The Powell Doctrine - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  The Powell Doctrine

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   The Powell Doctrine

Ank posted 04-27-99 11:32 PM ET
I saw on NBC's "Meet the Press" an administration official talk about the "Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force." That is to say, if you're going to attack someone, make sure you have waaaaay more guys than they do.
That clicked with me. I had been trying to take the entire Spartan faction down with one scout rover.
Seriously, I just wiped out Lal, who had more tech, more population, and more money than me, by building up for about 50 years, and then launching an invasion that makes D-Day look like a minor skirmish.
He had vendetta against me the whole time, but didn't press it. It should NOT have been this easy. I'm on level 4 (Librarian, I think).
Is it always this easy?
Ank
Plato90s posted 04-28-99 12:51 AM ET
The AI definitely believes in using overwhelming force. You haven't seen anything until you notice about 2 dozen missle needlejets moving into an adjacent base or finally get a probe team into an enemy faction's datalinks to find out that he has 160+ units to your 40-odd units.
Goobmeister posted 04-28-99 10:57 AM ET
The trouble with that is in my experience is that the 160 units sit intheir bases usually until it is too late. The AI can win a battle but it does not know how to wage a war.
Much like our current administration in the USoA.
Goob
K posted 04-29-99 06:02 PM ET
Overwhelming force is great, and almost always effective. But, it's the finesse kill that really makes the game intersting. I've found that with 3-Rovers with max attack can usually take a few bases, which then switch to Rover production, and then take more basesm, which switch to rover production, and so on. With this snoball effect, my main bases are still making useful things like facilities and supply crawlers while my war machine runs itself.
0Refract posted 04-29-99 07:27 PM ET     $Click Here to See the Profile for 0Refract$    $Click Here to Email 0Refract$
Yes
When watching the replay at the end of game, the borders of the AI factions seem to crawl forward while mine explode. The AI is not good at forming a task force strong enough to take a series of bases.
What is the point in sacrificing 3 missile needlejets to take out 1 AAA sentinal when your do not have the groung force ready to take the base? This is the sort of trick the AI uses on Thinker level. (and NATO in real life)
Zozo posted 04-30-99 05:36 PM ET
I agree with K here. The Powell strategy works well if you have only one enemy and total victory will be achieved after beating that enemy. The problem is that there are more one faction and so you will have to build up your infrastructure to prepare for the event of having to beat all 6 factions and not just that one faction.
With that in mind, building up a very large force which eats up on your mineral production and hurts your infrastructure buildup could be very damaging in the long run (unless you play the Believer and want to get everything from someone else, not from your own cities).
StargazerBC posted 05-01-99 03:05 PM ET
I've played the huge military wars. Honestly, they're not much fun.
1. Too much mineral maintence.
2. Wars are too long.
3. Constant switching back and forth of cities.
4. Overwhelming a force is only one tactic.
I prefer guerrilla warfare and small scale, 4 unit wars of attrition against people. Also, AC treats cities not as part of a country but as city-states (which may explain why the AI can handle battles but lose the war ::shrugs: . I like it when each of my cities are entirely self-sufficient and able to handle their own against an entire battleion (believe me, it's happened)-- ie, 1 former, 1 jet, a artillery on a hill, mindworm . The jet to hold off units (zone of control), artillery to damage units, former to sink/rise land, mindworm in fungus to finish the job. Unconventional, guerilla warfare. . .cheap and, porportion wise, much more effective.
eNo posted 05-01-99 05:13 PM ET
Sounds good StargazerBC.
eNo posted 05-01-99 05:21 PM ET
Forgot to say wouldn't two artillery units be better so that you can cover that entire radius?
Wolf Dreamer posted 05-01-99 08:05 PM ET
Those AAA sentinels are great at defending a base against needlejets, however if you use missles and/or copters, defeating them is no problem. An attacking copter can take out several defending copters.
If you look at the cost of a missle, and the cost of the types of opponents you are trying to destroy, then the choice is obvious. I use green economics, tree forms, and hybrid forest to counter act the negative effects of having up to 6 bore mines per base, with the other squares being used to build farms and condensers. I also enricher the soil of those squares.
The X's represent usable squares, and the B stands for Base.
XXX
XXXXX
XXBXX
XXXXX
XXX
The areas around the base where you have 5 usuable squares in a row, can be used to place bore mine, condenser/farm, bore mine, condenser/farm, bore mine.
Mass producing and overwhelming your opponents when necessary, isn't a problem.
Urban Ranger posted 05-05-99 11:52 AM ET
It's not the number of boreholes mostly but your mineral production that is causing the most eco-damage.
You can be on green AND cybernetics, with all the eco-friendly facilities and SP, and mobs of mind worms and locusts still come knocking every few turns.
narf posted 05-10-99 12:30 AM ET
That can be useful. I've fought more than one war with the stacks of mind worms that kept piling up against my major production cities. During one game with high worm activity and a city producing 120+ minerals (convoys rock), I kept count for awhile and was averaging more than four Mature or Great Boils captured per turn, at that city alone (there were others that drew them in at a lesser rate.) Kept a couple transports busy ferrying them over to Yang; aside from an occasional drop probe team, I fought the whole war with a peacetime economy (that is, building like crazy.)
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: The Powell Doctrine
Ank	posted 04-27-99 11:32 PM ET I saw on NBC's "Meet the Press" an administration official talk about the "Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force." That is to say, if you're going to attack someone, make sure you have waaaaay more guys than they do. That clicked with me. I had been trying to take the entire Spartan faction down with one scout rover. Seriously, I just wiped out Lal, who had more tech, more population, and more money than me, by building up for about 50 years, and then launching an invasion that makes D-Day look like a minor skirmish. He had vendetta against me the whole time, but didn't press it. It should NOT have been this easy. I'm on level 4 (Librarian, I think). Is it always this easy? Ank
Plato90s	posted 04-28-99 12:51 AM ET The AI definitely believes in using overwhelming force. You haven't seen anything until you notice about 2 dozen missle needlejets moving into an adjacent base or finally get a probe team into an enemy faction's datalinks to find out that he has 160+ units to your 40-odd units.
Goobmeister	posted 04-28-99 10:57 AM ET The trouble with that is in my experience is that the 160 units sit intheir bases usually until it is too late. The AI can win a battle but it does not know how to wage a war. Much like our current administration in the USoA. Goob
K	posted 04-29-99 06:02 PM ET Overwhelming force is great, and almost always effective. But, it's the finesse kill that really makes the game intersting. I've found that with 3-Rovers with max attack can usually take a few bases, which then switch to Rover production, and then take more basesm, which switch to rover production, and so on. With this snoball effect, my main bases are still making useful things like facilities and supply crawlers while my war machine runs itself.
0Refract	posted 04-29-99 07:27 PM ET $Click Here to See the Profile for 0Refract$ $Click Here to Email 0Refract$ Yes When watching the replay at the end of game, the borders of the AI factions seem to crawl forward while mine explode. The AI is not good at forming a task force strong enough to take a series of bases. What is the point in sacrificing 3 missile needlejets to take out 1 AAA sentinal when your do not have the groung force ready to take the base? This is the sort of trick the AI uses on Thinker level. (and NATO in real life)
Zozo	posted 04-30-99 05:36 PM ET I agree with K here. The Powell strategy works well if you have only one enemy and total victory will be achieved after beating that enemy. The problem is that there are more one faction and so you will have to build up your infrastructure to prepare for the event of having to beat all 6 factions and not just that one faction. With that in mind, building up a very large force which eats up on your mineral production and hurts your infrastructure buildup could be very damaging in the long run (unless you play the Believer and want to get everything from someone else, not from your own cities).
StargazerBC	posted 05-01-99 03:05 PM ET I've played the huge military wars. Honestly, they're not much fun. 1. Too much mineral maintence. 2. Wars are too long. 3. Constant switching back and forth of cities. 4. Overwhelming a force is only one tactic. I prefer guerrilla warfare and small scale, 4 unit wars of attrition against people. Also, AC treats cities not as part of a country but as city-states (which may explain why the AI can handle battles but lose the war ::shrugs: . I like it when each of my cities are entirely self-sufficient and able to handle their own against an entire battleion (believe me, it's happened)-- ie, 1 former, 1 jet, a artillery on a hill, mindworm . The jet to hold off units (zone of control), artillery to damage units, former to sink/rise land, mindworm in fungus to finish the job. Unconventional, guerilla warfare. . .cheap and, porportion wise, much more effective.
eNo	posted 05-01-99 05:13 PM ET Sounds good StargazerBC.
eNo	posted 05-01-99 05:21 PM ET Forgot to say wouldn't two artillery units be better so that you can cover that entire radius?
Wolf Dreamer	posted 05-01-99 08:05 PM ET Those AAA sentinels are great at defending a base against needlejets, however if you use missles and/or copters, defeating them is no problem. An attacking copter can take out several defending copters. If you look at the cost of a missle, and the cost of the types of opponents you are trying to destroy, then the choice is obvious. I use green economics, tree forms, and hybrid forest to counter act the negative effects of having up to 6 bore mines per base, with the other squares being used to build farms and condensers. I also enricher the soil of those squares. The X's represent usable squares, and the B stands for Base. XXX XXXXX XXBXX XXXXX XXX The areas around the base where you have 5 usuable squares in a row, can be used to place bore mine, condenser/farm, bore mine, condenser/farm, bore mine. Mass producing and overwhelming your opponents when necessary, isn't a problem.
Urban Ranger	posted 05-05-99 11:52 AM ET It's not the number of boreholes mostly but your mineral production that is causing the most eco-damage. You can be on green AND cybernetics, with all the eco-friendly facilities and SP, and mobs of mind worms and locusts still come knocking every few turns.
narf	posted 05-10-99 12:30 AM ET That can be useful. I've fought more than one war with the stacks of mind worms that kept piling up against my major production cities. During one game with high worm activity and a city producing 120+ minerals (convoys rock), I kept count for awhile and was averaging more than four Mature or Great Boils captured per turn, at that city alone (there were others that drew them in at a lesser rate.) Kept a couple transports busy ferrying them over to Yang; aside from an occasional drop probe team, I fought the whole war with a peacetime economy (that is, building like crazy.)