Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [empire-deluxe] Tactical exercise 2

Expand Messages
  • Sebbie
    Still eagerly waiting for your views since you played it... 8) - Seb -
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Still eagerly waiting for your views since you played it... 8)

      - Seb -
    • Michael Mendelsohn
      Hi! ... I d hoped someone else might comment, too, but - alas! - that was not to be. So here are my own thoughts on what you ve written ;) On 28 Mar 2003 ,
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 1 2:17 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi!

        > Still eagerly waiting for your views since you played it... 8)

        I'd hoped someone else might comment, too, but - alas! - that was not
        to be. So here are my own thoughts on what you've written ;)

        On 28 Mar 2003 , Sebbie wrote about Re: [empire-deluxe] Tactical
        exerci:
        > I'd say everything depends
        > on how far away your reinforcements are.

        It also depends on how far my opponent's reinforcements are, the
        problem being that I don't know that because I haven't (and can't)
        explore that far. :(

        > I can easily see several ways to play this out.
        > 1) Attack his AR with the FI and if you cripple
        > him you may want to hunt him down with your AR.

        This could easily lead to an ambush-type situation, i.e. I need 3
        turns to get to him, and by then he might have superior force in the
        area.
        More likely, with the armor crippled, there's nothing holding him
        back from taking the city (adv3 combat!), since a city fights better
        than a crippled armor. I could then attack the city for a 75% (?)
        chance of success and a loss of 1 turn of production (= 1 Inf); I
        also would have lost a fighter.

        > 2) Take the 80% city and refuel the fighter
        > immediately. Then, block him with INF and FI
        > while waiting for backup.

        Takes too long IMHO - his backup may arrive before I can get to C
        again.

        > 3) Take the 154% city and attack his AR
        > with the fighter. If you win the attack or
        > cripple him it may be over right there.
        > And even if you fail you force him to attack
        > your city which he might fail too. Worse case
        > scenario being you lose the city to him, which
        > he will have at..umm..125% or so, and you deal
        > with it with more units.

        Worst case I will lose armor and fighter and need 2 more turns to
        lead backup in, by which time the city has generated 2 infantry.

        > To me, the decision has to be made from where
        > the game is heading and how far away the backup
        > is.

        The game is in the exploration/expansion phase shortly after first
        contact has been made; since aerial backup is readily available, one
        can deduce that you already hold some cities in the vicinity. I made
        some statements as to how far backup could be; in the actual game, a
        second armor was 2 turns behind the first one, with more troops
        following close behind.

        > I'd probably try the free attack on his AR
        > with my fighter first, and then either hunt him
        > down or just wait for him to make the first move,
        > or grab the 154% city.

        > How did you play it?

        I did try the fighter attack. If that had come to nought, I'd have
        started on the flanking move around the city, which allowed a strike
        at the city at any time should he choose to take it; this would be a
        gamble on my reinforcements being at least as good as his.
        The fighter did cripple the armor, and I took the city right away; my
        opponent's counter attack resulted in him losing the armor, so all
        was well.

        > What do you other guys think?

        That's what I'm asking myself, too - was my scenario too difficult,
        did it contain too little information, did I already supply too much
        analysis, or was Seb's response too good? ;)

        Have fun playing ed
        Michael
        --
        The beginning starts in the middle, and the end suddenly stops.
        "Der Anfang fängt in der Mitte an, und das Ende hört plötzlich auf."
        -- zitiert auf http://www.meocom-online.de/home/sabseb/zl.html

        --
        The beginning starts in the middle, and the end suddenly stops.
        "Der Anfang fängt in der Mitte an, und das Ende hört plötzlich auf."
        -- zitiert auf http://www.meocom-online.de/home/sabseb/zl.html
      • Sebbie
        ... Ahhhh.....that s an alternative I like 8) What I felt was it did contain too little information. But it s fun to speculate anyway, imho. More exercises!
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 1 7:07 AM
        • 0 Attachment

          > What do you other guys think?

          That's what I'm asking myself, too - was my scenario too difficult,
          did it contain too little information, did I already supply too much
          analysis, or was Seb's response too good? ;)

          Ahhhh.....that's an alternative I like    8)

          What I felt was it did contain too little information.
          But it's fun to speculate anyway, imho.
          More exercises!

          (Those who are silent are probably drawing up scenarios.
          Right guys?)

          - Seb -


        • David M. Bott
          ... I m too busy beta testing the new ED to speculate. DAve ________________________________________________________ David M. Bott david.m.bott@dartmouth.edu
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 1 7:54 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:07 AM 4/1/2003, you wrote:
            >(Those who are silent are probably drawing up scenarios.
            >Right guys?)
            >
            >- Seb -

            I'm too busy beta testing the new ED to speculate.

            DAve
            ________________________________________________________
            David M. Bott david.m.bott@...
          • Sebbie
            ... Excuses...excuses... ;) - Seb -
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 1 8:26 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10:54 2003-04-01 -0500, you wrote:
              At 10:07 AM 4/1/2003, you wrote:
              >(Those who are silent are probably drawing up scenarios.
              >Right guys?)
              >
              >- Seb -

              I'm too busy beta testing the new ED to speculate.

              Excuses...excuses...  ;)

              - Seb -

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.