers and spearmen and warriors quicker.
P.S. If we don't have those resources, mabye we can trade with the Americans until we declare war and take advantage of the peace while we still have it. Or we can trade with the French for needed resources.
P.P.S. Vote for me in the upcoming election; I'm running for military minister.

ThePlagueRat · July 7, 2002, 22:01

Well, Benjamin... the odds are not actually swinging in our favour.
Doing research is kinda slow at the time, but there is a well formed tech-trading plan ready for execution. (what's been done already?) Hmmm... we could at least get the Alphabet, but that would'nt help us now. We ought to rely on numerous archers and spearmen at this time. Though only 4 to 8 mounts could help us out somewhat, it could be a nightmare to aquire them soon enough?

Verto · July 7, 2002, 22:13

Proceed with Plan Eagle before its ideas are rendered useless by time, so sayeth this citizen.

Jon Shafer · July 8, 2002, 01:15

I direct everyone's attention here, since the full load of Plan Eagle is located there.

It's somewhat heavy on the CPU, so be patient while it loads.

spy14 · July 8, 2002, 09:12

It might work, if we're quick. Due to the AI production bonuses, it could easily go horribly wrong. Lets not kid ourselves here.

Donal Graeme · July 8, 2002, 11:21

As the Americans are industrious and and expansionistic, they will be a threat later in the game when they expand and become a major empire. Unless of course we kill them.

You are right, TPR, that we could invite a vicious counter-attack. This is why Plan Eagle relies on nailing all of the American units at their cities. If we can quickly capture all of their cities, they lose. They may have one or two military units wandering around though, and they could be a problem until we finish off Boston and Philadelphia. Here the jungle is helpful, as they won't be able to reach our cities before we close on them.

Really, the biggest problem that we face is trying to catch them with all of their units nice and sleepy inside their cities. Which razes..., I mean raises, another question: what will we do with the american cities? Capture them, or burn them? It has been my experience that the AI doesn't always build in the best spot, so we might want to build our own city where Washington or New York, or more likely, Boston is. Just a thought.

Kloreep · July 8, 2002, 14:52

I'd say keep all the American cities we can. We need all the productive cities we can get right now.

Besides, thanks to 1.21, we can always abandon them later in favor of Apolytonian settlers after milking some production out of them.

Jon Shafer · July 8, 2002, 14:58

Quote:

Originally posted by spy14
It might work, if we're quick. Due to the AI production bonuses, it could easily go horribly wrong. Lets not kid ourselves here.

That is exactly why I want to take 2 cities quickly in the initial invasion, and not just 1.