|
Randalor posted:How does the game determine who wins a battle anyways? The "winner" is the side who does not retreat - so even if they lose 30-40,000 more men, they still "won". And yeah, the British army got pasted in Egypt.
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
 I wonder what these numbers have to do with the numbers in the report. Actual engaged dudes vs. their entire stacks?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
JcDent posted:
Those are the men engaged at a certain time, so the number goes up and down as units retreat or come in as reinforcements - I mainly used them to show where the battle is taking place. They also drop like a stone whenever the word "Assault" is shown as men die in their thousands.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
It is weird that Conrad Hotzendorf is the only general who is refereed to by first name. You certainly never call Hindenburg "Paul" or refer to Kitchener as "Herbert".
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
wukkar posted:It is weird that Conrad Hotzendorf is the only general who is refereed to by first name. You certainly never call Hindenburg "Paul" or refer to Kitchener as "Herbert". it's a bit complicated. Conrad is technically part of his last name.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:it's a bit complicated. Conrad is technically part of his last name. K.u.k. Feldmarschall Franz Xaver Joseph Conrad Graf von Hötzendorf
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Its like with the Romans, where they had lots of names and repeated them a lot, so we tend to pick one and run with it. Or just use the nickname given when they were a kid.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
JcDent posted:K.u.k. Feldmarschall Franz Xaver Joseph Conrad Graf von Hötzendorf Right. After the war, when Austria abolished nobility, his name was stylized as "Franz Conrad-Hötzendorf", with the family name often just being referred to as "Conrad". Also there's the confusing genealogy aspect: "His great-grandfather Franz Anton Conrad (1738–1827) had received the nobiliary particle von Hötzendorf as a predicate in 1815, referring to the surname of his first wife who descended from the Bavarian Upper Palatinate region." HannibalBarca fucked around with this message at 18:53 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Update from Hannibal's alternate timeline CP game: .
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Update from Hannibal's alternate timeline CP game: Diary, 3rd March, 1916 Victory. I am a butcher. First I vomited, then I radioed command to tell them of my stupendous victory, then I vomited again. I am a monster.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
perhaps unsurprisingly, the war ended next turn as Entente morale plummeted after the entire ANZAC army was destroyed at the siege of Cairo, and as another French army blundered its way to 60,000 deaths in the Ardennes. Historians will also likely long question Jellicoe's decision to force the Kiel canal with his dreadnoughts, allowing Scheer to repeatedly inflict grievous casualties on the British fleet via attrition. I just wish I had gotten to use the tanks. The first ones were rolling out of the Daimler and SKODA works just as the war ended 
HannibalBarca fucked around with this message at 22:55 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
"Afterwords it was decided that digging graves for the dead would be to time consuming and thus instead dirt and gravel would be used to simply cover over the mounds of dead. In time this location would come to be known as "Mount Chomer" after the French commander in charge of the operation."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:"Afterwords it was decided that digging graves for the dead would be to time consuming and thus instead dirt and gravel would be used to simply cover over the mounds of dead. In time this location would come to be known as "Mount Chomer" after the French commander in charge of the operation."  
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Update from Hannibal's alternate timeline CP game: something something preset kill limits something something
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 00:08
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
HannibalBarca posted:Update from Hannibal's alternate timeline CP game: How much NM did that net you? I got 4 (and the Eastern Entente probably lost the same) with this one: 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
dublish posted:How much NM did that net you? I got 4 (and the Eastern Entente probably lost the same) with this one: It got me 4; there was an additional followup battle where they lost like 60 or 70,000 more men (vs. about 20,000 of mine) for an additional 4, and another unrelated battle where a British corps that ghost-walked through the lines and tried to assassinate Falkenhayn or something got surrounded and wiped out (60k Entente loss vs. ~15k German) for another 5 NM. Lost 2NM from reversion to mean, 1 from War Weariness, and gained an additional 1 from assaulting and taking Bucharest the same turn. HannibalBarca fucked around with this message at 03:51 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Would you like to expand on that? Is it that it takes that many casualties per day or...? The engine is built towards 1700's style combat - War of the Roses, Hundred Years War, etc. It doesn't seem to handle such things as the fact you can have million man armies in a single 'zone' (which might have width of 20-30 miles), supply/out of supply, defense in depth/trenches - in WW1 you'd generally need localized 3:1 superiority to be able to take and hold chunks of territory, and here in areas on the Western Front where there is rough numerical partiy large chunks of territory are being taken and exchanged. The engine's more setup for strategic styles of warfare, with maraudering armies and seiges, not hundreds of thousands of men over a few dozen miles.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
I'd say more mobile forms of warfare. Not Gas bombings, artillery barrages, and bloody muddy battles that advance half a mile a month.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Update from Hannibal's alternate timeline CP game: Steely-eyed mustache man
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:I'd say more mobile forms of warfare. Yeah, you see folks with maximum strength fortifications outnumbered by maybe 30-40% being driven out of the province. Sure, some things are accurate (Teh Austro-Hungarians dug in, outnumbering the Serbs behind a river taking 4:1 casualties), but it should've been even more brutal for the French to drive across the Ruhr - that's against massive dug in pre war fortresses, super heavy artillery, ridiculous amounts of men over in a very small frontage... They'd be taking out miles of territory at a time, not blitzing through the Rhine. The engine is designed around mobile warfare, and the fact that WW1 warfare in it is pretty mobile - particularly in 1915 rather than complete bog and quagmire is an indicator of that.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I thought it was that Rebels specifically did not affect the UK AI. Correct. They were not able to find a way to get the UK AI to respect the need to keep x number of merchant ships in the Atlantic shipping box, so they turned off the UK's exit from the war due to rebel alignment. Most of the number you're seeing is bullshit, it's just from the AI moving its own crap away from the shipping box, thus causing a lot of u-boat rolls that are not actually happening, as our u-boats were sunk in the first couple turns and AFAIK GH did not build more. Also, GH, I'm seeing you in offensive (orange) posture in a lot of these W. Front battles you're losing. Are you actually trying to enter Entente-held territories? If you're not, you should leave the units on defensive (blue). When you're in orange mode, you don't gain terrain or entrenchment boni. Both sides in orange get treated as a meeting engagement, when the defender is in blue he gets significant defensive advantages.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:Correct. They were not able to find a way to get the UK AI to respect the need to keep x number of merchant ships in the Atlantic shipping box, so they turned off the UK's exit from the war due to rebel alignment. Most of the number you're seeing is bullshit, it's just from the AI moving its own crap away from the shipping box, thus causing a lot of u-boat rolls that are not actually happening, as our u-boats were sunk in the first couple turns and AFAIK GH did not build more. Everything is starting to make sense now...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:Correct. They were not able to find a way to get the UK AI to respect the need to keep x number of merchant ships in the Atlantic shipping box, so they turned off the UK's exit from the war due to rebel alignment. Most of the number you're seeing is bullshit, it's just from the AI moving its own crap away from the shipping box, thus causing a lot of u-boat rolls that are not actually happening, as our u-boats were sunk in the first couple turns and AFAIK GH did not build more. twig1919 posted:Everything is starting to make sense now... So maybe in the Gray Hunter-verse, everyone decided that trenches are dishonorable, and they've been replaying the Battle of the Frontiers for two straight years.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
"everyone"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
[page 87 of Grey Hunter's Mortal Kombat II LP] hey grey i noticed that you never block. there are two buttons on the
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
ummm... What did Ottomans gain from war? Big fat nothing?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Jesenjin posted:ummm... What did Ottomans gain from war? Big fat nothing? I don't think AGEOD took the time to write multiple different victory texts based upon the nature of your coalition, so since the Ottomans aren't a guaranteed join I suppose they just got left out. Same for Bulgaria, or presumptive Austro-Hungarian gains in Northern Italy. HannibalBarca fucked around with this message at 20:47 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Jesenjin posted:ummm... What did Ottomans gain from war? Big fat nothing? On the other hand in a decade or two they'll rake all those sweet oil monies, and it'll only get better!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
  I continue to struggle to hold the French advance.  In a continuing effort to keep the Russians pinned down in Poland, I launch an attack to the north.  The push to the south slows as we need to rest up our troops again.  In Poland itself, my men are ordered to rest – apart from Eimen who will attack.  The Greeks are putting up some resistance.  In Egypt, orders have been given to destroy the British.  Bulow starts the offensive with a nice victory.  This is not the slaughter I was hoping for as the British retire before action.   The French once again throw their huge army forwards. I have to protect in all directions, while they can concentrate on one attack.  The Turks advance against the Russians.   The French are cut off again – hopefully this will buy us time as they send troops to reopen their supply line.  I'm moving my forces so I don't attack Lodz across as river this time.  The Russians have pushed south at an alarming rate, I need to raise troops to stop them!  The weather clears down on the Italian border, so I order a limited attack.  Bulow reports defeat. “Sir, there were just to many Russians to kill. We ran out of ammo and daylight.”   You will stay in your pocket.   Things heat up in the backwaters.   I was shocked at how quickly their numbers dropped here.  An artillery unit uses a entire column of supplies before going down.  Wait, I didn't order an attack on Lodz – but we won! I'm so confused.  A Bulgarian force loses heavily.  The Russians counter attack at Lodz and push us back.   Kitchener throws his men into a brutal assault.  Bulow massacres a Russian assault on his position, destroying one of the attacking Divisions.  I'm not sure anyone wants to be fighting this war anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
... That seems to be a rather large number of casualties you're inflicting in the defeats. Also ow. On the upside, you seem to be doing better this round!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Why hello Cadorna, you batshit insane lunatic.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Yeah, that result looks pretty historically accurate sadly
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
"Hmm, I wonder who that guy is? He must've-" 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
The "Lions led by Donkeys" idea of WWI leadership is generally an exaggeration not held up by historical analysis. This was not the case with General Cadorna.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
It's been a few turns now, So are the Russians in that pocket feeling the squeeze yet? There doesn't seem to be much change yet.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
RentACop posted:"Hmm, I wonder who that guy is? He must've-" To fully appreciate this image it helps to know this was battle number 12 in the series 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:To fully appreciate this image it helps to know this was battle number 12 in the series most of them fought with the exactly same battleplan. If at first you don't suceed, try again and again until you do.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
In Cadorna's defense, the rocky start for the Italian army can partially be explained by the fact that their army was mobilized, demobilized, and remobilized as the civilian leadership tried to figure out when and if they were actually going to war. And then the troops arrived at the Austrian barbed wire to find that nobody aside from specialists had boltcutters  of course, that still leaves 11 other Isonzos that were 110% his fault.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Other WWI forces executed men for cowardice. But only Cadorna could think of ordering decimation, as in ancient Roman decimation.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 18:45
|
|