AGEOD Forums

After some days of intense play ,I find another problem.
It seems there are many colonies in the game.Is it good to take the colonies outside Europe?Will the nation benefits from contest in the colonies or no?
I don't find anything good of taking the colonies .On the contrary ,the result is rather bad because of the navy raid. The destroy to the colonies directly leads to the loss of economics of the whole nation.And the colonies are hard to defend from navy raid.
So in conclusion ,I find it is not worth of taking the colonies.

And what about NW losses your enemy suffers from losing these colonies?

calvinus wrote:And what about NW losses your enemy suffers from losing these colonies?

I don't notice the number.So I can't tell the exact number of the NW losses of the enemy.
I am just talking from the economics view point,
the navy raid of my colonies destroy 5 or 6 EP of my nation. Is that too much?If I haven't taken the colonies ,there are no losses of the nation.

I don't understand the issue here: you mean that, playing the Entente, it is worthless to take German colonies because you would lose economic benefits because of enemy naval raids on them?

That's weird....

1 - Taking the colonies will bring you their income, so it's a valid move (in addition to making the enemy suffer NW....and you NOT suffering NW loss for failure to take them!)

2 - If the German navy is raiding colonies, it means you are in serious trouble with (or mishandling) the naval warfare. Your problems are probably much worse that the little loss from those raids them By all means after 1915, Germans raiders should be wiped out from the oceans and the German navy bottled up in its North Sea / Baltic ports...

PhilThib wrote:2 - If the German navy is raiding colonies, it means you are in serious trouble with (or mishandling) the naval warfare. Your problems are probably much worse that the little loss from those raids them By all means after 1915, Germans raiders should be wiped out from the oceans and the German navy bottled up in its North Sea / Baltic ports...

I think his problem is that German raider fleets are all small (all M-S fire range), so they are somehow difficult to trap in battle!

Yes, but this is true (and WAD) in history: the German raiders proved initially quite elusive and difficult to catch, but Allied naval supremacy would finally tell and all of the were caught and destroyed...may be we could slightly increase the chance to catch them over time

PhilThib wrote:I don't understand the issue here: you mean that, playing the Entente, it is worthless to take German colonies because you would lose economic benefits because of enemy naval raids on them?

That's weird....

1 - Taking the colonies will bring you their income, so it's a valid move (in addition to making the enemy suffer NW....and you NOT suffering NW loss for failure to take them!)

2 - If the German navy is raiding colonies, it means you are in serious trouble with (or mishandling) the naval warfare. Your problems are probably much worse that the little loss from those raids them By all means after 1915, Germans raiders should be wiped out from the oceans and the German navy bottled up in its North Sea / Baltic ports...

I chose the central power side.So when I take the Bombay which is the colony of England,But it is raided by the US navy ,that causes losses of economics point of Germany.
What I mean is if I haven't taken the colony ,there aren't any losses of EP of Germany.If I take the colony,the losses of EP is obviouse,because it is hard to defend colony from navy raid.

How did you managed to take Bombay ???????????

This is British India, and should have lots of troops (and with which CP units did you do so). In all cases, unless conquered by land by the Turks, conquering India would need naval transport, and that means the Entente has abysmal naval play (human opponent or AI)...

Looks like there many more things than raiding to correct here... IMHO, this feat should simply NOT be allowed (as it would be beyond the realm of realistic possiblities and facts in that era!)

PhilThib wrote:How did you managed to take Bombay ???????????

This is British India, and should have lots of troops (and with which CP units did you do so). In all cases, unless conquered by land by the Turks, conquering India would need naval transport, and that means the Entente has abysmal naval play (human opponent or AI)...

Looks like there many more things than raiding to correct here... IMHO, this feat should simply NOT be allowed (as it would be beyond the realm of realistic possiblities and facts in that era!)

If you think of the other way .It seems easier.
I will tell you secretly,don't tell others.
From Persia to Bombay there is a way .So you can take the road with a small troops ,Bombay is easily taken.

If there is a direct land route from India to Persia, I would not mind cutting that, even if its unrealistic a bit. It would at least also make the Brits follow the more historical and reasonable mesopotamia road for sure.

British India is a large area, so why not setting to 999 the number of battles required for gaining the control??? This would make impossible to capture India.

calvinus wrote:British India is a large area, so why not setting to 999 the number of battles required for gaining the control??? This would make impossible to capture India.

It would still make it possible to capture Bombay the city itself.

Tamas wrote:If there is a direct land route from India to Persia, I would not mind cutting that, even if its unrealistic a bit. It would at least also make the Brits follow the more historical and reasonable mesopotamia road for sure.

Have you ever tried travelling from Armenia to Bombay ,and from Bombay to Armenia.
They are different.Have a try.
From Armenia to Bombay the troops take the land road,
form Bombay to Armenia they first travel south to the sea ,then from the middle east to Armenia

rattlesnake wrote:Have you ever tried travelling from Armenia to Bombay ,and from Bombay to Armenia.
They are different.Have a try.
From Armenia to Bombay the troops take the land road,
form Bombay to Armenia they first travel south to the sea ,then from the middle east to Armenia

Oh.

So the Armenia-Bombay route must be severed!

Tamas wrote:Oh.

So the Armenia-Bombay route must be severed!

In history there is a way from West to East. But the Turkey seperates the West to East.And because Turkey is a powerful empire.The west know about the east from Turkey.They travel farest to the Middle east ,never a little further.So in history the west travelled to the east only by sea.

I agree, for game balance the road should be severed. I am surprised because I though I had done this already... in fact, to make the thing work, I'll need to cut the link between Persia and India and the link from Persia to Afghanistan (Afghanistan and India are connected, this is important for the Afghan War event)....in order that Persians can go to the map from their OMB, but no one could go through Persia to India

i managed to get Persia on my side while playing cp. there were no brits in india so i just moved the Persians in and conquered the place.

i was surprised it was so easy. either the land route should be severed or make it 999 battles to conquer india. otherwise its to easy to take.

Side note: add jump links from Finland box to all neighboring sea areas!
I have my Russian fleet forced to retreat to the nearest port (Helsinki), but now I cannot move her out of Findland because there's no link to the sea!

Interesting.

How about having the British army of India represented in game as a solution?

Include it but make it FIXED for the entire duration of the game and change any rebellion events to the army + 3 units.

Mowers wrote:Interesting.

How about having the British army of India represented in game as a solution?

Include it but make it FIXED for the entire duration of the game and change any rebellion events to the army + 3 units.

It would kinda wash away the (already very limited) importance of afghanistan I am afraid.

It is best to cut these routes Philippe mentioned, to eliminate gamey behaviour in the region for sure.

To drag our naval debate here: I am EXTREMELY wary of introducing new rules and setups at this stage of the game.

Tamas wrote:It would kinda wash away the (already very limited) importance of afghanistan I am afraid.

It is best to cut these routes Philippe mentioned, to eliminate gamey behaviour in the region for sure.

To drag our naval debate here: I am EXTREMELY wary of introducing new rules and setups at this stage of the game.

Well, the existing rules and set up's seem to have some issues as there are some quite large flaws and, thankfully, they are being solved very quickly I am not sure that keeping flawed or broken rules/models/processes regardless of their impact on a game is a great commercial strategy but I am not a games developer.

As to your point, obviously we need to be careful not to add additional functionality as this would detract from the limited resources available but, instead, to focus on improving the existing functionality where its obviously imbalanced or incorrect so that this game will stand up to review in the outside world.

I am looking forward to the game balance being improved so that I can start an AAR on the paradox forums to reverse the perception of the game there as being imbalanced and buggy. This will hopefully bring in more money for future developments and games.

Right now this sounds like another issue that was not picked up in the beta testing and that its another issue solved within the existing mechanicism and processes and model. How, I don't really mind, as long as its solved.

patrat wrote:i managed to get Persia on my side while playing cp. there were no brits in india so i just moved the Persians in and conquered the place.

i was surprised it was so easy. either the land route should be severed or make it 999 battles to conquer india. otherwise its to easy to take.

Not as you mentioned ,Persia can involved in the war on the side of CP.
But there are British troops in India ,they are hard to defeat.You must prepare more troops.

in my game all the brit troops left india. so the perisans just walked right in and took it over. this was a patch or two ago.

patrat wrote:in my game all the brit troops left india. so the perisans just walked right in and took it over. this was a patch or two ago.

In which year you walked to the India?
In fact the forces defend the city are elites.

i was playing the 1916 scenario. in fact no british troops are even in india at the start of that scenario.

patrat wrote:i was playing the 1916 scenario. in fact no british troops are even in india at the start of that scenario.

If you play it from 1914.The first step is the Turkey's joining in the CP at the beginning of the game.That is not following history.

Mowers wrote:Interesting.

How about having the British army of India represented in game as a solution?

Include it but make it FIXED for the entire duration of the game and change any rebellion events to the army + 3 units.

(*) Scenario corrections:
- Grand Campaign scenario: corrected placement of English colonial stack in Nigeria
- Grand Campaign scenario: added fixed English garrisons in Nigeria, South Africa, English Africa and British Indies
- 1914 and Grand Campaign scenario: corrected the English event script that triggered the modification of BEF special corps values

Nice.....