What's wrong with this picture.
1) Level 4 Trenches on defense
2) GE retreats after 1 battle in which losses were relatively light
3) MUN at 86% with more trains coming
4) Entente attacked in Winter
5) Corp commanders are getting higher seniority than established Army commanders and when the corp commanders become army commanders, they take over the battles. Buelow (who is a 5 defense) should have been in charge of this battle but because of the screwy way that seniority is working, Gallwitz (with a defense of 1) took over the battle.
6) Did I mention that Entente attacked in winter and GE retreated after 1 battle in level 4 trenches!
7) Is anyone still playing this game since I posted another question yesterday with no response yet? Should I consider this game dead or is the Ultimate Mod a desperate attempt to keep this game relevant, like was done with Gold version prior?
[ATTACH]35095[/ATTACH]
More Questions
- Attachments
-
Judging by Battle Result this was meeting engagement. Both sides attacked each other (see posture order - it's orange for both armies). In that case trench level is irrelevant. Same goes for defense rating of generals. In meeting engagement what counts is offensive trait, not defensive.
However, seniority mechanism can cause mess sometimes and is often area of criticism from some players.
However, seniority mechanism can cause mess sometimes and is often area of criticism from some players.
I went back and reran the turn. They were set to defense. Running from Ostend down to Mons. So why would the game engine change to offense? I had MUN Trains accidentally set to offense and changed them to defense, and guess what? The battle turned to defensive for GE. So looks like if you send in trains or anything else set to offense that can change not just the army's stance, but 3 armies and over 300k worth of troops.
Yes, the seniority system is broken. Buelow is at 117 and von Kluck, who has done the majority of fighting through Belgium is at 140. Whereas Gallwitz, who did enough to get promoted under Buelow, is at 102. That makes no sense whatever.
Plus entrenchments aren't strong enough. Obviously a result of this being a CW2 engine. They need to be massively increased and retreats should be rare. Or as a patch, they should adopt the concept from Ultimate Mod and make trenchs buildable and must be destroyed before advancing.
Also, not convinced that the weather is really working for anything other than movement and cohesion. Attacking entrenched positions in a blizzard should be suicide for anything less than 1 million men attacking.
Yes, the seniority system is broken. Buelow is at 117 and von Kluck, who has done the majority of fighting through Belgium is at 140. Whereas Gallwitz, who did enough to get promoted under Buelow, is at 102. That makes no sense whatever.
Plus entrenchments aren't strong enough. Obviously a result of this being a CW2 engine. They need to be massively increased and retreats should be rare. Or as a patch, they should adopt the concept from Ultimate Mod and make trenchs buildable and must be destroyed before advancing.
Also, not convinced that the weather is really working for anything other than movement and cohesion. Attacking entrenched positions in a blizzard should be suicide for anything less than 1 million men attacking.
. . . also, those losses were not relatively light so a retreat is not unusual, especially when compared to the much larger force the Germans were facing, and that is most likely why the game mechanism determined that a retreat was necessary.
As for seniority, did you ever have a boss that was not as smart as you? Did you get to take over the decision-making in that company or did you have to do what your supervisor said? Often, junior officers have better abilities than the senior officers but because they are younger and have less time in the military or through political connections, they are ranked below someone who is less skilled. The game reflects that reality. If you want a true meritocracy in your military it will cost you National Morale (for your purge of military generals).
As for winter attacks, they happened in real life, so yes, they happen in the game.
As for your previous question, I saw it and hoped that someone more knowledgeable than myself would have answered it. I had wondered if you have the regroup armies option picked that may have caused the lengthy withdrawal, but I'm not sure. To be honest, I didn't really analyze the map (not very good at figuring how to enlarge it so I can read it more clearly). I do believe the manual in either this game or a previous game mentioned how a withdrawal could be lengthy. The AI looks for the best place to withdraw, if for some reason that place is not desirable (I can't remember, maybe military control was too low??) it would look for the next best place to withdraw from that spot, and that can cause a long withdrawal. But that is just a guess, I've never seen it happen before.
As for munitions at 86% and trains coming, if you are referring to your side, then until the trains arrive the munitions don't count in that 86%. If you are referring to your opponents, then the AI is making sure they are well supplied so I'm not sure what the beef is.
I hope this helps a little bit. The game is very much alive and well. I don't want to speak for the mod developer, but I think he likes the game so much and he had the talent, that he wanted to "improve" the game to his liking and the requests of others on the forums.
As for seniority, did you ever have a boss that was not as smart as you? Did you get to take over the decision-making in that company or did you have to do what your supervisor said? Often, junior officers have better abilities than the senior officers but because they are younger and have less time in the military or through political connections, they are ranked below someone who is less skilled. The game reflects that reality. If you want a true meritocracy in your military it will cost you National Morale (for your purge of military generals).
As for winter attacks, they happened in real life, so yes, they happen in the game.
As for your previous question, I saw it and hoped that someone more knowledgeable than myself would have answered it. I had wondered if you have the regroup armies option picked that may have caused the lengthy withdrawal, but I'm not sure. To be honest, I didn't really analyze the map (not very good at figuring how to enlarge it so I can read it more clearly). I do believe the manual in either this game or a previous game mentioned how a withdrawal could be lengthy. The AI looks for the best place to withdraw, if for some reason that place is not desirable (I can't remember, maybe military control was too low??) it would look for the next best place to withdraw from that spot, and that can cause a long withdrawal. But that is just a guess, I've never seen it happen before.
As for munitions at 86% and trains coming, if you are referring to your side, then until the trains arrive the munitions don't count in that 86%. If you are referring to your opponents, then the AI is making sure they are well supplied so I'm not sure what the beef is.
I hope this helps a little bit. The game is very much alive and well. I don't want to speak for the mod developer, but I think he likes the game so much and he had the talent, that he wanted to "improve" the game to his liking and the requests of others on the forums.
vicberg wrote:I went back and reran the turn. They were set to defense. Running from Ostend down to Mons. So why would the game engine change to offense? I had MUN Trains accidentally set to offense and changed them to defense, and guess what? The battle turned to defensive for GE. So looks like if you send in trains or anything else set to offense that can change not just the army's stance, but 3 armies and over 300k worth of troops.
I think, this is also engine glitch or bug. It would be fine if your trains initiated battle on their own without changing entrenched army stance. Yes, in that case, trains would be on suicide mission but blame is on player side for not being careful with orders.
Good to know game is alive and well.
I under your logic behind seniority, but I'm not sure I agree with the approach. Corp leaders should go up in seniority versus other Corp leaders. Army leaders compared to other Army Leaders. For a Corp leader to be promoted and suddenly outrank another Army leader without proving themselves at the Army level is what isn't sitting well for me. It also creates havoc when you want a specific leader to take command in a given area and utilize their abilities. Have to check each turn the seniority changes and figure out who is now on top, so to speak.
Perhaps a NM hit to dismiss the boobs that are other there (and GE starts with a few of them), but after a few battles those "new" Army Leaders should easily surpass the boobs and be able take command of the larger battles.
Thanks very much for the responses.
I under your logic behind seniority, but I'm not sure I agree with the approach. Corp leaders should go up in seniority versus other Corp leaders. Army leaders compared to other Army Leaders. For a Corp leader to be promoted and suddenly outrank another Army leader without proving themselves at the Army level is what isn't sitting well for me. It also creates havoc when you want a specific leader to take command in a given area and utilize their abilities. Have to check each turn the seniority changes and figure out who is now on top, so to speak.
Perhaps a NM hit to dismiss the boobs that are other there (and GE starts with a few of them), but after a few battles those "new" Army Leaders should easily surpass the boobs and be able take command of the larger battles.
Thanks very much for the responses.
Kluck and Buelow take a large seniority hit if you fail to take Paris by the end of year, at the same time when Moltke is forced into retirement. That happened in RL, so the game reflects that by lowering their seniority.
I also think entrenchments should be somewhat stronger. The problem is heavy artillery has large penetration values, making entrenchments somewhat underpowered. I am not sure if increasing entrenchment value would bring better game. It would set the stage for a game when nothing really happens, while in here there is real meatgrinder feel when too opponents slug it out in contested region. If entrenchments were stronger, it would be impossible to recreate Verdun battle losses ratio. There Germans were on offense, and they didn't had unfavorable casualty ratio over the French.
in CW2 overall defense was more powerfull than in here.
I also think entrenchments should be somewhat stronger. The problem is heavy artillery has large penetration values, making entrenchments somewhat underpowered. I am not sure if increasing entrenchment value would bring better game. It would set the stage for a game when nothing really happens, while in here there is real meatgrinder feel when too opponents slug it out in contested region. If entrenchments were stronger, it would be impossible to recreate Verdun battle losses ratio. There Germans were on offense, and they didn't had unfavorable casualty ratio over the French.
in CW2 overall defense was more powerfull than in here.
So that explains the seniority with Buelow and von Kluck and makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
A fluid battle in the west is not WWI. Yes, the lines moved here and there during the course of the war, but they became fairly static, with enormous loss of life for the attacker and right now I'm not feeling this with TEAW.
I think Paths of Glory is the definitive WWI game out there. I've played it 50 times at least and every time it plays different and either side can win (against a good opponent).
The defender of a trench (either level 1 or level 2, which is max) has the choice to take another "step" loss in lieu of retreating. So as long as the defender has sufficient troops in a region and sufficient replacements, they can defend the trenches. Retreats occur when attackers do more damage than defenders. With level 1 trench the attacker column is shifted down and defender shifted up by 1 column. For level 2 trenches (max), 2 columns down for attacker and 2 up for defender. It's very difficult to break a level 2 trench without cards that eliminate trench effects (representing certain tactics or technologies and late game) or you choose to attrition the entire front and hope to overcome the opponents replacements and then have a breakthrough (Verdun IRL). And even if a level 2 is broken, the losses are usually too high for the attacker to exploit very far. This is pretty close to what happened IRL. Mandatory offensives (rolled random for a theater) forced attacks or lose VP. As CP you really don't want to see a mandatory offensive in the West as Russia is a much easier target, unless you had the cards to
I would like to somehow see this represented in this game because from the AARs I've been seeing and my own experience, TEAW doesn't reflect this yet.
A fluid battle in the west is not WWI. Yes, the lines moved here and there during the course of the war, but they became fairly static, with enormous loss of life for the attacker and right now I'm not feeling this with TEAW.
I think Paths of Glory is the definitive WWI game out there. I've played it 50 times at least and every time it plays different and either side can win (against a good opponent).
The defender of a trench (either level 1 or level 2, which is max) has the choice to take another "step" loss in lieu of retreating. So as long as the defender has sufficient troops in a region and sufficient replacements, they can defend the trenches. Retreats occur when attackers do more damage than defenders. With level 1 trench the attacker column is shifted down and defender shifted up by 1 column. For level 2 trenches (max), 2 columns down for attacker and 2 up for defender. It's very difficult to break a level 2 trench without cards that eliminate trench effects (representing certain tactics or technologies and late game) or you choose to attrition the entire front and hope to overcome the opponents replacements and then have a breakthrough (Verdun IRL). And even if a level 2 is broken, the losses are usually too high for the attacker to exploit very far. This is pretty close to what happened IRL. Mandatory offensives (rolled random for a theater) forced attacks or lose VP. As CP you really don't want to see a mandatory offensive in the West as Russia is a much easier target, unless you had the cards to
I would like to somehow see this represented in this game because from the AARs I've been seeing and my own experience, TEAW doesn't reflect this yet.
I think Battle of the Somme would be an example in popular mindset of futile attacks vs barbed wires and machine guns. This is casualty ratio from wikipedia:
British: 794.000
German: 537.000
I think the game simulates these attacker:defender casualties ratio well. They died on both sides, mostly from artillery that supported the attack.
British: 794.000
German: 537.000
I think the game simulates these attacker:defender casualties ratio well. They died on both sides, mostly from artillery that supported the attack.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests