[1v1 Guide] Introduction

[Ace Rimmer]

Alrighty fellow commanders, I've been pondering for quite some time how in the world to put together a definitive 1v1 guide and not leave out anything and it finally hit me. Post my thoughts in detail and let others post theirs. That is really the only way to catch it all. The reason I say that is because every time I decide to sit down and start writing one, I realize how much things change or somebody comes along and makes me completely re-think my own tactics. (MOR) and his extreme guerrilla style and then Mojo's quick rise to the top of the ladder are two notable examples.

So, here is how this is gonna (hopefully) work.

• Starting with N. America and going clockwise, each match up will be discussed individually until it appears all thought's and opinions have been stated on that setup.
• Maps and markers will be used as a visual guide.
• Each setup will have it's very own thread.
• Anyone is welcome to post their ideas for the best strategies and tactics.
• At the end of the discussion, when all setups have been discussed, a 1v1 "guide" will be put together with the best information from all threads, with maps, markers, etc for future players.

Now, this is not gonna happen overnight, especially since I don't have loads of spare time. Either way, using bert's dedcons and Pox's stats site, we can now take a pretty good detailed look at any setup and any players "style" and convert it into a decent guide.

All the visual tools I use will be uniform across each match up. First up will be N. America vs Europe. Here's a preview: (not starting yet )


Hidden sub launch points, fleet movements, silo arrangement, radar placement, etc will all be discussed. Stay tuned.

[Pox]

Wow, looks like a big project - but it could certainly come together, and I'd love to see a guide for each of the 21 matches... also, the style you're using in that screenshot looks great for the purposes - I'd be good to put together a design for the overall layout if we decide to compile it into a webpage or pdf, too.

[Ace Rimmer]

Wow, looks like a big project - but it could certainly come together, and I'd love to see a guide for each of the 21 matches... also, the style you're using in that screenshot looks great for the purposes - I'd be good to put together a design for the overall layout if we decide to compile it into a webpage or pdf, too.

Well, if you have the capability, a pdf booklet that would "fit" very well with the Defcon Manual would be great.

And you're right. This is far too big for one person to do alone, which is the main reason that "Ace's Defcon Video Tutorial" never got done. Although it was fun creating the intro.

[Blackbeard]

(I'm no expert ) Each Territory in this instance has the option of splitting up their navy and sending some up towards the North Pole or down past Patagonia for surprise attacks. I've always (well not since birth at least ) wondered if it was worth the effort, or whether a full frontal assault was more effective in subduing your opponent. (Is this the kind of input you are looking for? (there's no smiley for the wolfman pose )).

[rus|Mike]

Mmmm... guard the Bearing?

[Tripper]

I think that the analysis should start with Europe's deployment - its deplopment area is small and continuous (so no decisions on splitting fleets) but its attack routes are constrained by chokepoints. Sending subs / carriers into the Northwest passage was once popular, but this is a narrow area vulnerable to air patrols and bomber nuking. Sending a fleet east to the pacific via the Bering would not seem the best option, as it involves a difficult chokepoint, although this may be useful to secure the few West Coast cities if Europe is not counting on destroying NA's silos. Sending subs through the south Atlantic is an even worse idea as NA is likely to have deployed carriers there.

So it seems that the optimal European naval deployment is for a frontal assault in the North Atlantic. This will be the most effective if NA has split its fleet to counter the other attack vectors!

This doesn't take silo placements into account, though. An aggressive European attack might best be supported by silos and airbases in Western Europe or even Iceland (risky ..). While a more defensive scenario will deploy in Scandinavia and keep defensive ships in the north sea. Typical NA placement north of NY is not particularly effective against this, a more southerly placement is often popular, also because it nullifies any EU subs in the northwest passage.

Just a few thoughts to get the juices flowing!

Cheers, Tripper

[Ace Rimmer]

Well, to be honest I'm not really ready for input. However, I'll say that Trippers assessment leaves out the fact that a significantly smaller skilled navy can almost always hold off a much larger, sometimes even full naval attack. The only real exception to that rule is when the attacking player comes in full naval force and does not stop attacking no matter the cost. That is, there is no retreat, a full on suicide run with every unit moving forward. The reason for this is simple, destroying units is based on chance not hit points, so while having/using overwhelming numbers is an advantage, its not the be-all and end-all of naval battles.

This becomes especially clear at choke points. I once proved this to Angel of Death once in a mock battle at 20x using a few carriers above Iceland against his entire fleet trying to move through the gap. He never got through and if I remember correctly didn't have a navy once it was over.

[Tripper]

However, I'll say that Trippers assessment leaves out the fact that a significantly smaller skilled navy can almost always hold off a much larger, sometimes even full naval attack. ...
This becomes especially clear at choke points. I once proved this to Angel of Death once in a mock battle at 20x using a few carriers above Iceland against his entire fleet trying to move through the gap. He never got through and if I remember correctly didn't have a navy once it was over.

ahem - yes, I didn't mean a suicide rush into enemy radar - what I meant was a full set of carriers, hiding under AA support from silos in western Europe, screened by a full set of battleships, should be able to fighter scout New England and/or clean up any less-than-full-strength defensive fleet in the process

Charging chokepoints = particular suicide, which is why I nominated the North Atlantic for a fair fight (well you could deploy everything above Scandinavia, but that would be a _little_ on the back foot, wouldn't it ..?)

Cheers, Tripper

[Blackbeard]

(I'm no expert ) Each Territory in this instance has the option of splitting up their navy and sending some up towards the North Pole or down past Patagonia for surprise attacks. I've always (well not since birth at least ) wondered if it was worth the effort, or whether a full frontal assault was more effective in subduing your opponent. (Is this the kind of input you are looking for? (there's no smiley for the wolfman pose )).

Mr. Rimmer, is that ...is that ... The Wolfman??!!

[Ace Rimmer]

(I'm no expert ) Each Territory in this instance has the option of splitting up their navy and sending some up towards the North Pole or down past Patagonia for surprise attacks. I've always (well not since birth at least ) wondered if it was worth the effort, or whether a full frontal assault was more effective in subduing your opponent. (Is this the kind of input you are looking for? (there's no smiley for the wolfman pose )).

Mr. Rimmer, is that ...is that ... The Wolfman??!!