Barracks: Fortress Uber plans - Page 2

Panag · January 31, 2003, 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
We have been blocking Uber landings because we have no Artillery there. Looking at the 1340 save, it appears likely that we will be trying to accelerate the demise of Germany by attacking faster than our Artillery can be positioned. Hence it seems reasonable that the next 2 Uber Ferry crossings take Artillery 'over there'. Remember, Artillery is just effective as any other unit as a tile blocker, and it limits the number of attackers we need to put down any landing.

hi ,

been asking that for days , thanks for bringing it up

get an enemy ship near the shores , should at it with artillery , then send the navy in

have a nice day

Meshelic · January 31, 2003, 16:21

I'm sure both of you will be pleased to know that those ideas are being put into effect this turnchat, if possible.

I'm allocating about 6 Artillery for transfer to the Isle. There may be a delay due to the amount of Japanese ships in the area, and we don't want our Artillery sunk before it even gets there.

But rest assured, we will have a significant Artillery force on Uber Isle.

Panag · February 1, 2003, 07:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
I'm sure both of you will be pleased to know that those ideas are being put into effect this turnchat, if possible.

I'm allocating about 6 Artillery for transfer to the Isle. There may be a delay due to the amount of Japanese ships in the area, and we don't want our Artillery sunk before it even gets there.

But rest assured, we will have a significant Artillery force on Uber Isle.

hi ,

all we need is some bait , ......

and then , .......

it might be intresting to spin a couple nice little surprises for future use , like hidding a couple ships in some ports , withdraw of any wall , .....

lets just invite some people , .......

our troops shall love it , they shall get elite status in no time , ....

have a nice day

roadcage · February 1, 2003, 09:47

Looking at the 1355 save, I notice that the 'open' tile we left in the Uber Wall, was a forested tile. Yes, I know the instructions were to leave a flat tile open, but that was just because I forgot that we had any forested tiles.

The real intent was to 'open' a minimum defensive value tile such as plains, desert or grass.

Ok, now for the real issue, Destroyers. DM will be making Major Major build queue changes this turn. That is how it should be. But we need to decide if we want Destroyers to replace the recent Ironclad losses.

Port of Malignance, and El Duderino could make Destroyers THIS turn. SS Duderino will have a juicy 1 hp Jap Frigate in sight on it's first turn. SS Malignance could steam east to join up, or steam south by southeast and lurk for Japanese vessels returning from Uber.

The alternative is to forego these Destroyers and wait for Battleships. We simply must make our requirements to the DM.

My vote is for these two and these two only Destroyers. The rest of our Navy can wait for Battleships and Carriers.

Shiber · February 1, 2003, 10:26

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
My vote is for these two and these two only Destroyers. The rest of our Navy can wait for Battleships and Carriers.

Agreed!

Aro · February 1, 2003, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage

My vote is for these two and these two only Destroyers. The rest of our Navy can wait for Battleships and Carriers.

Same here.

Btw, some Subs, too...

Panag · February 1, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Aro

Same here.

Btw, some Subs, too...

hi ,

if we can spare the shields we can put them all around and at some key locations , this to prefend in the future any subs with nukes from coming to close , .....

have a nice day

Shiber · February 1, 2003, 15:23

Panag, destroyers and battleships can do the exact same job, only better, since they have a stronger attack and defense power.
Subs are only needed when you don't want to be seen. Certainly this is not the case with coastal defense.

Panag · February 1, 2003, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
Panag, destroyers and battleships can do the exact same job, only better, since they have a stronger attack and defense power.
Subs are only needed when you don't want to be seen. Certainly this is not the case with coastal defense.

hi ,

they cant "see" subs , .....

have a nice day

Shiber · February 1, 2003, 16:05

Why should we care if our enemies can see our coastal defense units or not?
If these subs will be used as coastal defense, they might as well be replaced with destroyers or battleships. If we're just defending against normal ships, we don't care whether they can see our ships or not because we'll attack their ships and become visible anyway.
That is, unless we want to defend ourselves against other subs. In that case, we will need subs, but our warships can handle sub attacks better because they have a defense rating that is higher than the subs' attack rating, and therefore have a better chance of survival than an Apolytonian sub has when it is attacking an enemy sub.
This changes when missiles become available. At that point, we would actually become concerned with nuclear subs, because although they will not pose a serious threat to our navy, they will have the capability to launch missiles upon us and therefore need to be sighted by subs and taken care of by warships. But there's still plenty of time before that age arrives, so in the meantime, warships will suffice.

Panag · February 1, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
Why should we care if our enemies can see our coastal defense units or not?
If these subs will be used as coastal defense, they might as well be replaced with destroyers or battleships. If we're just defending against normal ships, we don't care whether they can see our ships or not because we'll attack their ships and become visible anyway.
That is, unless we want to defend ourselves against other subs. In that case, we will need subs, but our warships can handle sub attacks better because they have a defense rating that is higher than the subs' attack rating, and therefore have a better chance of survival than an Apolytonian sub has when it is attacking an enemy sub.
This changes when missiles become available. At that point, we would actually become concerned with nuclear subs, because although they will not pose a serious threat to our navy, they will have the capability to launch missiles upon us and therefore need to be sighted by subs and taken care of by warships. But there's still plenty of time before that age arrives, so in the meantime, warships will suffice.

hi ,

"why should we care" , simple a nuclear submarine with a tactical nuke , ...... other subs , thats why , thats why we need subs , so they can see other subs , battleships cant see subs , neither can destroyers , ..... and since its a long road to aegis , well the only answer is subs , .....

and a good planner starts to build them in advance , since the AI shall be able to build them faster we should build them asap and put them on patrol , ....

have a nice day

roadcage · February 1, 2003, 16:48

I have never found subs to be particularly useful. However, some of you have, or why else would be requesting them. That's fine. Make some subs and show me how great they are.

We have the shields to 'do this and the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are educational'

fractured quote with due respect to JFK

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

Meshelic · February 1, 2003, 17:12

I will be posting my build requests regarding the Navy in another thread. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.

Shiber · February 2, 2003, 02:42

Panag, regular subs are not a threat. They are dealt better with warships than with other subs.
Only nuclear subs are a threat, because of their launching capability, but since we'll be getting the techs required to build nuclear subs much earlier than any of the other civs would, and we'll be safekeeping this tech for a while, we'll be able to build a fleet of nuclear subs before any of the AIs can even begin to build nuclear subs.
Planning ahead is one thing. Building a fleet of near-to-useless regular subs is another.

Panag · February 2, 2003, 12:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
Panag, regular subs are not a threat. They are dealt better with warships than with other subs.
Only nuclear subs are a threat, because of their launching capability, but since we'll be getting the techs required to build nuclear subs much earlier than any of the other civs would, and we'll be safekeeping this tech for a while, we'll be able to build a fleet of nuclear subs before any of the AIs can even begin to build nuclear subs.
Planning ahead is one thing. Building a fleet of near-to-useless regular subs is another.

hi ,

very soon some species shall have nuclear subs , ....

and ones again , a battleship cant see a sub (!)

neither can a destroyer , .....

have a nice day

GhengisFarb™ · February 2, 2003, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
I have never found subs to be particularly useful. However, some of you have, or why else would be requesting them. That's fine. Make some subs and show me how great they are.

They were talking about "submarine sandwiches".

I haven't been impressed with regular subs either.

Panag · February 2, 2003, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

They were talking about "submarine sandwiches".

I haven't been impressed with regular subs either.

hi ,

well just imagine one of those species like the zulu or japs get the following ; sub + nuke = disaster

thats why we should be prepared , our carriers shall not see subs , so imagine we lose a carrier with three bombers and one fighter , ......

so a little bit of investment from our side to protect our investment might not be that bad , .....

have a nice day