AGEOD Forums

1alexey

Having my best Central Powers game yet. I picked the Moltke option and am steam rolling Russia. It's early in 1916 and most of the VP locations have been taken or are being besieged. Problem is with me ignoring the west I now have a huge pocket of French forces battering their way into western Germ...

1alexey

Can`t you create a more sophisticated path using shift?
Turn is 14 days, might as well use them to go slightly around, not directly.

1alexey

In my game, I have Riga and Warsaw, am I diminishing Russian manpower growth already by a lesser amount, say 1/4 or 1/5, by holding just the two cities or does this only go into effect after taking all three cities? Is there any way of knowing the affects of taking a Russian city? I know ctrl + cli...

1alexey

The only problem with Russia first is its size. They can prolong the conflict with hit and run tactics, depot burning, retreating and rail smashing. At the same time, while you are chasing ghosts that refuse combat in the East, the French and Brits are sure to do something to relieve their ally. Yo...

1alexey

You plan is kind of bad. It could work, but it is arguably the hardest thing to pull off, there are easier ways. If you plan to defend in the west, German border is the natural choice there. Not only will it delay GB entry for a turn or two, allowing you to get your border armies reinforced under lo...

1alexey

Look at the stance icons in the first battle. You are the attacker (orange) and the Serbs are set to defend (blue). You need 50%+ military control in a region otherwise your troops will auto-switch to attack mode as the game automatically tries to gain more MC. The only way to avoid that happening ...

1alexey

BBBD316 wrote:Are they the original troops on this front (Serbian A-H troops)?

I believe that they get an additional penalty as they basically refuse to fight their brethren.

Yes, they are, new divisions only formed 1 turn ago, and I didn`t get them formed up with leaders and to to front lines yet.

1alexey

From your first screenshot it looks like you are attacking across a river with unactivated troops led by a bad general against more experienced, entrenched troops led by a great general. Your entrenchment doesn't matter if you are the one attacking. I`m pretty sure the SS and my explanations makes ...

1alexey

My difficulty is Lieutenant. Playing before, on Sergeant, I didn`t had troubles to break even or even trade favorably on casualties with Sebs. Here is how my troops look like a turn before, my stack also has level 1 entrenchment: http://s16.postimg.org/j833fxzqd/Before_Putnick.jpg And here is what h...

1alexey

What I discovered is that a judicious blend of newly arriving division purchased pre-play with a bunch of cheap militia and one purchase of leaders = sufficient corps to hold a continuous front. Supply units take a bit of creativity, but is totally possible to get a rough front in place which then ...

1alexey

IMO, TEAW suffers a lot from engine mismatch. It is still a fun game but WW1 would be far better handled on engine like in HOI3 or even upcoming HOI4, where a single "turn", or rather tick of the clock, lasts one hour as opposed to 14 days, there is far less abstract economy and production, and such...

1alexey

Also, in AGEOD games, players are terrified of fighting with half-strength troops due to the NM/VP hit you take from destroyed elements. So players top off their infantry formations to avoid this. Hence fewer but stronger divisions. Don`t even let me started on how irritating it is to have to remem...

1alexey

James D Burns wrote:Penicillin wasn't invented until the late 20s, medical sciences made huge advances between the two wars. So the ability to fight infections made all the differences in survival rates for the wounded.

Jim

Ok, that makes sense.

1alexey

Read the intro text, the 251 divisions were standing divisions. Unlike WW2 units were not surrounded and destroyed by mobile forces. Depleted units were rotated out of the lines for rebuilding as the individual histories clearly show. Read the PDF. Here's some casualty figures, 5 million killed and...

1alexey

The PDF gives a very detailed history of all 251 German divisions that participated in the war. You only fielded 103 German divisions. Even if you add all other CP divisions to your in-game total, you are still short almost 50 divisions just for the German army. Now if you factor in all the million...

1alexey

It's very a-historical in size. Jim Convert it into in-Game OOB, would you? Keep in mind I still have enough manpower to field extra 177 infantry divisions (8500/48), but I preferred to max out my tanks, and planes, and artillery, and not wrecking my economy with printing state funds, that I only u...

1alexey

Just to clarify, in 1918, I have: 86 German infantry divisions, with cavalry and reservists adds up to 103 divisions. 70 Austrian carious infantry and cavalry divisions 25 Ottoman various infantry and cavalry divs. 18 Bulgarian divs. Adding in all the artillery and other units, the army doesn`t seem...

1alexey

I assume the historical numbers on army sizes reflect the raw numbers in uniform. This would include a lot of rear echelon troops, supply troops, troops in training or garrison duty, etc.. The game shows mainly the combat-ready units. So the armies may seem smaller, but it is basically a design dec...

1alexey

Ummm I don't know what game your playing but that is statistically impossible in TEAW. Are you playing with extended pool or something? Also it sounds like you're playing against the AI, I am mainly concerned with PBEM play. Also I'm fairly sure the AI gets bonuses to resources on most levels to he...

1alexey

No. In fact, I seem to have way too much. In my first game ever, I picked central powers. My game resembled WW2 way more than WW1, I chose to go for Russia first, and in a series of battles and encirclement's around Lemberg-Brest-Litovsk-Warsaw most of Russian army died by mid 1915, by early 1916 I ...

Search found 20 matches

Why do Austrian troops suck so much compared to Serbian?