Historical concerns - All troops, of whatever country, seem to have the same values.

[havi]

yep Pjj is rigth only finnish regiment or corps what was in ww1 was serving in German army the regiments number was 27jaeger company and it was made of finnish volunteers who went there through sweden to get military training and when they where ready they fought in eastern front against tsar. in year 1917 they where shipped back to finland in vaasa and then they made the backbone of finnish white army fighting against bolseviks. and if i remember correctly 1 jaeger did fought in reds too. So there wasnt any finnish made corps or battalions in tsars army volunteers yes but no drafts where made in finland in ww1 actually after 1905 the finnish army was but down by russkies and the soldiers in defending in finland came in ukraine or other places in rusland.

[PJJ]

yep Pjj is rigth only finnish regiment or corps what was in ww1 was serving in German army the regiments number was 27jaeger company and it was made of finnish volunteers who went there through sweden to get military training and when they where ready they fought in eastern front against tsar. in year 1917 they where shipped back to finland in vaasa and then they made the backbone of finnish white army fighting against bolseviks. and if i remember correctly 1 jaeger did fought in reds too. So there wasnt any finnish made corps or battalions in tsars army volunteers yes but no drafts where made in finland in ww1 actually after 1905 the finnish army was but down by russkies and the soldiers in defending in finland came in ukraine or other places in rusland.

The Finnish volunteers in the German army served in Jaeger Battalion 27 and most of them were sent back to Finland in early 1918 to support the White forces in the civil war. However, I think there were more than just one Jaeger fighting for the Reds. Some Jaegers decided to stay in Germany and returned only after the Great War was over.

[havi]

No pjj now u r wrong Finland declared Independent in year 1917 and in the same year the jaegers came back to Finland. I don't remember that there where any jaegers who didn't came back and I'm quite sure that there was only one who fought for reds .

[havi]

And now when i checked things it seems we both are right first 60jaegers came Finland in autumn of 1917 and rest 950 in February 1918.

[PJJ]

No pjj now u r wrong Finland declared Independent in year 1917 and in the same year the jaegers came back to Finland. I don't remember that there where any jaegers who didn't came back and I'm quite sure that there was only one who fought for reds .

Looks like we hijacked the thread!

Check out this short Finnish Wikipedia article about the Red Jaegers and those who stayed behind and the article's sources for additional information:
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punaj%C3%A4%C3%A4k%C3%A4rit

[caranorn]

Ammunition, supplies, number of artillery, command and control efficiency, generals/officers abilities experience, troop types (conscripts, regulars, etc) are the things which influenced the things you listed, and all of these are simulated in the game, hence the same basic values.

Nope, one big issue was doctrine and training, which would be reflected in the element stats. Ignoring this is a mistake...

Honestly this is a form of laziness that's been used by Ageod the past few years (not originally) having all units follow the template instead of taking a closer look at historic reality...

[Franciscus]

Nope, one big issue was doctrine and training, which would be reflected in the element stats. Ignoring this is a mistake...

Honestly this is a form of laziness that's been used by Ageod the past few years (not originally) having all units follow the template instead of taking a closer look at historic reality...

My dear Caranorn

I think you are not being fair and at least regarding AJE games series I sugest you take a closer look and tell me if all units share the same template

Regards

[PJJ]

Units in AJE can be very different from each other, depending on their type and nationality! That's one of the reasons why I like the AJE series so much. A Roman legion is not at all the same as a Greek phalanx or Parthian infantry.

[caranorn]

Ace, I agree that the BEF was destroyed as an effective fighting force in 1914, and the units that replaced them were in no way comparable. In fact no troops since them have been trained to that standard of long range marksmanship, and that training was not even attempted during the war for new British recruits. But the fact remains that the BEF did have those huge advantages before these units were decimated, and their superiority was crucial in some of the most important battles of 1914.

One way you could show that in the game is to make these veteran units a special type, give them the stats they deserve, and give them a very few replacements at the start of the war, and not allow for any other replacements for them to be built. This would be an accurate reflection of what happened.

As for the Russians, their regulars even at the beginning of the war were very ineffective against the Germans, though they did well against the Austrians. Brusilov also did very well against the Austrians. But the Russian regulars in the game seem too effective, it is very hard to destroy a russian army, like the Germans did, even with the Von Hoffman decision that locks them in place and removes most of their cohesion for one turn. The quality of Russian troops did deteriorate quickly during the war, which reflects the militia situation you describe. Yet the AI seems to do better with the Russians against the Germans than they should, from my limited experience of the game.

One problem with that idea is that only half the Regular Army was in the BEF. Yes, the first six Regular divisions took a nasty beating and received replacements from territorial and service battalions (respectively entire battalions). But 7th, 8th, 27th, 28th, 29th and Guards division were still forming from Regulars returning from garrison posts when the original BEF took that beating. And there is no reason to believe those in India in early August 1914 were less trained than the ones in Great Britain.

P.S.: Still not sure how to model that in game, I started researching WWI OOB issues two days ago (for possible modding or official use), but am doing it for only two-three hours a day right now (as I still enjoy playing the game). But for my proposal to work would require reworking units of all armies (as I hate the abstract treatment of units in EAW), some of which research I probably cannot do (at least not as efficiently (I can read english, french and german, google translate has in the past helped me with polish and russian (enough for 1812 and 1940 OOB's) would probably work for others), have general WWI book resources and specifics for a few OOB's, might buy a number of additional books (yesterday I filled out an order for ~140 Pounds, haven't placed the order yet as it's a bit of a steep bill ;-) , but for some I expect I won't find the material to fill the gap online and in any case for one person it would be daunting)...

[caranorn]

Nice discussion

Troops performance is difficult to evaluate, Gallipolli is a fine example where British retreated with a bloody nose against a side we would all say had inferiorly equipped soldiers. So, while I wouldn't mind if troops had some differentiation in stats, the overall feel and outcome is the most important.

Those were largely Territorials and their colonial equivalents. While excellent soldiers they were not on the same level of training as the 12 divisions of regulars...

[caranorn]

My dear Caranorn

I think you are not being fair and at least regarding AJE games series I sugest you take a closer look and tell me if all units share the same template

Regards

Not in AJE inded, sorry to imply that :-) .

I'm talking about PoN, CW2 and now EAW. But possibly even there it's an impression I have...

[StephenT]

Given that the game engine takes into account so many factors when computing combat strength, I don't really see a problem that the base stats are almost the same for all nations. It certainly dodges any racial controversy as well which doesn't hurt I don't know if there would be that much difference between a fully supplied, highly motivated, elite Russian infantry unit and his British or German counterpart. Leadership, experience and level of supply will affect a lot of these stats and make these units fight differently.

I agree with this. The BEF was highly effective in 1914 because its soldiers were highly-trained, professional long-service volunteers; which can be represented in-game by giving them extra experience. They weren't genetic supermen who had superior capabilities simply by virtue of being British.

Likewise, the Russians in 1914 performed badly at the battle of Tannenberg; but that can likewise be linked to issues of organisation and logistics. The Russians knew they needed six to eight weeks to mobilise their army; but out of loyalty to their French allies they tried to invade Germany after only two weeks. The result was chaos; disorganised units being sent into battle without their proper equipment or adequate supplies. However, Tannenberg was a one-off, and it's a mistake to conclude from one battle that the Russian units were inherently inferior. The Russians defeated the Germans at the Battle of Gumbinnen, and at the Battle of Lodz they came close to encircling and destroying an entire German army corps, which would have given them a reverse-Tannenberg style victory.

As someone mentioned above, the big issue faced by the Russian Army long-term was their lack of artillery and munitions - which can be represented by a shortage of War Supplies forcing them to recruit mostly militia units, not regular infantry. They also had low morale due to their early defeats - Russian generals in winter 1914 onwards were terrified of a second Tannenberg, which made them overly cautious and slow-moving; but again, that's represented by giving Russia a low National Morale affecting their units' combat ability. No need to make their soldiers lower combat strengths just "because they're Russian".

Personally, I think the idea of giving British regular infantry, German regular infantry, and Russian regular infantry (as opposed to militia) inherently different stats and abiities purely on the grounds of nationality is something that belongs better in a Total War style game than an AGEOD game. They were all riflemen backed up by mortars, machine guns and artillery; it's not like the difference between, say, a legion and a phalanx where the weapons and doctrine really are radically different.

[PJJ]

Personally, I think the idea of giving British regular infantry, German regular infantry, and Russian regular infantry (as opposed to militia) inherently different stats and abiities purely on the grounds of nationality is something that belongs better in a Total War style game than an AGEOD game. They were all riflemen backed up by mortars, machine guns and artillery; it's not like the difference between, say, a legion and a phalanx where the weapons and doctrine really are radically different.

Not on the grounds of nationality, but to reflect differences in training, doctrine and leadership that the different armies had. These differences were very real. For example the Russians had a serious problem with their lack of trained officers and especially NCOs. This became only worse as the war progressed. You can't model such things simply through supply and logistics and the abilities of corps and army commanders included in EAW.

[StephenT]

Not on the grounds of nationality, but to reflect differences in training, doctrine and leadership that the different armies had. These differences were very real.

I don't agree; I think that on the scale of a grand strategy game like this, those differences were minor. One army's doctrine wasn't dramatically different to the next's, and they were all learning and developing constantly anyway.

You mention supply, logistics and commander ratings as ways to model the Russian army; but you didn't mention that the Germans will probably research their infantry tech much faster than the Russians will, giving them better troops early; and Russian national morale is likely to be lower, giving them across-the-board penalties; and Russia will not be able to afford to buy heavy artillery or the best-quality replacement units, but will be forced to make do with militia. All those factors combined will reflect Russia's disadvantages realistically, I suggest, without building in an automatic "Slavs are just naturally inferior soldiers to Germans" penalty.

[greycat]

I don't agree; I think that on the scale of a grand strategy game like this, those differences were minor. One army's doctrine wasn't dramatically different to the next's, and they were all learning and developing constantly anyway.

You mention supply, logistics and commander ratings as ways to model the Russian army; but you didn't mention that the Germans will probably research their infantry tech much faster than the Russians will, giving them better troops early; and Russian national morale is likely to be lower, giving them across-the-board penalties; and Russia will not be able to afford to buy heavy artillery or the best-quality replacement units, but will be forced to make do with militia. All those factors combined will reflect Russia's disadvantages realistically, I suggest, without building in an automatic "Slavs are just naturally inferior soldiers to Germans" penalty.

To paraphrase Napoleon; there are no bad soldiers, only bad officers. The Germans were superior to the Russians (and others) due to the higher quality of their NCOs and junior officers. The huge losses suffered by these men in battles such as the Somme and 3rd Ypres was one of the reasons for the deterioration on the German army in the later part of the war. But, given the same level of supply and support, a German conscript unit (for example) was generally more effective than it's Russian counterpart; it's disappointing that this does not seem to be reflected in the game.

[vaalen]

As Caranorn pointed out, Ageod games used to differentiate extensively on the basis of National doctrines and weaponry when assigning combat values to units. This game does not,. I object to the change, which dilutes the historical value and immersiveness of Ageod games. I salute the AJE team for having such differences in their fine games.

And having different ratings based on national factors that really existed is not racist, or claiming that Slavs are inferior to Germans. In fact, my ancestry is 100 percent Russian, not a drop of German in me. I do not think you younger guys realize how corrupt and incompetent the Tsars army was in that war.

My Grandfather fought in World War 1, for Russia. When his unit was sent to the front, their were enough rifles for only three out of five of the soldiers. He and the others who had no rifles were told to stay next to the soldiers who had rifles, and pick up a rifle when a comrade got killed. He said his officers were ignorant, arrogant, drunken fools, and the NCOs were brutal incompetents. The Germans were known for the excellence of their junior officers and NCOs.
While the Germans attacked with artillery and machinegun support, and sent out swarms of skirmishers who provided covering fire, my grandfathers unit fixed bayonets, stood shoulder to shoulder, and charged into the German machinegun and artillery fire, trying to get to bayonet range. No covering fire for them.
No shame to the brave Russian soldiers, but their officers, ncos, tactics, and logistics were far inferior to those of the Germans, and others, in that war.
The game should reflect this.

In contrast, Russian soldiers by the end of world war 2 were some of the best in the world, maybe the best.

[PJJ]

There must be some kind of misunderstanding here - nobody is saying that different armies should have different values because of some racial theories. That's ridiculous!

The game engine must somehow take into account the things that have been mentioned in this thread to represent the realities of the Great War. For example the lack of proper leadership in the Russian army that I already mentioned. If ordinary soldiers have poor leaders, or not enough leaders at all, they are just a disorganized mob. It doesn't matter what nationality they represent. This is what increasingly happened in the Imperial Russian army in the Great War. How could this be reflected in a wargame? For example by giving their units (but not elite units!) lower discipline values than the Germans. It's the small but important details like this one that unfortunately seem to be missing from EAW. Or if they aren't missing, they are hidden somewhere.

EAW is not a tactical level wargame, but you still have to reflect the capabilities of various armies on the tactical level. For that to happen, you need to include those crucial little details that have been mentioned in this thread.

Does this make EAW a bad game? No. But it could be an even better one!

[Kensai]

If ordinary soldiers have poor leaders, or not enough leaders at all, they are just a disorganized mob. It doesn't matter what nationality they represent. This is what increasingly happened in the Imperial Russian army in the Great War. How could this be reflected in a wargame? For example by giving their units (but not elite units!) lower discipline values than the Germans. It's the small but important details like this one that unfortunately seem to be missing from EAW. Or if they aren't missing, they are hidden somewhere.

This is already factored in in an indirect way. The lower "discipline" you expect in the Russian soldiers is found in the parameter of Cohesion. This one in turn is much influenced by National Morale among other things. The East Entente already begins the game with relatively lower quality leaders and after a while (and a few early lost battles, such as the Tannenberg) they are really struggling to have their cohesion high. The Germans have some initial successes that can boost their morale high enough to add a further difference between how German and Russian soldiers will fight. The results are well balanced, do not worry.

Of course there are some negative aspects in this approach, as you may imagine, given that NM is common for the "weak" partners (Austria-Hungary, Serbia) as well, regardless if they are winning or losing badly. Nonetheless, in beta testing the battle results were surprisingly realistic. I think troops should have the same values as long as they are considered of the same "class". Some elite units (check the Prussian Guards) have an immense Cohesion, you will read it in their cards as "Iron Will".

No one says this aspect cannot be further trimmed, but at the moment it works more than adequately. If someone wants to tweak the database and can justify the changes, send them our way to check!

[fred zeppelin]

The game engine must somehow take into account the things that have been mentioned in this thread to represent the realities of the Great War. For example the lack of proper leadership in the Russian army that I already mentioned. If ordinary soldiers have poor leaders, or not enough leaders at all, they are just a disorganized mob. It doesn't matter what nationality they represent. This is what increasingly happened in the Imperial Russian army in the Great War. How could this be reflected in a wargame? For example by giving their units (but not elite units!) lower discipline values than the Germans. It's the small but important details like this one that unfortunately seem to be missing from EAW. Or if they aren't missing, they are hidden somewhere.

I suppose you could simulate training and equipment disparities via a unit's status as elite, veteran, mobilized, conscript, etc. and then give nations different ratios of each type based on the historical differences you're trying to simulate.

It may be that some of this is already modeled in EAW but buried too deeply in the unit stats to be apparent. Which, of course, would be a problem in itself.

I like how WWI Gold handles this by a colored flag icon on each unit counter - it's easy to see at a glance how different units compare.

[Ace]

There has been some good proposals here. Even if there are no too significant changes, we can wonder.
Here are important stats for ordinary infantry unit. What would you change for particular mayor nation:

OffFire = 13 (13% chance to hit enemy with every shot fired)
DefFire = 22
Range = 3
ROF = 2 (rate of fire)
Protection = 1 (for every protection point, damage received is multiplied by 0,9)
TQ = 7 (troop quality = discipline)

Assault = 8 (for every assault point there is 0,4% chance to hit the enemy)
Cohesion = 60

Ranged damage
DmgDone = 1 (hit damage)
CohDone = 7 (cohesion damage)

Assault damage
AsltDmgDone = 4
AsltCohDone = 15

[lycortas2]

I guess my concern is the concrete differences. Off of the top of my head a Russian division in '14 or '15 had 24 - 76mm guns and 8 - 122mm guns while a German division had 36 - 75mm or 105mm guns and 12 - 105mm or 150mm guns. This is a serious difference in offensive firepower.

[James D Burns]

There has been some good proposals here. Even if there are no too significant changes, we can wonder.
Here are important stats for ordinary infantry unit. What would you change for particular mayor nation:

OffFire = 13 (13% chance to hit enemy with every shot fired)
DefFire = 22
Range = 3
ROF = 2 (rate of fire)
Protection = 1 (for every protection point, damage received is multiplied by 0,9)
TQ = 7 (troop quality = discipline)

Assault = 8 (for every assault point there is 0,4% chance to hit the enemy)
Cohesion = 60

Ranged damage
DmgDone = 1 (hit damage)
CohDone = 7 (cohesion damage)

Assault damage
AsltDmgDone = 4
AsltCohDone = 15

Just a thought, but a better way to handle the differences instead of tweaking all the individual ratings would be to give a large number of experience stars to the units of countries who had the more efficient command staffs and NCO's. Then as the war wears on this free bonus experience would gradually decline until countries worn down by years of war no longer get any bonus stars and their units begin to resemble the units of other weaker nations. That way later in the war instead of having to throw out all the tweaked units with higher ratings due to war decline and replace them with other unit models, the experience will wear off naturally in game as units take combat damage and the shift will be gradual as the game is played.

This of course would only work if the bonus’ given to units with lots of experience stars was significant enough to see a marked difference in how the units perform against one another (i.e. experienced vs. non-experienced).

Jim

[fred zeppelin]

Just a thought, but a better way to handle the differences instead of tweaking all the individual ratings would be to give a large number of experience stars to the units of countries who had the more efficient command staffs and NCO's. Then as the war wears on this free bonus experience would gradually decline until countries worn down by years of war no longer get any bonus stars and their units begin to resemble the units of other weaker nations. That way later in the war instead of having to throw out all the tweaked units with higher ratings due to war decline and replace them with other unit models, the experience will wear off naturally in game as units take combat damage and the shift will be gradual as the game is played.

This of course would only work if the bonus’ given to units with lots of experience stars was significant enough to see a marked difference in how the units perform against one another (i.e. experienced vs. non-experienced).

Jim

I also like that approach.

[Ace]

I guess my concern is the concrete differences. Off of the top of my head a Russian division in '14 or '15 had 24 - 76mm guns and 8 - 122mm guns while a German division had 36 - 75mm or 105mm guns and 12 - 105mm or 150mm guns. This is a serious difference in offensive firepower.

In game:
German Corps usually has 2 units of medium artillery.
Russian Corps usually has no medium artillery. Better Corps get 1 unit of medium artillery that quickly runs out of ammo.

[Ace]

Just a thought, but a better way to handle the differences instead of tweaking all the individual ratings would be to give a large number of experience stars to the units of countries who had the more efficient command staffs and NCO's. Then as the war wears on this free bonus experience would gradually decline until countries worn down by years of war no longer get any bonus stars and their units begin to resemble the units of other weaker nations. That way later in the war instead of having to throw out all the tweaked units with higher ratings due to war decline and replace them with other unit models, the experience will wear off naturally in game as units take combat damage and the shift will be gradual as the game is played.

This of course would only work if the bonus’ given to units with lots of experience stars was significant enough to see a marked difference in how the units perform against one another (i.e. experienced vs. non-experienced).

Jim

Hmm,

but historically Russians performed well in 1914 (just ask anyone who fought on the Austrian side). With your proposal, if we up German experience, Russians would perform worse in 1914, than later on.

[havi]

just read article about ww1 and ww2 and it said that there wasnt evidence that german army loss a single fight on those wars when they had as much troops as their enemies!? so maybe u have to pump up the german landwehr.

[Shri]

I agree with this. The BEF was highly effective in 1914 because its soldiers were highly-trained, professional long-service volunteers; which can be represented in-game by giving them extra experience. They weren't genetic supermen who had superior capabilities simply by virtue of being British.

Likewise, the Russians in 1914 performed badly at the battle of Tannenberg; but that can likewise be linked to issues of organisation and logistics. The Russians knew they needed six to eight weeks to mobilise their army; but out of loyalty to their French allies they tried to invade Germany after only two weeks. The result was chaos; disorganised units being sent into battle without their proper equipment or adequate supplies. However, Tannenberg was a one-off, and it's a mistake to conclude from one battle that the Russian units were inherently inferior. The Russians defeated the Germans at the Battle of Gumbinnen, and at the Battle of Lodz they came close to encircling and destroying an entire German army corps, which would have given them a reverse-Tannenberg style victory.

As someone mentioned above, the big issue faced by the Russian Army long-term was their lack of artillery and munitions - which can be represented by a shortage of War Supplies forcing them to recruit mostly militia units, not regular infantry. They also had low morale due to their early defeats - Russian generals in winter 1914 onwards were terrified of a second Tannenberg, which made them overly cautious and slow-moving; but again, that's represented by giving Russia a low National Morale affecting their units' combat ability. No need to make their soldiers lower combat strengths just "because they're Russian".

Personally, I think the idea of giving British regular infantry, German regular infantry, and Russian regular infantry (as opposed to militia) inherently different stats and abiities purely on the grounds of nationality is something that belongs better in a Total War style game than an AGEOD game. They were all riflemen backed up by mortars, machine guns and artillery; it's not like the difference between, say, a legion and a phalanx where the weapons and doctrine really are radically different.

Tannenberg was repeated in the 1st and 2nd Masurian Lakes battles to a very great extent.
Further repeated in Gorlice-Tarnow, Lake Naroch, Riga, etc.
As for LODZ, Russians outnumbered the Germans by almost 2:1 and yet failed to pull off a victory, STAVKA had 4 armies facing the 2 German Armies also remember- the Germans were the attackers here in severe winter conditions, as a thumb rule attacker needs minimum 3:2 advantage to pull off a victory and 3:1 to pull of a total victory; at most of these battles- German:Russian armies were 1:1 or lesser when the Germans Attacked and the Russians were mostly at 2:1 vs Germans when the Russians attacked and in both cases- the Germans won. In fact, Gen. Danilov - the quarter master and the most effective Russian Staff officer calculated pre-war that- 3 Russian divisions were needed to hold 1 German Corps (2 divisions). if pre-war calculation of the Best Russian Staff Officer was so pessimistic it shows how poor the Russian Troops were compared to German troops. Esp. as the war progressed; Russian troops went from Bad to Worst vs German troops. As Russian 3rd line was given no rifles, further- Officer training was haphazard and incomplete. Staff work was bad and Logitics terrible.

[Shri]

In game:
German Corps usually has 2 units of medium artillery.
Russian Corps usually has no medium artillery. Better Corps get 1 unit of medium artillery that quickly runs out of ammo.

Not all German Corps has 2 Medium, only the Regular---- a.k.a. pre-war have and historically correct. Most have only 1 or none. Russians have regulars equal to Germans.

BTW, i had proposed something before (BETA forum) i repeat it here again-
Russia, Italy, Ottoman, Minors should not reach level 3 techs ever in game. They should reach level 2 after the others reach level 3.
Austria also should be capped at level 3.
Further- Minors, Russia and Ottoman should not get GAS techs and Anti-Sub/Sub techs.
Only Germany, UK, France & USA should reach level 4 techs.

These changes will make- Russian armies and minor armies increasingly weaker vs German and British armies.
Historically correct.

[Shri]

Hmm,

but historically Russians performed well in 1914 (just ask anyone who fought on the Austrian side). With your proposal, if we up German experience, Russians would perform worse in 1914, than later on.

There is an APOCRYPHAL story of Von Moltke Jr. here goes-
He was asked by Von Bernhardi or Von Der Goltz to rate the weakest European Power Militarily-
He said- Of course the Austrians, then some wise guy said- what about Romanians? He said- of course, there must be a few out there whom the Austrians can beat.
Sums up the Austrian combat power correctly. Coupled with CONRAD as the leader- disaster followed more due to their own bungling and over-confidence of course- Brusilov and Von Plehve performed exceedingly well for Russia.

[James D Burns]

Hmm,

but historically Russians performed well in 1914 (just ask anyone who fought on the Austrian side). With your proposal, if we up German experience, Russians would perform worse in 1914, than later on.

No one is advocating that the Germans and Austrians receive the same bonus, on the contrary Austria would operate on par with or slightly less than the Russian level or performance. Though with all the mixed nationality units that make up their army, I think Austria already has a built in malus (assuming units get hit with penalties if not lead by leaders with specific nationality traits), so making them equal to the Russians probably gives Russia a slight edge already.

Jim