|
Central Powers. TO PARIS AND BEYOND! I think in these games the CP are tougher to play - you have to fight on two fronts, you have one decent power and your allies at best are generally weak and you have few options so must be strategically choosy.
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
In fairness, the underdogs aren't the Russians on the Eastern Front, it's the Austro-Hungarians! Who can't beat anyone without help thats not the Italians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Voting for Germany-2. The advantages this gives us are a much slower shift of Britain into the Entente, time to bleed out the French in the West, and to ensure over that Austria-Hungary has proper support in dealing with Russia. While it's highly unlikely we can take Russia, we can smash the Russian bear hard and help keep the Austrian Armies intact, while giving our enemies minimal political fodder to chase us with. while the English are virtually guaranteed to come to the aid of the French, doing so without a legitimate causus belli will lead to a great deal of public unrest, which hopefully will slow them. And on the defense we can hold the Ardennes and Alsace-Lorraine virtually forever - the ground is narrow, easily fortified, and it can be a kill zone for heavy artillery and is easily entrenched. And if the French think of going through Belgium, the Belgians will go to war on our side, the British will eat crow, and we can easily redeploy armies. We will not take out the French early, but we can bleed them forever on the defense and then when they have blunted their edge on our forts, we can pulverize them and bleed them white. And voting for Austria-3. The Serbians assassinated our beloved Archduke, we shall not stand for this. We should hold in the East and bring the majority of our armies to bear against Serbia. Thus they will feel the revenge for thier act of perfidity and we can hold against the Russians. THen when Serbia has been neutralized we can concentrate all of our armies on one front rather than having to split. Serbia is a festering sore, it can be dealt with quickly. We should mobilize against Russia for defnse in depth, break the back of Serbia and seize thier entire country, then shift our arms to the Russians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:
Maybe they could misread thier maps and invade Bulgaria and/or Romania instead?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Honestly getting the Turks in early gets the English aggressive more than likely and the only place that the Turks could really move towards would be Russia (through the mountains of the Causcus, which won't help much) and possibly Serbia, where we're on defensive anyways. Early on their help would likely be just peripheral, risk drawing in an enemy we wanted to try and avoid doing so and they only have narrow regions they can go for otherwise. Unless callig them in early lets us buildup thier army a bit more or get them better equipment via earlier commitment they only would seem to be able to commit to ancilliary fronts and not significantl. OTOH, 500 is not exactly a lot and if we get bonus from having them commit early or act as a strategic reserve, there's that. Is that likely to otherwise irritate the British diplomatically? But, otherwise, keep digging in France, digging deep! And get fortified along defensive terrain along the Serbian border and let the Serbs bleed white attacking.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
In fairness the casualty ratios of the opening battles seem to have gone way more beneficially towards A-H than their first hsitorical invasion of Serbia went. OTOH, that was infantry fighting against cavalry probing rather than a straight up infantry on the attack. Hopefully as A-H mans a defensive line and digs in the Serbs can bleed themselves out - the Astrians have a much bigger pool of replacements than the Serbs do, so even that ratio is advantageous in the long term.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
If Grey thinks sending the two cruisers to Turkey is useful early on, same with the Funds go for it, we just tend not to get much from them coming to our side early - they share almost no borders I'm aware of with French colonies, we don't want to have them attack through the mounains into Russia, they have a very limited border they share with Serbia that we can use to put troops into if any and it will take them time to get there even if they commit. And it's likely to drive other nations to the Entente. The Turkish Army also is heavily infantry based and ot particularly well equipped so they don't bring a lot of firepower in historically. Also Britain can maybe mobilize a Corps in 1914 - a highly elite and experienced COrps but still just a Corps. They're dangerous by their Navy and the fact they can blockade the North Sea pretty much in perpetuity (well that and guarantee lots and lots of war loans and production). The longer they're not direclty supporting the Entente, the better. That means the longer (if modeled in the game, at least) that overseas markets are accessible to the Central Powers as they're not under blockade and can buy up war materials, the lower diplomatic support for the Entente (Britain has lots of diplomatic influence via controlling like a quarter of the planet they can call in) and the less brutalized the German Navy is gonna be. We want to try and keep them from diretly committing for as lon gas possible - we're not goin to keep them out, but they offer very little directly military early in the war so we have little to gain otherwise from pushing them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
On the upside, we don't seemt o have any reason to use our U-Boats and risk getting the Americans in the war. Also, OW. Nice to see Eastern front is being Eastern front. Is it posible to dig in really deep along the Serbian border in defensiev positions and just sorta pray? Also nice to see our intent on not pressuring the British and in turn letting the Ottomans slowly slide our way was for naught! Question, if the British base troops in Belgium do the Belgians declare war on them or not and join the CP? Just thinking that would be hilarious and we'd get Channel ports for free and fortresses and guarantee our northern flank. Otherwise, the BEF isn't going to be a huge threat /unless/ the Brits get military access through Belgium which hte Belgians weren't keen on granting them if they're going to infantry charge our forts. Keep digging!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
We ca look at this as an upside - we now have no remote reasoning to invest money and resources over into the Navy! Which leaves us lots more to use for other stuff. And less chance of drawing out the Americans! Also suppose it will be amusing if the British try and invade Belgium or get military access or in turn we can diplomatically influence Belgium towards us now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Wow, multiple battles with the Serbs for nearly 1:1 or 1:2 losses! The Austrians fared much better here than in reality!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Okay, going to vote for getting chummy with Bulgaria and Turkey - both are relatively cheap as far as EP's go and hopefully help us get both on better terms quickly. Italy is of little use other than having a fleet in the Mediterranean which could be used to contest the area - but we're clearly not going to be able to remotely get the Geran fleet down there anytime soon, the Austro-Hungarian navy is as bad as the Romanian one (hint: Romania does not have sea access) so there's nothing much. The Italian army is trash, southern Austria-Hungary is easily defensible, and even if the Italians did join us attacking through the alps into Southern France doesn't get us much. Slowly advancing infantry through the alps to get stopped by a few French divisions really doesn't get us much. The Third Boer War is good - it gives us another threat in Africa and ties down more British troops. It's relatively cheap with EP's - the Brits don't have much of an army at the moment, and with luck it can bog down lots of Entente forces in Africa. We have relatively little to lose, and the British are already at war with us. Particularly early on anything that hopefully ties down British regulars spreads them out more and is a benefit to us. Research I vote for prioritizing Infantry research and artillery research. Our U-Boats are dead, they are a sink at best and not going to be useful wtihout a major naval effort to rebuild the fleet. Most casualties come from heavy artillery in war, so the better we strengthen our's and our infantry the better we can do on the defensive. Imagine our fortresses in Alsace-Lorraine backed by even heavier cannons.. For airplanes, Fokker seems way more cost effective - we can do 250 'Currency' and 5 engagement points for 40 Research or pay 5 EP's to get 75. that seems most efficient and gives us some early bonus in the air if we need it. So, presuming we can take multiple diplomatic options, unless there are major negatives yes to getting chummy with the Ottomans and Bulgaria, yes to the Boer funding unless there's something big about it I'm missing that hits us hard, engage Fokker if needed, focus research on artillery and infantry. --- Presuming that Bulgaria and the Ottomans can be brought into the war handily, don't bother with attacking into Russia unless their lines are empty - attacking through the Causcus is a butcher's bill but it's nice to give the Russians another front. The Ottomans can hopefully go through as much of the Middle East as possible and force the British to divert lots of resources down there - they only have a couple of Corps in early 1915, and if they have to send more down to South Africa all the better. Threatening the Suez is a pipe dream, but it's another front for them and the French. The Bulgarians can act as a general reserve if needed - they can be second line troops and help reinforce the Serbian border and when weather gets better and hopefully the Serbs have bled more on the border they can help counterattack and invade. wedgekree fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
In complete fairness to Germany Italy covered their southern flank, was an adversary that helped tie down British troops and the Royal Navy extensively in the Mediterranean, and Mussolini was one of the few people willing to early on throw Hitler diplomatic support. Thier army was atrociously lead but their soldiers were competent and thier Navy at least contested the Med for a long time. Italy was a joke in WW2, everyone agrees, but Germany needed allies in Europe beyond bit player Eastern European dictatorships, and Italy was it. So better something than nothing! But yes, they didn'te xactly give much beyond making the British have another theatre to have to fight through.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Gas the British and use the Ottomans to threaten the British. Really, attacking the Russians with the Ottoman gets nothing - they can retreat a long ways through the Causcus and the Ottomans have a relatively low powered army. If they can punch through the MIddle East they can cause a lot more damage than they can chasing the Russians through the mountains. If the Russians have no forces in the area then yb all means advance, but otherwise just screen the area to make sure they don't get attacked through the region.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Well, they've not lost huge areas of land - including 80% of their iron mines. Ow. Point on that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Ow, those losses in the West are brutal. Good luck with the Bulgarians - the sooner you can pinch off the Serbian end of things, the sooner the Austrians can put all their army to the East, then you can use the Bulgarians to hopefully screen AH against Italy and the Balkans in case the Entente pushes the Romanians or Greeks into thier camp. Otherwise, would suggest using them as second line troops and a strategic reserve after.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Aren't the Bulgarians like way better than the Austrians? Probably, but the Austro-Hungarian army is a lot bigger than the Bulgarian one so (in my mind) having a smaller army vulnerable to attrition but higher quality as a genreal strategic reserve to plug holes seems better, presuming I'm actually right at all as opposed to completely wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
I guess I'm sort of confused as to how logistically they could put so many men into the field in so narrow an area - you can't have a million+ soldiers by the logistics of an area in such a narrow front without massive issues from the men basically tripping over one another. They'd be running out of supplies and have massive coordination issues along such a narrow front particularly.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Yeah, it's also sort of weird as to how it's giving out info. I'm not exactly sure as to how an army can lose 15% of it's active combat personnel in a turn (about two weeks) listed as casualties (when Kichener is attacking with a million men) over a single province and remain cohesive. I think protracted combat operatios of him having a million men (which attrition seems to have ground down to like a third of that which seems even freakier mind) for several months on end over a narrow frontage would realistically even with unit rotation have them completely disitegrating. Then there's the logistical issues, the command and control issues.. That seems really wonky of the game engine to not have any real concept of 'frontage' when it's putting units in, even with command. Attrition seems kinda meanigless or unit cohesion when Kitchener has a million men attacking for three months constantly over about 60 kilometers and using 40% of them as casualties. o.O
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Eep! Can you do a holding actio in the Rhine long enough to slow them and otherwise send troops?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
That's.. Actually not a bad end to the year. You've taken back most of the land you've lost to the Entente, are moving well into Serbia and Greece and are bleeding the Entente in the East and the West White while doing so. Use the winter to rest, reorganize, get more generals and bring your armies back up to full strength and dig in over the places you still control to make sure that the Entente has a bloody time come thier spring offensives.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:
In fairness if anyoe would order defensive positions made out of corpses of his own men, Kitchener would. Also I think that Grey's strategic position is pretty reasonable - he's lost some territory in Germany and Austria-Hungary, but it's being cleared out. He's in a reasonable position to clear out isolated enemy bits behind his lines come campaign season, has some time to build up his forces again and fortify for the next season Entente's push and build up more defensive positions. Maybe he can take Cairo and then sweep through Kuwait and Egypt to secure the Middle East and then have Turkey dig in and help upsh through Serbia if it hasn't fallen or however he decides to tactically go about it. Also I don't think I've ever /seen/ Conrad winning an easy victory with lopsided casualties.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 08:25
|
|
No doubt what finally turned the battle to the Entente's favor was when your men could no longer manage to scale the wall of dead Frenchmen.
|
Bloody start to the winter. You still have a secure foothold on the Canal for now even if the Brits are counter-attacking? At the very least a bunch of troops there are ones that aren't on the Western Front. How long it gonna take to redeploy the troops from Gallipoli?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
... Ow, so much for using the winter to replenish reserves.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Yay! So it's possible if you bust hard into Russia you can get them to revolt or otherwise startoff the Russian Revolution?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Yeah, the game's very weird in the fat that it's early winter and Russia seems on the edge of having the Russian Revolution fire off from dropping morale, Britain is in an even worse state, and yet France is managing multiple millios of troops hitting deep into German territory with seemingly no issues with casualties or morale.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Just ow. This engine does not have what it takes for huge scale warfare. Also OW
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
... 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
|
|
|
Ow, this is getting messy. Think you can turn it around Grey or nearing the edge?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
It.. Seems strange how the Entente are able to field so many soldiers so widely. They have a couple million inside German proper, endless bits in Russia, and are even maintaining a few hundred thousand in Egypt. Even in areas with no supply or cut off forces seem not to have any real issues with organization, morale, or ammo.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
If the game was on razor edge or fun mechanics-wise or really cool, I'd say go for it. But this one is weird, messed up, has real weird mechanicsinherent to it and doesn't seem to simulate WW1 very well. So go ahead and drop it - otehr fun stuff comes first.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Yeah, this game has some issues that folks have brought up - not that ninja British divisions aren't awesome, mind.. But, logistics, the fact the AI can cluster a couple million men over about a 20 mile area in an attack, the.. Let us call it oddities of how it handles logistics.. The fact England can't be made to surrender.. The game's engine is focused on medieval warfare and Renaissance era gunpowder. It seems not to have handled scaling up to industrial level warfare particularly effectively going off the back and forth. Someone put it best, earlier in the thread, forgive me for not remembering who; but the fact the game handles WW1 warfare as mobile stands against it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 09:05
|
|