|
He's the army commander, as opposed to a field commander.
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Randarkman posted:Then again it seems perfectly in character for Kitchener to be this all conquering brutal warlord at the head of 1 and a half million men. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
> To End All Wars - Kitchener shouldn't even be available
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
I love this, I'm going to make it a wallpaper. Also I'm referring to this as the Kitchener offensive from now on. Grey Hunter fucked around with this message at 16:38 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:I love this, I'm going to make it a wallpaper. If you make it into a wallpaper, please send me a copy, too.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Is the death of Kitchener scripted in this game?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Is the death of Kitchener scripted in this game? How can he be lost at sea when he's doomstacking into Germany? Also, we did lose all of our ubotes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
JcDent posted:How can he be lost at sea when he's doomstacking into Germany? I'm wondering if Germany's forcepool for them expands as the game goes on, because at start you have 5 U-boat counters (each supposedly representing 4 U-boats), and you're only able to build 4 more. They're relatively cheap to build too, but if you only get 9 counters, I would understand waiting until your tech goes up a bit - the coastal subs you can start with are pretty trash, and losing them isn't the disaster the thread thought it would be at first. Without them, you're not pushing the UK towards bad things, but you're also not making the Yanks angrier at you. wedgekree posted:So, like is there any real material benefit for Turkey apparently taking.. Like all of the MIddle East apparently at this rate without there being any English soldiers supposedly around? Gives you some victory and national morale points, which are going to be very handy with things going not so well elsewhere (National Morale impacts each unit's combat abilities a bit). It'll also free up those Turkish troops to go other places. I would assume it closes the Suez canal as well; not sure how that's modeled in the game as I haven't played as the Entente yet.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
  The Western front is a mess, I can only hope that Wuttemburg can lead our men on a limited offensive to retake Saarbruken – so far hi is unopposed, but Kitchener seems to be able to move his men easily.  In East Prussia I'm trying to pull my men back into a more cohesive line.  Two large Russian forces look ready to push out of Poland into West Prussia.  The Army forming in Krakow now needs to be rushed to the Italian border to prevent them from advancing to far into the country.  We have another go at smashing the Serbs.  The Turks need more men in Armenia.  Most of their forces are tied up in Egypt. At least they are making good ground there.  The good news? At least America likes us – mainly because we've not sunk any of their ships with our subs....  We see heavy fighting in Armenia as the Russians continue to advance.  The Austrians begin to advance against the Serbs.  Reloading the game to take the turn, I see a weak spot near Metz and order an attack – we nearly break through....  Before the Entente rush in 400,000 men to stop us!  Things go poorly for the British in Egypt.  We retake part of Prussia – Goldap to be precise.  Kitchener's men counter attack, but it is costly for them.  Samsinov attacks Conrad, we holds out, just.  The Turks use the mountains to inflict disproportionate losses on the Russians as they advance.  Hindenburg continues to clean up smaller Russian forces.  We also slam into Lorraine – while the advance is stopped, we do 4:1 casualties.  A fresh wave of Russians pushes back Conrad.   We seem to have blunted the Kitchener offensive and stabilised the Western Front – for now.  In Russia, we have heard that the Tzar has personally take over control of the army – while this is a temporary boost to their morale, it will be sure to cause issues over time.  The Back and forth fighting in Prussia will continue.  Things continue to look dire in Poland as well.  The Pocket is no more, and we are seeing many Russian units advancing.  The British are yet to do anything in Gallipoli.  I'm trying to put together some defence against Italy.  I asked for state funds, so I am able to go on a mass recruitment drive in Austria-Hungary and Turkey, and plough a huge amount of money into research!  Bulow all but obliterates a reserve division.  Falkenhiem himself takes on Rennenkamph.  The French in the Dardenelles can't hold out much longer.  The British get reinforcements into Egypt just before we launch a mass assault. The results are bloody.  The French launch a mass assault without Kitchener in command.  Our machine guns chew them up in a bloody series of battles.  A Russian division throws itself at our troops outside of Lodz. Not one man makes it back to their starting positions. An entire division is wiped out or captured.  Kaiserlautern continues, and this wave of French take even heavier losses than the previous one!  North of Lodz a massive Russian army attacks our forces.  We pull back, but Russian losses continue to run high.  The sixth day of fighting at Kaiserlautern sees British troops fed into the meat grinder.  The Austrians chop up another Russian Division.  The Italians begin their offensive.  They get off to a good start.  The machine guns run red hot – how long can the Entente take these kinds of losses?  The Russian advance into Armenia continues to be costly for them.  The massacre in Kiaserlautern has caused our national morale to rocket – each battle netted us several points.  We can activate Rasputin, and for 5ep, I think its a no-brainer.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Holy poo poo Kaiserslautern is one hell of a Somme equivalent. How the gently caress do they still have a cohesive army after... what, 300-400k casualties in the span of a few days?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
More like Kaiserslaughter. It works either way you read it, because it's a slaughter and the Kaiser's not even mad, actually, he's laughing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
That's crazy results. How does that not gut the Western Entente?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Jesus. The French Army saw a large number of mutinies in 1917 after a few nasty shocks. Those battles were definitely some nasty shocks.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
300K loses. Without Kitchener to personally stomp his foot on German formations, the allies are getting plastered. These loses look worse than even AH victories!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
My.. God. By all that is holy the meatgrinder is brutal. What has set upon the Allies!? Also is it possible to bring the Americans in on our sideor not?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
I generally don't condone this, but it might be worth loading up the other sides just to get a general picture of how things actually look on their end. I did once, and wow - the opponent's situation is very rarely as good as it appears from your side. Armies that look like they're full strength are full of depleted units and no organization, they're broke/out of manpower, and have almost no replacements. Meanwhile they see your weak-rear end units as being full strength, etc. If nothing else, it can be a morale boost. Also, where did you fall on the reinforcements/replacements spectrum? I've been trying to keep a balance in my game, but it seems like replacements consume your state funds and war supplies *really* fast.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:My.. God. By all that is holy the meatgrinder is brutal. What has set upon the Allies!? No. US and UK go allied if they go in at all (apparently it's almost impossible to keep the UK out for more than a few turns no matter what you do). The US starts at like 80% pro-CP for play balance purposes, but they gradually sliiiiiide towards the Allies with some events speeding it up, and a few that slow it down (Neutrals blockade, etc.)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:No. US and UK go allied if they go in at all (apparently it's almost impossible to keep the UK out for more than a few turns no matter what you do). That seems sort of weird as Wilson aside (Who was a major Anglophile) there was a bit at least over in the US of diplomatic ameniability to the Central Powers. Sure, probably not enough tojoin them outside of the British doing something stupid on a scale even Wilson couldn't cover up (which they didn't have to do when the Germans had Zimmerman todo the stupid things for them).. Also presuming if more Entente soldiers die, and they get towards their command limit or take enough organizational miscues they have to actually stop to regain org, does this mean that the more who die, eventually the better off the remaining armies in turn perform?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:That seems sort of weird as Wilson aside (Who was a major Anglophile) there was a bit at least over in the US of diplomatic ameniability to the Central Powers. Sure, probably not enough tojoin them outside of the British doing something stupid on a scale even Wilson couldn't cover up (which they didn't have to do when the Germans had Zimmerman todo the stupid things for them).. Yeah, by 1917 the US was almost obligated to enter the war just to keep the allies in the game so they could pay their bills afterwards. I doubt the US would have gotten any where near as invested in the Entente if the UK had stayed out. Of course, that would have required Germany to not invade Belgium, which would have so fundamentally changed the entire war that it's hard to counter-factual. There is a hard upper-limit on the command penalty, so taking losses doesn't help the doomstack once they're beyond that point; I think it maxes out at 35% or something like that. TBH the hardest part may be keeping that thing in supply, munitions wagons are crazy expensive, get depleted really fast, and take a while to replenish. Of course, this is somewhat balanced out by the fact that there are railroads almost everywhere in W. Europe. Probably the best counter to the doomstack is to turn off easy supply in the game settings, but that is going to require the player to do a lot of micromanaging as well - units won't reinforce unless they're in a depot (which are fairly expensive to build), and for example in Belgium the only depot is Brussels. There's a few right around Belgium in France and a few more along the French-German border down to Switzerland, but it would not be easy cycling supply wagons and understrength units back and forth constantly, especially the way the UI handles movement. I may try that when I give the W. Entente a go for my next game, just to see how much of a PITA it is. Also I feel like 15 days per turn might be a *bit* too long, it lets, for example, the Russians throw three completely different armies at a city. Even if you have the Austrians dug in and ready to go, by the time that third attack hits their organization is bad enough that it's very hard for them to hold. While I think about it though, the best solution there might be to stagger the reinforcements arriving throughout the turn by having them rail back and forth between the same few territories, so you could have fresh corps arrive on say days 4, 9, and 14.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:Yeah, by 1917 the US was almost obligated to enter the war just to keep the allies in the game so they could pay their bills afterwards. I doubt the US would have gotten any where near as invested in the Entente if the UK had stayed out. Of course, that would have required Germany to not invade Belgium, which would have so fundamentally changed the entire war that it's hard to counter-factual. Yeah, while I can see the US being perpetually tethered to the Entente by virtue of the UK and Wilson being a huge anglophile, realistically without the Germans going through Belgium and as in th egame here the High Seas Fleet being baically stuck in the North Sea and no U-Boats menas that hte US would never really have a reason for casus beli, and economically isn't going to give the Entente super favorable loans as it's not as politically feasible. Also I suppose in-game the Central Powers can get easier trade by neutrals if they haven't gone through Belgium either - or is that not really something the game engine can model well?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Yeah, while I can see the US being perpetually tethered to the Entente by virtue of the UK and Wilson being a huge anglophile, realistically without the Germans going through Belgium and as in th egame here the High Seas Fleet being baically stuck in the North Sea and no U-Boats menas that hte US would never really have a reason for casus beli, and economically isn't going to give the Entente super favorable loans as it's not as politically feasible. Also I suppose in-game the Central Powers can get easier trade by neutrals if they haven't gone through Belgium either - or is that not really something the game engine can model well? The blockade is modeled by two 'Blockade Boxes', one in the North Sea, one in the Mediterranean. The Entente can put warships in there, which has a chance each turn of impacting the 'alignment' of Germany (N. Sea) or both Germany and AH (Med). Once it gets high enough, your country withdraws from the war. UK being in the war allows the Entente to effectively stuff both boxes while still having enough ships to move units around and keep an eye on the High Seas Fleet. Should the Germans attempt to sail the High Seas Fleet, the only obvious place for it to go is that blockade box. I guess they could build a shitload of transports and try to invade Gibraltar or W. France or S. Italy or something, but that seems about as likely as it was in real life. New transports are quite expensive and slow to build. As far as I can tell, the main downside of going through Belgium is that it brings in the UK that much faster. And the UK gets to play a 'neutrals blockade' option that doubles the effect of the blockade, at the penalty of pissing off the US and some other nations. The manual also mentions the blockade impacting general supply availability, but the mechanic for that is not explained. Germany also has a shipping box in the Baltic to represent being able to trade with Scandinavia (and through there, the world) relatively safely, but they don't have nearly as many merchant ships as the W. Entente, so it's not a huge deal.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:As far as I can tell, the main downside of going through Belgium is that it brings in the UK that much faster. Fun fact: when the game was released, there was a bug that caused the UK to immediately enter the war even if Germany focused on Russia or stayed on defense.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
I think this is an interesting distinction between history and counter-factualism. The more academic history trends toward larger snowballing forces and it becomes less a matter of decisions and more about "it happened because how could it not have happened."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
  I order some counter attack on the Western front – the Entente must be nearly played out after losses like those suffered last month!  I try to keep up the pressure in East Prussia.  The Russians may have made a mistake here – They are attacking into West Prussia with a good force, but I have a chance to cut the rail lines to Warsaw. I'm also moving Hindenburg and his army south to try and blunt their offensive.  Here my men desperately need time to rest and replace losses.  There is little we can do against the Italians.  We need to rest up in Serbia.  Armenia is a mess.  The Turks need more troops everywhere!  The Italians continue to advance.  But we are able to hold them in some areas.  We push the Russians back, at heavy cost.   We attempt to cut off a Russian force, but they pull back out of the trap.  We push towards Warsaw from the north.   There is vicious back and forth fighting in what amounts to a meeting engagement in Saar.   Our push against the Russian supply lines has drawn off a lot of enemy troops and blunts their offensive.  The Russians have to bring up a lot of reinforcements to prevent us cutting the southern rail line to Warsaw.   The Kitchener offensive has slowed down – their units must be near shattered.  In East Prussia we push against a couple of smaller Russian forces to the east of our northern most units.  Hindenburg pushes out of West Prussia from the north, while Oitenger pushes from the south. Other units try and recover strength.  There are some local counter attacks here.  I try and deploy our main force on the Italian border to match their advance – but the rail lines are occupied, so it may well be a fight to do so.  Like Everyone, the Serbian front need more troops.  I'm shifting forces to deal with the British now.  We may be in trouble in Egypt, those fresh troops are numerous.  On the very southern part of the Western front we push the French back.  The Saarbourg fortress falls to Kitchener, but not before bloodying his forces.  There are more heavy British losses in Africa.  We push into Elsass, but are pushed back with heavy losses – we force the British to commit their forces once more though!   Conrad wins a pyrrhic victory.  The Russians pull back from Hindenburg in the north, but our south attack advances.  A quieter month, but nothing could be as brutal as last.  Cracks are beginning to show in the Entente – Britain is suffering under it's losses.  We have two more events to play.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
I've noticed in my game as well that Britain seems particularly vulnerable to getting lots of rebel alignment -- unfortunately it doesn't have any Revolution or Mutiny events, which makes their rebel alignment a bit pointless 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:I order some counter attack on the Western front – the Entente must be nearly played out after losses like those suffered last month! WW1.txt
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I've noticed in my game as well that Britain seems particularly vulnerable to getting lots of rebel alignment -- unfortunately it doesn't have any Revolution or Mutiny events, which makes their rebel alignment a bit pointless I would like to see a series of events that would end with a full-blown Irish Revolt.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I've noticed in my game as well that Britain seems particularly vulnerable to getting lots of rebel alignment -- unfortunately it doesn't have any Revolution or Mutiny events, which makes their rebel alignment a bit pointless Actually, its not, once Rebel alignment reaches 80% every point above that is a 1% chance per turn of that side capitulating and coming out of the war! I've a long way to go, but there is a chance of Britain peaceing out!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
It's a testament to your skill at these games that we picked the worst tactics possible and we still might win.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
So, basically idea is keep on firing as many Rebel events as you hav the points to spend for? And did Rasputin activate or not in Russia? I'm not sure what is weirdest so far in this WW1, but 'Italians Advance' probably holds a slim lead.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:So, basically idea is keep on firing as many Rebel events as you hav the points to spend for? And did Rasputin activate or not in Russia? Yeah, "There is little we can do against the Italians" is usually followed by "to stop them from dying in front of our trenches." What are the numbers on the bottom of the unit card?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Combat strength - the higher the number the more powerful the stack - although for enemy units the total is everything in the region, even when there are multiple stacks - so you can see two or three stacks with 4000CS, but in reailty is more likely spread amoungst ten stacks. The western front seems to be holding, I'm just going to have to try and drive the Russians national morale down with a few big victories then hope the revolution kicks off! After that, I'm not sure what to do in the West, bar attempting the Schileffen plan in 1918....
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
June, 1918: "There is little we can do against the Belgians"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
That's a pretty heroic last stand from the defenders of Saarbourg. They died almost to a man while inflicting 4:1 casualties on the British. Remember Saarbourg.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Combat strength - the higher the number the more powerful the stack - although for enemy units the total is everything in the region, even when there are multiple stacks - so you can see two or three stacks with 4000CS, but in reailty is more likely spread amoungst ten stacks. It won't be nearly as many as ten. A properly built army, with all command points filled, can get up to 1500 or more combat power. Overstacking will result in a penalty that caps at 35%, so there's even a slim chance (this is the AI after all) that Kitchener's doomstack is just a single stack of ~6000 combat power with the max penalty. Grey, would you mind posting a save game?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
I believe this is relevant to Grey Hunter and many followers of this LP's interests: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2038926808/heroes-of-the-great-war-limanowa-1914-0/description Heroes of the Great War: Limanowa 1914 a board game recreating the Limanowa battle of the Eastern front between Austria-Hungary and Russia, for 1-4 players. quote:Heroes of the Great War: Limanowa 1914 is a tactical board game set in the Eastern Front of World War I, focusing on the events near Krakow and the region of Galicia in December 1914. This territory was under heavy attack by the Tsarist Russian Empire, which tried to break through the ever thinner lines of the Austro-Hungarian armies. Over two-thirds of the well-equipped Russian forces were pushed against this front, winning victory after victory, occupying city after city, gaining the infamous name, the Russian Steamroller. In November 1914 the Austro-Hungarian High Command planned a desperate counterattack, by taking advantage of what seemed to be an error in the Russian maneuvers.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:That's a pretty heroic last stand from the defenders of Saarbourg. They died almost to a man while inflicting 4:1 casualties on the British. while outnumbered 100 to 1 and facing half a million men
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Is there a better game about WWI that has an engine that isn't trash? This game seems rather bad at simulating WWI.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Is there a better game about WWI that has an engine that isn't trash? This game seems rather bad at simulating WWI. The only other vaguely grognard-flavored WWI game I've played is "Commander: the Great War" which is decent-ish in singleplayer but doesn't pose much of a challenge and lacks some of the historical flavor of this game (and is completely broken in MP).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Is there a better game about WWI that has an engine that isn't trash? This game seems rather bad at simulating WWI. Probably a game wtih an engine that's easily modabble and has some good mods built for it. WW1 itself is kind of a weird war to use for a full on engine for another game, and a lot of strategic based engines don't lend themselves that well to the narrow thin that is WW1. AGEOD brekas down with the huge numbers of personnel armies have, Hearts of Iron is oriented towards more mobile warfare than the very infantry heavy and near total static that is WW1.. Lot of other ones are pure tactical simulators as opposed to broad strategic ones..
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 05:48
|
|