Strategies for taking over colonies - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Strategies for taking over colonies

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Strategies for taking over colonies

itdoesntfit posted 07-13-99 04:54 PM ET

I have been playing for three hours, and one impact destroyer has been attacking the Hives for 14 turns. I only damge 10% of a infantry garrison (not sure what armor) and 90% of a terraformer. But I can't damage any unit inside of the perimeter defense.
Krushala posted 07-13-99 05:42 PM ET
I find that shore bombardment with ships is useless. Even with singularity I rarely do much damage on the higher levels.
itdoesntfit posted 07-13-99 06:28 PM ET
So how do you destroy a colony on shores?
Hamlet posted 07-14-99 06:15 AM ET
Way, way back inna summer o' '44 a man called Eisenhower had the same problem. He solved it by landing a massive Allied army.
You however, have an easier solution. Just follow the time honoured tradition of Hitler.
Blitzkrieg. Use bombers to wipe out the defending units. Once you've anhillated their garisons, either land an infantry unit to take the city or even better airdrop a unit in. You can airdrop directly into undefended cities.
So just remember. Blitkrieg.
On a good day, I took 5 bases in one turn using this method. That looked good on the post-game replay. One second, the continent was a yucky Believer orange, the next, a beautiful Peacekeeper Gray.
Walk with Lal.
Beta1 posted 07-14-99 12:14 PM ET
Only if theres no aerospace complex in the city - otherwise insert a hovertank outside the city radius and then roll straight in.
Beta1 posted 07-14-99 12:15 PM ET
Oh yeah - gravships do the job quite well too.
mindwormh8er posted 07-14-99 03:44 PM ET
The Peacekeepers are purple just to tell you.
itdoesntfit posted 07-14-99 05:03 PM ET
Hamlet, This ain't Normandy.
itdoesntfit posted 07-14-99 10:28 PM ET
Hamlet, have you heard of:
I"M NOT THAT ADVANCED YET!!!!
I can't build any bombers, I can't bombard them, and you really remind me of Kenny. He's just like you, well except he hates Hitler. m I think Hitler is the best (General that is).
Hamlet posted 07-15-99 05:43 AM ET
itdoesnt fit: oops
errr...well...if you aren't that advanced then you shouldn't be trying to take cities that aren't on your own continent :-)
Kenny...South Park Kenny? I don't get South Park where I am and so I don't know if thats an insult or a compliment :-) I shall take it as a compliment.
This is off topic but on the subject of Hitler...he was a good general but unfortunately, he had about much sense as a small, half-ripe mango. In other words, the man was insane. His obsession with destroying Russia and his declaration of war on the USA was what killed him.
Personally, I find Rommel or Montgomery to have been better strategists than ol' Adolf in the field of "set-piece" warfare. Guirella warfare is another story but I'm not going to go into that cos this is already WAY off topic :-)

MangoBreeder posted 07-15-99 06:48 AM ET
HAMLET -
HOW Dare u Flame MANGO's I find it highly offensive in future keep your derogatry remarks to other fruit.
Alexander was THE greatest strategist of all time.
itdoesntfit posted 07-15-99 11:08 AM ET
Tke it as a compliment, not Kenny in south park.
itdoesntfit posted 07-15-99 11:08 AM ET
I mean take
itdoesntfit posted 07-15-99 11:09 AM ET
If your looking for history, think of Caesar.
Hamlet posted 07-16-99 04:31 AM ET
First, I would like to apologise to all mangoes and breeders thereof.
As for the greatest strategist of ALL TIME, I would say that that question is unanswerable.
Alexander, Caesar, Han Wu Di and Marshal Zukhov (just to name four) lived in different timeframes and performed under widely different conditions. Each of them saw the flaws in his opponents strategy and tailored his own plans to take advantage of this.
luzerKing posted 07-16-99 08:03 PM ET
Actually, Alexander's best move was the implementation of the exceptionally long pike, thus making it impossible for the opponent's hand-held blades to make contact with his men. Had he not had this brainstorm, his place in history may have been less stellar.
Hamlet posted 07-16-99 08:30 PM ET
luzerking: I assume you mean his innovation of equipping his cavalry with long pikes?
The Greek infantry had already been using pikes and I was under the impression that Alex's success was more due to his development of combined arms tactics. His cavalry could now both outmanouever the Greeks as well as outfight them since the infantrys reach advantage had been negated by the cavary pikes.
JayPegg posted 07-16-99 08:37 PM ET
My favorite strategic move was hannibal's journey through the alps... those elephant must of scared the crap out of the romans.
~kelso
itdoesntfit posted 07-17-99 12:42 AM ET
Actually, I think that Robert E. Lee is the best. He could wreck 75,000 man army with 15,000 soldiers.
Beta1 posted 07-17-99 10:15 AM ET
captain kirk every time - just reprogam the simulator so you can win!
Wank posted 07-17-99 07:27 PM ET
IDF:
If you have 15k men well entrenched, with cannons and rifles pointed at the enemy as the send 75k soldier just running at you (which is generally what happened there)
You would not have much of a problem there. Not a lot of strategic intelligence involved, is there?
Wank
Plato90s posted 07-17-99 07:52 PM ET
The Civil War came at a point where the defense had a huge advantage over attackers, much like WW1. The guns being used were slow to fire, inaccurate, and can't be reloaded on the run.
As for Lt. Gen. Lee, he lost the war. All the Union needed was a general like Grant who recognized the price of making an assault on a defended position and was willing to accept it. Even McClellan could have won the war had he just pressed ahead.
itdoesntfit posted 07-17-99 08:43 PM ET
Well, Grant Was the most effective general (the one who paid the most soldiers to win as well), but Lee's men were outnumbered, outarmed, outfed, and out of home. The union had a much better advantage, because all they needed to do was let the Confederates squat and rot! If Lee had more men...and more food... and more arms... and more campsites...and more generals...and a capital...
Krushala posted 07-17-99 09:21 PM ET
he had a capital. Unless you are talking about money.
Hamlet posted 07-18-99 02:25 AM ET
Heheh...I like most non Americans know next to nothing about your Civil War and so I shall forbear to comment. However, Lee DID have a capital. Richmond, Virginia (right?)
However, I do remember reading somewhere that it is accepted tactical wisdom that for an attacking force to efficiently overwhelm an entrenched defence, a 10 to 1 numerical advantage is necessary.
JayPegg: Elephants aren't very effective war animals. Acording to Indian records, they are too intelligent to make god fighters. They have an annoying tendency to try to sneak away from the fighting and when they do get hurt, they go berserk. A berserk elephant is not a nice thing to get in the way of. That is bad for the enemy. Unfortunately to a berserk elephant, EVERYONE is the enemy :-)
Hannibals ellies would have had more of a psychological impact than a physical one on the Romans. Heh...I do have a soft spot for Elephants though.
Hannibals campaign was doomed to fail because he stretched hs lines of supply too far. In fact, one Roman general saw this and began a campaign with the sole intention of avoiding Hannibal. He wandered all over Northern Italy abandoning outposts and forts and let Hannibal chase after him until Winter arrived. It didn't defeat Hannibal but then again, it tied him up.
"Alright boys! Lets get our throats cut!"- most uninspiring battlecry in History
itdoesntfit posted 07-18-99 01:45 PM ET
But that was after the civil war started. They had to spend alot of money at the very beginning, and had no navy.
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: Strategies for taking over colonies
itdoesntfit	posted 07-13-99 04:54 PM ET I have been playing for three hours, and one impact destroyer has been attacking the Hives for 14 turns. I only damge 10% of a infantry garrison (not sure what armor) and 90% of a terraformer. But I can't damage any unit inside of the perimeter defense.
Krushala	posted 07-13-99 05:42 PM ET I find that shore bombardment with ships is useless. Even with singularity I rarely do much damage on the higher levels.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-13-99 06:28 PM ET So how do you destroy a colony on shores?
Hamlet	posted 07-14-99 06:15 AM ET Way, way back inna summer o' '44 a man called Eisenhower had the same problem. He solved it by landing a massive Allied army. You however, have an easier solution. Just follow the time honoured tradition of Hitler. Blitzkrieg. Use bombers to wipe out the defending units. Once you've anhillated their garisons, either land an infantry unit to take the city or even better airdrop a unit in. You can airdrop directly into undefended cities. So just remember. Blitkrieg. On a good day, I took 5 bases in one turn using this method. That looked good on the post-game replay. One second, the continent was a yucky Believer orange, the next, a beautiful Peacekeeper Gray. Walk with Lal.
Beta1	posted 07-14-99 12:14 PM ET Only if theres no aerospace complex in the city - otherwise insert a hovertank outside the city radius and then roll straight in.
Beta1	posted 07-14-99 12:15 PM ET Oh yeah - gravships do the job quite well too.
mindwormh8er	posted 07-14-99 03:44 PM ET The Peacekeepers are purple just to tell you.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-14-99 05:03 PM ET Hamlet, This ain't Normandy.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-14-99 10:28 PM ET Hamlet, have you heard of: I"M NOT THAT ADVANCED YET!!!! I can't build any bombers, I can't bombard them, and you really remind me of Kenny. He's just like you, well except he hates Hitler. m I think Hitler is the best (General that is).
Hamlet	posted 07-15-99 05:43 AM ET itdoesnt fit: oops errr...well...if you aren't that advanced then you shouldn't be trying to take cities that aren't on your own continent :-) Kenny...South Park Kenny? I don't get South Park where I am and so I don't know if thats an insult or a compliment :-) I shall take it as a compliment. This is off topic but on the subject of Hitler...he was a good general but unfortunately, he had about much sense as a small, half-ripe mango. In other words, the man was insane. His obsession with destroying Russia and his declaration of war on the USA was what killed him. Personally, I find Rommel or Montgomery to have been better strategists than ol' Adolf in the field of "set-piece" warfare. Guirella warfare is another story but I'm not going to go into that cos this is already WAY off topic :-)
MangoBreeder	posted 07-15-99 06:48 AM ET HAMLET - HOW Dare u Flame MANGO's I find it highly offensive in future keep your derogatry remarks to other fruit. Alexander was THE greatest strategist of all time.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-15-99 11:08 AM ET Tke it as a compliment, not Kenny in south park.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-15-99 11:08 AM ET I mean take
itdoesntfit	posted 07-15-99 11:09 AM ET If your looking for history, think of Caesar.
Hamlet	posted 07-16-99 04:31 AM ET First, I would like to apologise to all mangoes and breeders thereof. As for the greatest strategist of ALL TIME, I would say that that question is unanswerable. Alexander, Caesar, Han Wu Di and Marshal Zukhov (just to name four) lived in different timeframes and performed under widely different conditions. Each of them saw the flaws in his opponents strategy and tailored his own plans to take advantage of this.
luzerKing	posted 07-16-99 08:03 PM ET Actually, Alexander's best move was the implementation of the exceptionally long pike, thus making it impossible for the opponent's hand-held blades to make contact with his men. Had he not had this brainstorm, his place in history may have been less stellar.
Hamlet	posted 07-16-99 08:30 PM ET luzerking: I assume you mean his innovation of equipping his cavalry with long pikes? The Greek infantry had already been using pikes and I was under the impression that Alex's success was more due to his development of combined arms tactics. His cavalry could now both outmanouever the Greeks as well as outfight them since the infantrys reach advantage had been negated by the cavary pikes.
JayPegg	posted 07-16-99 08:37 PM ET My favorite strategic move was hannibal's journey through the alps... those elephant must of scared the crap out of the romans. ~kelso
itdoesntfit	posted 07-17-99 12:42 AM ET Actually, I think that Robert E. Lee is the best. He could wreck 75,000 man army with 15,000 soldiers.
Beta1	posted 07-17-99 10:15 AM ET captain kirk every time - just reprogam the simulator so you can win!
Wank	posted 07-17-99 07:27 PM ET IDF: If you have 15k men well entrenched, with cannons and rifles pointed at the enemy as the send 75k soldier just running at you (which is generally what happened there) You would not have much of a problem there. Not a lot of strategic intelligence involved, is there? Wank
Plato90s	posted 07-17-99 07:52 PM ET The Civil War came at a point where the defense had a huge advantage over attackers, much like WW1. The guns being used were slow to fire, inaccurate, and can't be reloaded on the run. As for Lt. Gen. Lee, he lost the war. All the Union needed was a general like Grant who recognized the price of making an assault on a defended position and was willing to accept it. Even McClellan could have won the war had he just pressed ahead.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-17-99 08:43 PM ET Well, Grant Was the most effective general (the one who paid the most soldiers to win as well), but Lee's men were outnumbered, outarmed, outfed, and out of home. The union had a much better advantage, because all they needed to do was let the Confederates squat and rot! If Lee had more men...and more food... and more arms... and more campsites...and more generals...and a capital...
Krushala	posted 07-17-99 09:21 PM ET he had a capital. Unless you are talking about money.
Hamlet	posted 07-18-99 02:25 AM ET Heheh...I like most non Americans know next to nothing about your Civil War and so I shall forbear to comment. However, Lee DID have a capital. Richmond, Virginia (right?) However, I do remember reading somewhere that it is accepted tactical wisdom that for an attacking force to efficiently overwhelm an entrenched defence, a 10 to 1 numerical advantage is necessary. JayPegg: Elephants aren't very effective war animals. Acording to Indian records, they are too intelligent to make god fighters. They have an annoying tendency to try to sneak away from the fighting and when they do get hurt, they go berserk. A berserk elephant is not a nice thing to get in the way of. That is bad for the enemy. Unfortunately to a berserk elephant, EVERYONE is the enemy :-) Hannibals ellies would have had more of a psychological impact than a physical one on the Romans. Heh...I do have a soft spot for Elephants though. Hannibals campaign was doomed to fail because he stretched hs lines of supply too far. In fact, one Roman general saw this and began a campaign with the sole intention of avoiding Hannibal. He wandered all over Northern Italy abandoning outposts and forts and let Hannibal chase after him until Winter arrived. It didn't defeat Hannibal but then again, it tied him up. "Alright boys! Lets get our throats cut!"- most uninspiring battlecry in History
itdoesntfit	posted 07-18-99 01:45 PM ET But that was after the civil war started. They had to spend alot of money at the very beginning, and had no navy.