Brick by Brick (Spoiler Alert!)

[TheHumanHydra]

The problem is that Steam Power + Assembly Line will take 12 turns at max. science IIRC. That's a long time - 20-30 turns all told (I'm not sure how much the Golden Age and/or civics swap[s] will cut it down). Can't even bulb unless I get another Great Engineer, which is unlikely (too many Scientist points from the Great Library). And it might not even change the situation, since Old Harry will probably get there about the same time, if not quite possibly earlier. Though people do seem to like diverting to Railroad first, even though you can't attack with machine guns. I really have difficulty estimating the future tech capability of my empire, or seeing 20 to 30 turns into the future. And I don't like uncertainty.

[TheHumanHydra]

While I wait for the save, how about some trivia? I'd like to use the case study of the Battle of the Barnetian Plain to illustrate three military terms that are often confused: tactics, operations, and strategy. Tactically, said battle was a success, as my forces destroyed three-and-a-half times (65 to 19) their losses in number of units and twice their losses in hammer-value. Operationally, it was a defeat, as my forces failed to take their immediate objective of Barnet. Strategically, it was inconclusive, as it did not apparently hasten the conclusion of the game in my favour, quite possibly even a defeat, if the damage done to Old Harry (through the necessity of whipping and upgrading units) is not enough to set him back relative to me. To further illustrate, my new strategy is to use this army to defend my territory as I place myself on better economic footing. This entails a new operation, delivering my army to safety. This will likely lead to a new tactical encounter Old Harry's current turn or his next, which may not be so favourable for me as the first! If not, the retreat will have been an operational failure and the invasion a strategic disaster. So: strategy represents the overall goals of the total forces available, operations are the specific plans and actions taken by portions of those forces to achieve those goals, and tactics are the realm of the units actually engaged with the enemy in the attempt to carry out operational plans. Hopefully that makes sense, and hopefully it was somewhat useful! If not, well, at least you have my opinion on the course of the war so far. Hopefully I'll be able to play the turn and give you a real report later today!

(Operations is the most fluid and ambiguous term. For example, in the Second World War, the Allies called the entire invasion of Normandy Operation Overlord. Overlord comprised many smaller subsidiary operations, such as Spring, an attack by a single Canadian division on the Verrieres Ridge feature.)

[NobleHelium]

I've never really considered the term "operations." I thought they just referred to handling the logistics and supply and such. I think of tactics as whether you've inflicted more casualties than the enemy, and strategy as whether those combat results were actually sufficient to achieve your overall goals.

[TheHumanHydra]

Nope, operations (though it involves logistics) is definitely a combat-related term, the middle-man between the two terms you've accurately described. Operational plans detail precisely how to inflict the casualties (or take the ground, etc.) necessary to achieve your strategic aims. For a well-known example, defeating France is the strategic aim, the breakthrough battle at Sedan is the operation used to achieve that aim, and Rommel crossing the river and directing his troops on the spot is the province of tactics.

[TheHumanHydra]

Quick textual update, since I can't access my screenshots right now (can't even send the save). I decided to heal in place on the hill for a turn before making my attempt to break out. My stack will probably be annihilated the turn I attempt to do so. I thought of clever plans to try and save it, but none of them would have worked. In the south, my mini-stack can attack Lancaster next turn, though they'll probably fail just barely. I meant to ask Old Harry for peace this turn, using the threat on that city to parlay my main army to safety, but forgot, and given previous feedback, I don't think I should reload for that. I founded another city, and cs_italy came out of revolt and quintuple-whipped its unhappy citizens into a jail (I love doing that; feels so evil). At the end of the turn, I discovered Steel, becoming the first to enter the Industrial Era. My poor abused citizenry is now apparently last in population somehow (it's because it's geometric). Yes, I drafted more this turn. I've really got to stop that. It was important though; might help usher my army to safety. I'll show you screenshots of all this when I can access my home computer again.

[TheHumanHydra]

Here are the screenshots I promised.




This was the situation at the start of the turn: my beleaguered army atop the only defensive terrain in sight, surrounded by enemies waiting to seal its doom. I had planned to move to the flat ground 1SW (where the cavalry/rifle pair is in that shot) to make my escape, since it's the most difficult tile for the majority of his forces in Barnet to reach. If he were any civilization other than India, he couldn't reach it, but his fast workers can move onto the hill tile and road it the turn I vacate it, as well as the tile between it and Barnet, allowing his army to hit me no matter where I move. You can see four fast workers 1NW of Barnet waiting to do just that. There are also two fast workers 1NW of Matlock, one in Forest Green, and almost certainly others within range in the fog. (By the way, I don't think he realizes I have visibility on that tile 1NW of Barnet; he's consistently used it to stage units just outside the site range of units on the hill - but not of my agents in his cities!) I thought about using my last full-strength cavalry to kill that solitary grenadier 1W of Barnet, then following with my Great General, promoting it to Morale, and using the third movement point to move 1N and capture all the workers. I would gladly sacrifice two cavalry, including a Great General, to save my stack. But he has three other workers in sight; the odds of him having a fourth in range to effect the combat-roading anyway were too high to bank on this plan. Then I looked up whether you can build and benefit from forts in enemy territory, in which case I could turn that tile 1SW of the hill into a pseudo-hill and escape that way with greater confidence. But it turns out you can neither build nor benefit from forts in enemy territory (though you can in neutral territory). All this being the case, I decided to promote the Great General cavalry to Medic III and heal for a turn on the hill (bringing most of my riflemen to full-health) before making my attempt to break out. Unfortunately, his large numbers of grenadiers, which my damaged cavalry won't be able to defend against this time, mean I will likely lose equivalent numbers of riflemen; he'll get a coin-toss on the rifle vs. rifle battles, and might be able to finish off survivors with his masses of pikes. This likely means the end for my stack, even with the minimal amount of collateral damage he can inflict. I wish I had not forgotten to use the threat on his north to try and get peace (though he might not have accepted it), or that I had brought those trailing units up anyway to help defend the stack on its way out. Oh well, blood under the bridge now.

Here's his main army for reference (not that you haven't seen it in his thread already):




Thinking about it now, a strong case could probably be made for retreating this turn anyway, while his grenadiers are still at an average 8.6 health or whatever (they'll surely be fully-healed next turn). Yeah, I probably should have done that; that might have turned the grenadier-on-rifle battles into coin-flips instead of probable victories. Oh well; die and learn, I guess (are you guys loving these macabre expressions? ).

Let's look at that southern front:




That's I think 10 (?) riflemen and three cavalry against a riflemen, grenadier, pikeman, and archer (the last two liable to be upgraded), plus whatever's in that galley, plus a whipped grenadier, probably. Eyeballing it, I'd say I have a 50-50 chance to take the city next turn (would've been better if I'd brought even one catapult - like the one Ollantaytambo would've produced the turn it was razed ). The positioning of my units probably looks a little weedy - why'd I pick the flat ground instead of massing on that hill? Well, I moved the majority of the units 1SE onto the flat ground (pillaging the cows) to keep that grenadier 2SW from entering the city, while the rifle pair from the northeast I moved onto the fort tile to cover that cavalry unit, 'cause that's the only tile it could reach and be safe on. In each battlegroup, the cavalry should keep the grenadiers off the riflemen, and the riflemen their fellows off the cavalry. This is risky play, but that's what's called for in this low-resources situation where the enemy's resources accrue with every turn. It probably won't turn out, but it'll be fun. Oh, and note my espionage visibility on the area. I don't think he'll have anything comparable on me for a long while, seeing as I've invested like two to two-and-a-half times the espionage points into him as he's invested into me. My one advantage in this war; too bad I can't take better advantage of it.

What else? Ah, here's my power-drop from the great battle last turn, and Old Harry's power gain from whipping:




GNP again:




Demographics; I thought you'd like to see my last-place population figure:




Cities summary:




And, ah, yes, my two new cities:




"Go directly to Jail; do not pass Go; do not collect $200.00."




First-turn terrace once again. The city I founded last turn started on a forge, by the way.

Any questions?

[TheHumanHydra]

Herp derp on the "should've moved this turn" thing. Units heal at the start of the turn; his grenadiers would've been full-strength on his turn regardless. I made the right choice (if there is a right choice).

[TheHumanHydra]

I had an interesting chat with Old Harry just now, partially about this game. Interesting points: he may be attacking my stack at this very moment - kept mentioning destroying me. We commiserated about how one's expectations for the game greatly affect one's stress-level and enjoyment. I made it clear I didn't expect to win any more*. The purpose of the conversation was for me to sound Old Harry out on whether he might accept a draw at some point, or if it was all-or-nothing. You'll recall I was thinking about this a couple weeks ago, but I could never catch Old Harry on chat - a good thing for the game continuing! He said if the game grinds down to three-hour turns of grinding stalemate with tanks and bombers, he might like to draw (ugh, all along I've been hoping and expecting it would be long over before then. But fair enough). Some jokes and lols about the game. I really like being able to chat with other players about a game, in a chat program or a banter thread. Makes it feel much more lively, much more - I don't know, just fun. Like playing a board game around a table. Anyway, just thought you might be interested to hear how two of the players are feeling about the game. Of course, no diplo or spoiler info was involved - just pinings for the chance to read each other's spoiler threads! I should get the turn later tonight.

* This really does help with one's enjoyment of the game, at least for me. I think what I'm learning from the games I've played in on this site that the most fun game state, at least for me, is one in which you can have a meaningful impact on the course of the game, and therefore be challenged and have to think and, you know, really play Civ, but not one in which you're expected to win or anything like that, so you don't have to stress out about those challenges or beat yourself up or feel your ego hurt over failures. If any of that makes sense. Of course, having no competition for victory is fun too, like in single-player. But discovering you're wrong about that is a rude awakening.

[NobleHelium]

I always play with a teammate to get the "chat about the game" aspect.

[TheHumanHydra]

Yeah, I guess. I don't necessarily trust myself to update enough for them, though - look at the huge gap in my reporting early in the game, after the initial turns. I actually have no idea what my early micro and gameplay looked like because of this, which must have been the basis for everything after. I still get a kick out of how I randomly posted I thought Azza might attack me sometime soon after not having posted for like a month, and then the very next turn he attacked me. I've been really good since then in this thread (in frequency if not in content), but my other threads have varied a lot. Pbem 45, like nothing. PB10, decent, I think, but nothing like this. My poor dedlurkers in the two pbems I drove away with my poor reporting - sorry, guys. But yeah, I definitely see what you're saying. I appreciate your frequent posts in this thread a lot, by the way, NobleHelium; keeps it from getting lonely. I know lots of people are reading, but not many necessarily choose to post.