|
Gas will be a whiff ( ) and the Ottomans can't supply an army in the Sinai. This should be good.
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
wedgekree posted:how did the Entente mass a million men over in a single area!? That seems kind of odd to be able to do on such a narrow frontway in 1915. The Allies start with an army group HQ on the Western Front, and armies attached to the same HQ can aid each other from neighboring provinces. This makes it rather difficult to attack under most circumstances. You'll notice that Grey Hunter was only able to set up a Western HQ this turn (our second, as we started with an eastern one from our decision to focus on the Russians), which is why we have been pushed back in the first place. Our armies in the west have been isolated from each other until now, so that great big Allied stack didn't have to deal with mutually supporting defenses.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:It should also be noted that to do so cost me 2,000 VP's - it was that or ship Hindenburg to the other side. :ageod:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:He may be over the command limit, or there may be some penalty associated with having too many units engaged at once. The AGEOD battle system is kind of opaque about how and why losses are taken. He's almost certainly over the command limit, running into frontage issues, and in an offensive stance against Germans in a defensive stance.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:https://www.dropbox.com/s/222t980wvnkha8g/1%20-%20The%20Great%20War.hst?dl=0 How much advice do you want on army organization? Von Bülow's got a 50% combat penalty that you could get rid of with a single button.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Hows that? I've not looked at the turn, and fixed the autostacking marching to the guns produces. Von Bülow just isn't connected to OHL, and all independent stacks suffer a 50% penalty to the command points they provide. Von Bülow is the easiest to fix, but you've got lots of 3-star leaders who are either: 1) being wasted commanding corps (Von Kluck and Von Mackensen in Poland, Potiorek in Serbia, Zhekov in Greece, Sanders Pasha near Gallipoli, Mustafa Pasha and Hasan Pasha and Cemal Pasha at Port Said) 2) leading independent stacks that aren't part of the chain of command (Von Bülow, Fichev's Bulgarians in Serbia, Nurettin Pasha in Baghdad) 3) commanding nothing at all, whether independent or attached to a stack commanded by another 3-star general (Von Mudra at Colmar/Epinal, von Hausen's German army which has been combined with von Krasnik's Austrian army near Warsaw, Vehip Pasha near Gallipoli, Zeki Pasha in Palestine, von Bayern and von Preußen in Berlin) In order to connect all these guys to the chain of command, they'll need to be within range of one of your GHQs, and some of the chain of command benefits (like CHQ commander bonuses and march-to-guns) only apply while a force is within that range, but the command point penalty is gone for good no matter how far an army gets from its GHQ.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Wait, dublish, can Bulgaria get a GHQ? Or can they attach to other nationalities? Bulgaria can't get its own GHQ, you're limited to the 2 German ones, one Austrian, and one (locked in place) Turkish one. If memory serves, and it's been more than a year since I played the Central Powers in this, you can attach any Central Powers army to any Central Powers GHQ. There are limits to the number of armies that can be attached to each GHQ, but I can't remember what determines that number. The commander's strategic rating? Regardless, Grey's averaging something like 3 armies per GHQ, which is about half what you can actually get.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Egypt is probably a waste of resources at this point. Have you considered moving those Ottoman forces either to the Caucasus or to Serbia? It's about time for Greece and/or Romania to enter the war...
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:Does the AI get any bonuses or cheats for its side? Yep. By default, the AI gets detection bonuses so it can see farther through the fog of war than a player, and it gets a bonus to leader activation. These can be reduced or increased in the settings. I suspect it also gets (spoilers from Grey Hunter's posted save) undocumented bonuses to coordinating movement and MttG mechanics. For a player, only GHQs and connected armies can be set to move together and can assist each other from neighboring provinces. The Western Entente forces in Grey's save are even more poorly organized than his own (the only 2 armies connected to Kitchener's HQ are outside its command radius, and therefore should not be able to either MttG or synchronize movement, and there are no armies connected to the French GHQ at all), yet the Entente forces have certainly been moving and fighting in a way that suggests the opposite.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:What are the practical effects of Grey Hunter losing all these places in the Rhineland? Is it like Hearts of Iron where it basically cuts down on his manpower and resources? Cities generate conscripts, funds, and supplies, though I don't think there's a way in this game to see exactly how much each generates. In some AGEOD games, like RoP and RUS, there was a mapmode that told you exactly what each city gave you. So losing those cities will hurt Grey, but only in that he's no longer gaining the conscripts (not an issue unless you have money to put it all in the field anyway), money (not an issue as long as you're far enough ahead in National Morale to print more money via decision), or supply (not really ever an issue). It's not like there's a whole German steel industry concentrated in the Rhineland and dependent on Rhineland coal.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:You can right click on a city on the map to see the "buildings" in the province that produce material, and there are definitely Rheinland provinces that produce vital war supply that it's really tough to manage losing as the Centrals if you want to keep apace of artillery production, for example. Oh, cool. Normally I wouldn't even consider losing war supply all that big a deal because you can build all available medium artillery well before the end of 1915, but Grey might not have focused on artillery as much as I do. I still don't think Grey's in a terrible position. The Eastern Entente should be spiraling down in the next year, freeing up huge numbers of troops for the west.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
I'd bet both France and Britain have been taking the decisions to print money as often as possible, and spending that money to put more units in the field. No idea if Grey's been doing the same, and I don't know if I'd recommend it.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
.
|
Mukaikubo posted:The impression I get is that it would have saved a little programmer time and a lot of player time if, when a German player picked an ahistorical option, instead of the game it just came up with a "You Lose" screen with the flufftext of "You Moron. You Absolute Moron. Why Would You Do This? You MORON." And then uninstall itself. Grey's issue isn't the plan he (we) picked. It's the opacity of the game's mechanics. Me and Hannibalbarca have no issues with defending against France, but I've been playing AGEOD games since the first ACW ten years ago. Figuring out how best to game the command chains and supply systems takes time. The 30YW game doesn't even have some of those mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Mostly I'm confused as to how Grey hasn't been able to force a decisive result against the Russians. I don't want to backseat command or anything, but I think that maybe an actual grinding forward offensive to try to pin down and attrit the Russian units that you should theoretically outmatch might have been better than this whole "pocket all of Congress Poland" thing. From my backseat, I just don't think Grey has been giving his troops time to recover. In the savegame from late 1915, he had an Austrian 'army' that had a couple corps that each consisted of a couple artillery regiments- all the infantry had died, and badly needed replacing. If you're playing on historical attrition settings, that means parking the army on a depot and waiting many, many turns for replacement elements to move from the pool to your units. Grey's army stacks are hovering around 300 or 400 combat power, but they'd be three times that with full complements. This is a bad WWI game. You do not put your armies in constant contact with the enemy. You treat it like a seventeenth century war and only campaign in the summer, let your guys recuperate after each fight, and absolutely do not try to maintain a continuous front unless you are swimming in supply wagons.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
See how you've got two army corps there that have only artillery left? You need infantry replacements. Grey Hunter posted:Okay, something is going on here, all of the troops in this area were on defensive – and I checked. So why are they now attacking – we win, but that's not the point. Who has military control of the province? Your forces will automatically go to offensive stance when in hostile territory. Grey Hunter posted:I have no idea how they penetrated our lines this deeply. Because AGEOD doesn't simulate continuous frontlines. If your great big army has a low enough detection rating, the enemy could easily slip stacks through provinces you control. Usually you'll get a message saying you failed to engage, with a percentage success rate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
twig1919 posted:What might have helped this game would have been reducing the amount of supplies that troops can carry, but increasing the supply generation rate greatly. Also, by making supply attach to the regions (it seems like it is attached to the troops?). It seems like this game simply doesn't model that it is impossible to keep 2 million men in a tiny area supplied for sustained periods of time. When Grey turned on easy supplies, any unit in a province with a town was treated as being in supply, no matter what. By default, supplies only collect at towns with depots or harbors, and are then forwarded up to 3 provinces to the next depot or supply train. Any stack that you expect to be away from a depot for more than a couple turns needs a supply train in order to not evaporate. The supply system is actually pretty good, but it's been turned off.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
MANime in the sheets posted:Actually, *most* of the system is still on. As far as I can tell, all Easy Supply does is guarantee that a unit 'in a friendly structure' is fully supplied. They will still start eating supply when they move away, but any unit in that territory is supplied (I assume in addition to the supplies that would normally be produced there). I assume this does not impact munitions at all, but I haven't seen anything that says so either way. Isn't that what I said? I admit I don't knot the details of the system, but I don't think anybody really does. It'd be great if the game had some decent documentation for all these mechanics, but AGEOD is lax in that regard. MANime in the sheets posted:GH, I'm very interested in what you built when - not like a turn-by-turn description, but what did you focus on, did you try to distribute builds equally among the different countries, etc. From most of what I've seen on the AGEOD forums, 'veteran' players focus German units over AH/Ottoman, mountain units over regular infantry, and medium artillery over all else (assuming you have enough infantry to put in front of them) because pound-for-pound they're the most effective combat unit in the game. Heavy artillery is slow and very expensive, light artillery is weak, and most divisions have an organic battalion of it anyway. The 'optimal' corps seems to be a good general, a mountain division, an infantry division (consisting of two infantry regiments and a light artillery battery), and two medium artillery units. Since mountain divisions are in very limited supply, they usually just get put in the armies while each corps gets a second infantry division. Mountain divisions provide their movement bonus to an entire stack, so it's a waste to have more than one in a single army. On top of doing more damage per hit and firing at longer ranges than light artillery, medium artillery has a rate of fire way higher. It makes no sense given the terminology, but I guess AGEOD couldn't figure out a better way to model medium artillery's superiority? In my last CP game I built all the available medium artillery by the end of 1915 and had to start using one medium and one light in each corps.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
Mans posted:It's also amazing how closing the Suez Canal isn't a major disaster for the allies, but welp. I haven't double checked since the game came out, but it used to take longer to get to Suez via Gibraltar than it did going the "long" way around Africa. Due to the way the game measures distances and travel time between sea zones, the canal was more useful as a shortcut into the Med than through it to India.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 13:49
|
|