War Academy:Zululand objectives

[roadcage]

Zululand is far away, backward, and somehow or another cornered the Gems market.

We wantirect access to Gems

We want:Secure base on their island from which to export said Gems

Naturally, this campaign will have a significant naval component and will most likely be executed in the distant future. But hey, lets plan!

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

[GhengisFarb™]

The whole island...........

Four words:

COMPLETE MONOPOLY OF GEMS

[Panzer32]

Yup, thats the only logical reason to go to war against the Zulus.

[Kloreep]

Obviously, we want gems. But exactly how much of Zululand do we want? I see 3 possible levels of conquest:

Small scope: must conquer 1 city (Ulundi). After Conquest, we would raze/worker farm Ulundi in favor of a new port city (SE of Ulundi looks good to me). Once this new city was firmly in place, we would negotiate peace.
This should be a fairly easy one to pull off, especially if we get Riflemen before the fleet launches (which looks likely). Once the new city has its first cultural expansion, this would give us 8 Gem resources. The downsides of this plan are 1) 4 gems would be left in Zulu hands, 2) this city would be under a lot of cultural pressure, even if we kept it racially pure and 3) it wouldn't weaken our new enemies signifigantly (though any loss is bad for the land-poor Zulu).

Medium scope: must conquer 3 cities (Ulundi, Bapedi, Hlobane). Pretty simple, and we wouldn't have to worry about moving any cities as these three are connected and Hlobane is a port. We get all 12 gem resources this way; however, this would need a lot more investment than a small scope capture & defense of Ulundi. Also, Bapedi would be under a lot of cultural pressure.

Large scope: conquer all of Zululand (7 cities). Would require the largest investment in an invasion fleet, but we'd never have to worry about the security of those gem supplies, and we could be certain the Zulu would never vote against us in the UN.

Beyond this, I don't see a lot in the way of tactics; it's a pretty flat continent, so I think it would be mostly a Cavalry rush (unless we go with small scope, in which case it would be a quick Cavalry attack followed by a stack of Riflemen).

So, what scope? I favor complete conquest, but a medium scope assault aiming for the gems would work just as well, and we could finish up the conquest later if we wanted.

[roadcage]

Thanks guys! this really helps. Lets start with the scope question.

Does the one city relocated method result in a secure base? doubtful

Does the 3 city method result in a secure base? I think so.

Obviously total conquest meets the stated goals.

Next question, other than force level, do we see any significant difference tactically between the last two scenarios?

comments welcome

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

[roadcage]

Another thought, Isandhlwana is built on an Iron hill, and there are ponies near Zimbabewe

And yes the cultural pressure for anything short of all 7 looks intense.

I am leaning towards total annexation.

Anybody want this one?

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

[Kloreep]

I think limiting it to the three gem cities would be possible. The only city that would have any overlap is Bapedi (which shares two tiles with Isandhlwana). To protect against a flip, I doubt the garrisons would need to be much bigger than what we'd want for protection anyway.

On the other hand, is the investment to keep those three cities safe much more than that needed to sweep the continent? I doubt it. Even with slow-movers like swords, we'll probably face the Zulu offensive army during our conquest, the continent is so small. Once that's done, why not clean up?

[GhengisFarb™]

The whole island.

Two words:

CULTURE FLIP

(I feel like some kinda spy giving out passcodes for field operatives. )

[Meshelic]

I've been advocating we take on the whole Zulu island since we discovered it. They are weak, backwards, and un-rightfully making $$$ or happinness of those gems, so lets fix this problem and take out Zululand first!

[joncnunn]

I prefer no foreign wars overseas.

Notice how close Chinese capital is, the Southwestern portion of the island will be under a lot of Chinese culture presure if Zulu's overall culture is decreased. (Even more if that city is captured or razed.)

[Aggie]

My vision of the the invasion. 15 calavary and 5 ships to carry them and then after the invasion we bring infantry to occupy it. Or we could go with another ship and land 3 defensive units with the invasion. We take the capital and gems first then eliminate the zulus's.
Aggie

[ManicStarSeed]

Total Annexation.

2 waves of forces.

First one consists of heavy offense and bombard. the second one can have primarilay defenders and offensive reinforcments.
Spaced 2-4 turns apart, we can press them hard, not having to let up if we encounter stiffer resistance thn planned.

Mss

[Shiber]

First of all, I apologize if I'm repeating what someone else already said. I haven't been around for three days and it's very hard to read up on everything I missed.
Now, what I'm saying is that we should consider the option to allow the Zulu to surrender during the war. Under our control, their cities will be very unproductive, but under Zulu control they can be productive and pay us a large tribute.

[roadcage]

The value is in exporting 10 Gems. I imagine temples to evntually knit the influence zones together, and cities adjusted to maintain pop at a cheap level with taxmen or scientists depending upon which we need at the time. This seems like tribute enough to me.

[Meshelic]

I agree with roadcage on this one.

[adaMada]

Well everyone -- now we have a chance to set these plans into action.

Forgetting the issue of whether we're actually GOING to continue the war with the Zulu, if we do -- what should our objectives be? At the end of the chat, Aggie proposed three levels of involvement. It is our job to analyze the merits of each level (from a militaristic standpoint), that we may advise our leaders on what actions to take moving on from this point.

The three levels Aggie proposed were:
1) Peace. Pretty simple -- wait a few more turns, and then declare peace, and focus our attention on other targets.
2) Strategic Attack on Gems. We take one to three cities, and seize the Zulu Gems -- gaining ourselves a solid source of revenue, but gaining several cities marred by corruption and among a sea of enemies.
3) Complete war. Would take the largest strategic commitment, and might delay attack on our other objectives, but would secure us the Zulu island.

We must keep several things in mind while considering this:
* Zululand is on an island, and we have few boats at this time.
* It is unlikely that Straka will be able to do us much damage, for the same reason
* No matter what option we take, our next few turns will be building up our forces, which could be sent either to Zululand or other targets.

-- adaMada
Acting Vice-Vice President

[Kloreep]

1 (Peace). We can not afford to be distracted by Shaka, or we will pay the price in blood lost to German Infantry.

It should be Bismarck, then Shaka, not the other way around.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Kloreep
1 (Peace). We can not afford to be distracted by Shaka, or we will pay the price in blood lost to German Infantry.

It should be Bismarck, then Shaka, not the other way around.

Forgetting about that issue -- it is a very important question, but leaving it to other threads -- what do you think the best option is militarially, if we were to decide to go to war with Zululand (over your strong objections )?

-- adaMada

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by adaMada
Forgetting about that issue -- it is a very important question, but leaving it to other threads -- what do you think the best option is militarially, if we were to decide to go to war with Zululand (over your strong objections )?

-- adaMada

Whoops; this is the wrong thread. (You did list peace as an option, though. )

I'd like to conquer all of Zululand; once we take three cities, there isn't a a major reason for a strong nation like ours to avoid the other four. However, if we want to get some of the attack force back in time for Germany (which aggie thought was possible, though it would probably require a lot of rushing at this point), we should limit ourselves to the three gem cities, and leave the rest for later (IE, sign peace after we have the gems).

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Kloreep


Whoops; this is the wrong thread. (You did list peace as an option, though. )

I'd like to conquer all of Zululand; once we take three cities, there isn't a a major reason for a strong nation like ours to avoid the other four. However, if we want to get some of the attack force back in time for Germany (which aggie thought was possible, though it would probably require a lot of rushing at this point), we should limit ourselves to the three gem cities, and leave the rest for later (IE, sign peace after we have the gems).

I know -- it was one of Aggie's options . Probably shoulda left it out, but it's there if anyone believes we honestly CAN'T take Zululand, should we want to .

Do you think it'd be much harder to bring enough offensive units over (by boat) to take the entire island, however, rather than just three cities? TIn theory, it's twice as many fighters...

(Heading to bed now; will address anything else in the morning ).

-- adaMada

[Kloreep]

Theoretically it would be twice as many, yes. But it depends on how fast you want the attack to go; the slower you're willing to let it be, the fewer units you need. Since I don't think we want to be bogged down in a long inter-continental war, 2x is a good estimate.

Here are some numbers on an idea of Aggie's, which was to strike ASAP at a few cities, then send some of the force packing pack for the war against Germany.

Peace with Germany is up for reneg in 16 turns, and since they're paying us LPT as part of the deal, they're definitely going to come to the table that turn. You cannot duck out of a peace renegotiation, so we will have to declare war then and there unless we want to wait another 20 turns.

A Galleon's voyage from Tarsus to the coast of Hlobane takes 5 turns, which means 10 turns round-trip. (This is faster than the voyage from former France to Mpondo, and lets us land right in the Gem Triangle.) Even if it only takes two turns of prep TOTAL EACH WAY, we have 4 turns to go a-conquering; not bad, but if you fudge the numbers to 3-4 turns (and I'm not sure we could even achive that, with all the Galleon-building we need), that only gives 2-3 turns; only enough time to take Hlobane, and another city if we're lucky.

In short, I don't think this plan is a possibility. I would have loved to conquer Zululand and have our German war too, but we must choose; unless, of course, we can summon an insane amount of units over the next 15 turns so that we can fight a true two-front war.

[E_T]

Corruption would not be that much of an issue. Almost all of the cities would be FP Centric. The worst would be about as bad as Hole in the Wall is now. The maximim amount that the Distance adds to the Corruption is 34%, the rest is Modified OCN. So, they won't be that corrupt, we will have to rush courthouses, but the rest could be by normal builds.

I say, defend ourselves and get peace at the earliest. WHILE we are taking care of Otto & Liz, we can have our Navy built & upgraded to the proper amount that will be needed for a proper Invasion. We WILL show Shaka how to properly put on an Invasion. It will be the last thing that he learns before we lay his head at Aggie's feet!

E_T

[Panzer32]

I would like to take over the whole island, for 3 reasons:

1. We get all the gems
2. There is not the danger of our cities culture-flipping over to the Aztecs.
3. It would allow us to defend the island better, in case another civ decides they want the gems.

[adaMada]

(Just trying to cause discussion here; personally, I don't really take either side)

Kloreep and E_T,
Do you think it's worth paying to end the war now (so we can focus on Germany), should Straka prove to be as hardheaded as he is stupid? Remember, we have no military units in the area, and (unless Shiber's bluff proves to have merit), we might not be able to get peace until the war's hurting him, through curruption or whatever else.

Is there anyone who thinks we can't militarially take Zululand should our hearts desire?

-- adaMada

EDIT: Reposted the first question here -- that's probably a better place to discuss the issue .

[E_T]

With all of the Civs paying us up to several LPT per turn, every 20 turns to maintain peace, why would (NOTE: temporarily) getting peace with this upstart be any different. I've pointed out in some other threads the same reasons and why.

E_T

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Obviously, we want gems. But exactly how much of Zululand do we want? I see 3 possible levels of conquest:



Medium scope: must conquer 3 cities (Ulundi, Bapedi, Hlobane). Pretty simple, and we wouldn't have to worry about moving any cities as these three are connected and Hlobane is a port. We get all 12 gem resources this way; however, this would need a lot more investment than a small scope capture & defense of Ulundi. Also, Bapedi would be under a lot of cultural pressure.


So, what scope? I favor complete conquest, but a medium scope assault aiming for the gems would work just as well, and we could finish up the conquest later if we wanted.

Why should we waste precious resources eradicating the Zulus? If a Medium scope attack gets us what we want, then let's take it. We are competing against at least 5 more dangerous civs. Eradication on results in giving us corrupt cities or freeing up land that a competitive civ might take.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Obviously, we want gems. But exactly how much of Zululand do we want? I see 3 possible levels of conquest:



Medium scope: must conquer 3 cities (Ulundi, Bapedi, Hlobane). Pretty simple, and we wouldn't have to worry about moving any cities as these three are connected and Hlobane is a port. We get all 12 gem resources this way; however, this would need a lot more investment than a small scope capture & defense of Ulundi. Also, Bapedi would be under a lot of cultural pressure.


So, what scope? I favor complete conquest, but a medium scope assault aiming for the gems would work just as well, and we could finish up the conquest later if we wanted.

Why should we waste precious resources eradicating the Zulus? If a Medium scope attack gets us what we want, then let's take it. We are competing against at least 5 more dangerous civs. Eradication on results in giving us corrupt cities or freeing up land that a competitve civ might take.