|
Central Powers. I suspect you'll get a much better LP from the middle fighting out, plus we will get to see all fronts in action.
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
farraday posted:You just played Germany, it's time for the Russian Response. He just played Austria.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Kavak posted:1C, let's see the British justify invasion this time! Uh, pretty sure option 1 is going to bring the Brits into the fight every time - Serbia/Russia had almost nothing to do with it. I vote 2C to keep the Brits out of it, and start propping up AH early!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Current Scores - Tiebreaker should be which of B or C has the most votes from people that also voted 2 imo Corsair Pool Boy fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
I'm getting the impression that Austria might not have been the best country for Germany to tie itself to....
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
I'd vote we wait on Turkey for now, just because everything the CP brings in is going to siphon German troops away as stiffener. We just lost a battle in Metz, and the Russians aren't hurt substantially yet. Bulgaria doesn't hurt us at all though, will probably help bring a faster end to Serbia.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
"The Italians never lose a war. No matter what happens, they always end up on the winning side."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Gas to attack Metz for sure. Even if it doesn't work, you have over a million Russians in a pocket - pretty soon forces will be freed up to roll back the West, but there's no reason to let them stay in the Fatherland for a second longer than absolutely necessary! What can you tell of the relative strengths between what the Turks can put in Palestine vs. what the Brits have or can easily redeploy to Egypt?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
thetruegentleman posted:There probably won't be a better chance to use the gas, and the Ottomans simply don't have the logistical ability to fight a multi-front war. But how can we know that if they don't try!?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Good lord man, AH is going to lose all their NM by 1916 at the rate you're taking casualties.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Yeah, AH seems to believe that Pyrrhic victory is the only victory worth having Are you suggesting that an AGEOD game may have mistakes in it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 22:34
|
|
how are they so bad?
|
A White Guy posted:Ironically, AH generals in this game are given okayish stats because their generals irl were so uniquely terrible. End of 1918, I believe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Pershing posted:Im not -hoping- for it, just wondering what's there. There's not going to be anything as far as prepared defenses go, but attackers do take a malus across a river, and it takes longer for them to enter the zone, as well. That said, I think the guys above nailed it. If it comes to that, Germany is probably finished - it'd probably be worse for Germany than it was for France losing all the territory Germany occupied during the actual war. e: I started playing this shortly after the LP started, and from all the forums posts I've read about the game, the W. Entente doomstack is an ongoing problem. It's probably made much worse when you don't invade Belgium and take a lot of French resources/manpower, but the AI definitely has a predilection for one massive army. Corsair Pool Boy fucked around with this message at 00:29 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well it certainly appears to be working, I wouldn't call it an AI issue. I've seen the AI start to try the same thing around Metz a few times in my game. I'm still in 1914 and the Schliffen plan is petering out, but I'm keeping enough pressure in front of Paris that it keeps getting broken up. I assume that's the answer to it - attack around it or in a more vital sector - it's a lot closer to Paris from Lille than it is Berlin from Metz.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
They can still sail around Africa. And the Boer war isn't a huge thing, it just forces you to tie down a few units in S. Africa until you clean it up.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
There is a mechanic in the game for 'traffic', moving too much through a single zone. It's an optional setting that defaults to off, however. And I'm not sure if it models attrition or just slows down movement (and possibly cohesion) from moving too many dudes through a territory. Also yeah after taking a few territories, Kitchener probably split off some corps to cover the flanks of his salient.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Does this game even model resource costs? Like beyond just a money cost for "maintenance" - the resources needed to move a million men 200 miles in a month are staggering. You've got a few types of 'resources' in this game, they're all produced organically from your provinces. I'm not at home to look at the game, but from memory, you have: Money: Used in small quantities to produce units, used in greater quantities to play option cards, diplomatic events, recruit more generals, play decisions. Rail: Each power gets a certain amount of rail points every turn to be used to move units and supply. Cannot be saved. Manpower: Used for replacements and reinforcements, usually involved in some measure with.... War supplies: Used for replacements and reinforcements, as well as some decisions and events, and supply. Ammunition: Consumed primarily by naval units and heavy artillery. Most games on this scale do not do a good job of modelling the logistics. This one leaves it abstracted for the most part, but you'll definitely suffer when you run out of resources. When you run out of money, all you can really do is use your existing units and print more money. You can use up your whole rail pool getting units where you want them (almost necessary in the first couple turns), but it will hurt your troops that are moving and fighting; they'll start to run out of supplies, which will impact their cohesion and, eventually, unit strength. I imagine that as you flush out your armies to historical size in 1916 and 1917, you start to run out of the other resources. I'm still in 1914, so I haven't seen too much of that - you do almost have to print money on the first turn or two, or you will be extremely limited in what you can do outside of moving your existing armies. twig1919 posted:Seconding this. I have no idea what the hell is going on. About the only thing I learned from this lp is that somehow letting as many Russians into prussia then popping two events on them in a row is the optimal way to crush the The Russian and Austrian units are v. bad compared to the Germans, the one-time Hoffman event makes all Russian units in Germany totally immobile and way worse for one turn, as it's really the only way to re-create something like Tannenberg. The other 'event' you're speaking of is just the Hindenberg/Ludendorf event, which happens automatically if Russia enters Germany (IMO should fire off regardless), giving Germany a GHQ in the east. The Russian army is really big and hard to keep in a pocket, as this LP is showing. In my game, I did the traditional start for everyone (Schliffen Plan, etc.), and had to pull back pretty far with the Austrians to avoid getting utterly steamrolled. I'm about 6 turns in, and still haven't managed to clear the Russians totally out of E. Prussia, either. Without those extra German armies in the East from this game's setup, there are a lot of Russian armies with nothing to do but bull-rush Austria. You have to play D over there for the most part until you can build up a few more armies and start grinding away. The game fairly well models the logistical difficulties, especially in Poland/Russia: it takes forever to march units places, and you need a pretty considerable advantage with the attackers to win battles. Thotimx posted:I've never played this one, but in the other AGEOD games I have seen there is a more detailed breakdown of what happened per unit and combat 'round'. It still can be tough to piece things together, at least at first, but it definitely gives you a better picture. Supply, combat effects, cowardice in melee combat, initial engagement range, retreat attempts, terrain effects, and other things can be found there. You can get a (somewhat) better picture from the battles by going turn-to-turn, but even that is fairly abstractly handled. The strength of each side, cohesion, unit composition all figure into it, and there's a 'frontage' model in all AGEOD games, where each terrain only lets X units actually participate in each round of combat (modified sometimes by events or leaders). Overall though I haven't been really surprised by the outcome of any battles yet. There is an option in the game (default is off) to include attrition/strength loss while moving units if you want ultra-realism, but that may not mesh very well with the AI. e: Grey Hunter, this is your LP. If you want me to butt out, just say the word. I am enjoying watching the Russia-first game play out, it actually convinced me to try historical for my first go-round. Corsair Pool Boy fucked around with this message at 06:21 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Fellbat posted:Ugggh I was one of the peeps who pushed for the offensive against the Russians, my sincerest apologies. Is there any hijinks that could help turn this around? Hope you can salvage this. Don't feel bad, I was too. I dont think anyone voting realized how much stronger France gets withoutthe Schliffen Plan and related territorial losses. My next game I'm going to try the same thing. It's really shocking how bad the AH units really are. I just noticed the other night that the nationality of all units is tracked, and you take combat penalties for a mix of units and commanders. Austrian, Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Italian, Bosnian, Polish.... I'm trying in my game right now to unravel it a bit, and there are some commanders that ignore various nationalities, but it's really a mess. I assume the Russians have a similar problem, but on a much smaller scale.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Schlieffen petered out in Belgium (no idea how to get it to its historical point) You have to be crazy aggressive, using the offensive and assault postures and telling 1st, 2nd, and 3rd armies to move through multiple territories every turn. Ive been using just cavalry and a corps or two to screen my right flank. I had 1st army assault Brussels, 2nd on Liege, and 3rd on... not sure, not at my pc....Namur?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 From reading the AGEOD forums, it sounds like this is because the AI doesn't put sufficient emphasis on maintaining 25 elements of shipping in the Atlantic Shipping Box. That's the primary source of UK losing alignment. They had to adjust the alignment loss to a max of 1% per turn to compensate. 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. The numbers you see are *not* the actual numbers the allies have if you're playing with fog of war on, like GH is. It's an estimate of the enemy strength, and is necessarily inaccurate, usually overestimating strength (because it doesn't take into account command penalty and cohesion with perfect accuracy). HannibalBarca posted: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). Ugh, is that the hex-game? I played as Entente, and managed to hold the line with Russia and begin advancing (straight line from German Danzig down SE through the Carpathians) in 1915, while holding in Belgium a line at the Belgian/French border and immediately started pressing East. I don't recommend that at all. e: there is a 'Total Realism Mod' for TEAW written by one of the guys on the dev team. Haven't tried it out yet; I know it will have more scripted events and things like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
GH, can you give a link to a few save games? I just want the .hst files from the last few turns so I can load up and look at all three sides. I won't post anything from the Entente if you don't want, but I'd really like to see the supply and manpower situation on the other side of NML.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:https://www.dropbox.com/s/222t980wvnkha8g/1%20-%20The%20Great%20War.hst?dl=0 Mum's the word. Thanks! All I'll say about the saves is that it's motivated me to restart my game with easy-supply off. It's retarded for any side to be completely cut off from everything but in supply because they control the structure in the space they're in. This is probably a significant factor in why you weren't able to hold that pocket in Poland closed the first time. That and wow the AI gives me a headache, they have units scattered all over the place with little rhyme or reason to how they're assembled. Like, in one place you'll see 3 stacks - one way over the command limit and unused generals, the other two with one division each. All three moving to the same destination.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
dublish posted:Helpful Lol, I didn't even fire up the German side. yeah, if you want effective armies they need to be attached to one of your HQs - they always get double the CP (technically independent units' CP are half), so they can form bigger stacks no matter where on the board they are. The best example of this is to fire up the first turn of a 'historical' game as Central Powers. Look at the 7th and 6th armies (and 5th, I think), you'll see that they all only have 24 or 25 CP. Look at the 1st-4th armies, and they all are around 48. You can attach the 5th army on the first turn, as it's within range of the Moltke HQ. When you do so, the command limit immediately doubles. If they're in 'command range' of the GHQ (think of GHQ as the front commander, Germany gets two, one for W. one for E. fronts. Everyone else only gets one). If you want to transfer an army from W. to E. it's a good idea to un-attach them from one GHQ and attach them to the other. You can find the 'command range' by selecting the GHQ and holding down shift, it puts a grey overlay around what is in range. If you have a three-star general, there's almost no downside to making them an army commander. They can't form a corps of their own, but they can have way more units in their stack, and all corps in their territory or adjacent will MTSG (March To the Sound of Guns) to support each other. This is incredibly important on the W. Front - as the front expands, you simply don't have as many troops to put in each region, but an army attached to that front's GHQ will MTSG in support of adjacent corps and armies, letting you get way more troops in to help defend after the first round of combat. You can switch corps in and out of army stacks at will as well. And units in corps with armies benefit from the combat stats of both the army and corps commander when they're in the same region or after they MTSG into the same combat (because MTSG temporarily stacks them in the same region as the army). For example, with a 16 region W. Front, I want 7 or 8 armies. In spots where it's more likely for the W. Entente to mount a big push, I'll put two armies adjacent to each other, but for the most part my regions will alternate: a couple corps/army/a couple corps/army. In all regions, both adjacent regions will MTSG to support the attacked region, letting me defend with far more troops than I'd be able to with just one region. MTSG is not perfect, and sometimes independent units will MTSG to support other independent units, but it's much more likely if they're all in the same chain of command. One more thing: Corps are always 'independent', in that you do not directly add them to the chain of command. When they're in the same or an adjacent region as an army, the game does that automatically to reduce micromanagement. When they move somewhere else, they'll either attach to the new adjacent army or, if there isn't one, just act as independent units. Took me a while (and a lot of ageod forums reading) to really understand how all that works. This also means that you can concentrate your heavy/super heavy artillery in the armies, and get the most out of them. Corsair Pool Boy fucked around with this message at 02:44 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
dublish posted: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. I haven't tested it yet, but I read somewhere on the AGEOD forums that patch 1.3 did away with the limit on how many armies could be attached to a single GHQ. And yeah, you can put any nationality's armies under any other's leader, but you do take combat penalties for each nationality above one. There are a few commanders that can command many nationalities without penalty, they have a little flag icon as an attribute saying so. von Mackensen is one for Germany, he starts the game in Koenigsberg.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
One thing that I can't find (or find anything about) is the seaplanes. Germany starts with two, Austria starts with one. You can't fly naval search missions with them; what do you do? Do you just use them with ground units for their (inferior) land spotting? They don't attach with fleets to do spotting or whatever that way...
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Looking a heck of a lot better than it did a few months ago, though still not great in the west. Be aware, the UK will not actually drop out of the Entente in a single-player game, so don't start banking on that. I vote you keep pressing the Russians as hard as you can - the sooner you clean up Poland, the sooner you can move some troops west. Out of curiosity, how close is Romania to entering the fray? That could unhinge everything you've got going for you in the east. As the game goes on, Russia will get weaker and weaker - their reinforcements are abhorrently expensive compared to everyone else, and they don't have nearly as much war supply or cash to pay for them. The casualty ratio you have going against them is even better than it looks on paper. HannibalBarca posted:Conrad can do alright. It's Potiorek that will manage to take 60,000 casualties in a one-day skirmish against a Serbian division. Yeah, Conrad is actually pretty decent, especially given the material he has to work with. I've seen Potiorek win exactly one battle against the Serbs. They were attacking across a river and he took 4-1 losses defending his entrenched position.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Yeah, I could win any one front easily, but then I'd lose ground on the others! Yes, try for that. Warsaw and Lodz crank out a lot of supply, taking one or both of them will help a ton in reducing that pocket.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Yeah the Russians are at 78, not 75. IIRC, once they do hit 75, then they start losing NM every turn that it's not above 75, and as you can imagine this rapidly death-spirals into the Revolution. It's not instant, though, and they can theoretically pull out of the tailspin by powering through and somehow getting their NM back above 75 to stop the bleeding. Yup. It could also collapse really fast, considering they're that low before Lodz or Warsaw have even been assaulted, much less Riga or things actually.... y'know, inside Russia.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Grey, once you get that pocket liquidated in Poland, what's your plan? IMO you need to move a corps or two of Germans to the Balkans and Italian border ASAP - they should be able to help clean those up right away, and you should be able to spare some more troops to go West as well. Maybe even before the pocket is liquidated. Knocking out Serbia and bringing Italy under control should free up a goodly amount of AH units as well. I think Dublish has a point - it's entirely possible that Romania could come in, and that might unhinge the Austrians altogether if they don't have Serbia cleaned up first.dublish posted: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... Regarding Egypt - if he doesn't clear the UK out, the AI will have a new army there in short order anyway, and those troops currently trying to take Cairo will be rushed back to the Sinai to fight a retreat into Palestine. It sucks, but i don't think abandoning Egypt at this point is a viable option. Free up some low quality Turkish troops now but be in a far worse position in 6 months or so.....
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted: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. Probably not much, at least not yet. They might be getting pretty low on ammo for medium/heavy artillery, but there's not going to be much more than that until Warsaw and/or Lodz get taken or at least sieged. General supply (food, small-arms ammo, tents, etc.) is a bit too plentiful in the game, IMO. Combine that with 'Easy Supply' being on, all the Russian units in cities are probably doing just fine. When the ammo dries up though, that could have a pretty big impact when the Russians stand and fight, and the Russians generally have ammo problems even when multiple armies aren't cut off in Poland.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Yeah, looks like this is about over. Your NM is tanking, and the W. Entente's armies are still valued higher than all of yours together. And to be honest, when you free up Germans in Poland, some need to go fix the Balkans at this point. How do you look resources wise? War Materials, Manpower, Ammunition are what I'm wondering about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Same. I kind of tuned out after it became clear the game was not working as advertised. Completely ignoring France was boneheaded, but the pockets we made not being closeable, every battle being a mobile one, etc. In fairness, those 'pockets' were encirclements many hundreds of km across, and were not being held because the troops between the two pockets got hammered and were tired after trying to hold it for weeks (and a lot of them were Austrian). Troops sneaking through your lines doesn't really happen in static fronts - I've not seen it once in France when the lines are relatively stable. I'm still trying to figure out the combat postures and battles, but I suspect it does have something to do with MTSG. IMO the biggest problem is the giant kill stacks the AI creates. I still think you can beat that (assuming relatively equal strengths, which we never really saw in the GH game) by hitting the flanks - if they've got 2.5 million dudes in one territory, everything else is gonna be thin (this is not an ideal solution in a WWI game, for obvious reasons). The problem is, GH was frequently outmatched by the W. Allies alone AND half of what he did have was not in front of France. It's something I've been noticing in my games too - I think one of the main ways to 'fix' the engine to make it playable is to turn off fog of war. At least that way you can see where the blob is, and move your own blob in front of it. I suspect the game would work quite well in multi-player; you just need a gentleman's agreement to not do wildly ahistorical things like 2 million man steamrollers in a single territory or try to sneak several divisions through a static front. TL;DR: the problem is that the engine just can't model WWI properly. e: If someone is familiar with modding AGEOD games at all, I'm wondering if it's possible to increase the entrenchment bonus by 50% or something like that across the board.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
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. Oh trust me, the game does *not* need to increase supply production. They could probably halve it without a noticeable effect. And troops do run out of supply fairly quickly - if you don't send a wagon along (which slows the entire stack down), a bog-standard corps will run out of supplies and start foraging in 4-6 weeks (2-3 turns), which will start to wreck their cohesion and manpower. Any faster than that and it would be almost impossible to keep any units in the field in supply. Supply wagons carry along extra supplies to delay this, but they're expensive, slow, and when they're empty, you have to move them back to a depot and wait for them to fill up - they'll fill up faster and divert less supply to your troops the further back you can send the wagons. In W. Europe for example, where there's depots and cities and railroads all over the place you can generally move a few territories ahead without worrying about supply too much, but everywhere else it's definitely a factor. You have plenty of supply, but it just piles up at home. dublish posted: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. 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. Munitions is the major bottleneck, much moreso than general 'supply'. The Entente in particular will run out of ammo and needs to build extra munitions factories from the start of the game. It's only consumed by ships and medium/heavy/super heavy artillery, but each unit only carries enough ammo for a couple battles, and consumes more if you use the 'Bombard Forts' decision or use a battle plan like 'Long Preparation Bombardment' - and you don't have much production for it at start. They also have units like supply wagons that can carry lots of extra ammo, but those units are also slow, almost prohibitively expensive to build more of, and unless you can rail them back to cities deep in your home (as Germany I try to rail empty ones back to places like Stettin, Hamburg, and Munich when possible), they can take several turns to replenish. The more battles you fight, the more artillery you have, etc. the faster you run out of munitions. Constantly grinding away at units in an encirclement should deplete their ammo, at which point they can only use light artillery and inf/cav in battle - one medium artillery piece is more than 4x as effective as one light artillery piece - and those battles should start tilting more and more in your favor as you grind out the pocket. I'm sort of OK with GH not being able to hold that Poland-sized pocket closed in 1915 - Russia hadn't been worn down by years of war yet, and it's not WWII. Liquidating that pocket SHOULD take a year if you can keep it closed. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
dublish posted: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. quote: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. Yeah, I think by default Germany can only have 10 mountain total, and they start with one that activates on turn 3 or 4. There *is* an option to turn off force pool limits, so theoretically you could have one for every corps...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:49
|
|