-
fred zeppelin
- Colonel
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm
If they think their fan base is to be found on FB, then they seriously misunderstand their demographics. FB might be a place to reach a new audience, but it's the folks here and on more traditional forums who help these guys pay the light bill. It's the radio silence there that is hurting this "launch."
I love these guys, but they too often treat this as some sort of paid hobby. Which, of course, is their right. I just grow a bit weary of financing it.
I love these guys, but they too often treat this as some sort of paid hobby. Which, of course, is their right. I just grow a bit weary of financing it.
Can any country recruit stormtroopers (assuming they research them or whatever) or is it Germany only?Ace wrote:Stromtroops are present as real units available when late inf tech is researched, and when they are in the area, rgd can be played on the enemy area reducing his trenches. Also, special stormtroop assault battleplanner tactic can be chosen only if you have stormtroops in your army.
Historically, most armies were using stormtrooper tactics by 1918, but only the Germans went as far as designating specific units as "stormtroopers".
-
fred zeppelin
- Colonel
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm
StephenT wrote:Can any country recruit stormtroopers (assuming they research them or whatever) or is it Germany only?
Historically, most armies were using stormtrooper tactics by 1918, but only the Germans went as far as designating specific units as "stormtroopers".
I assume "stormtrooper" is a generic term that applies to all similar units regardless of country.
-
Taciturn Scot
- Sergeant
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:00 am
Kensai wrote:Guys, Facebook is rather secure with the right settings nowadays. But even if you don't want to use a real name, it's ok. Create an account with a fake one and follow the channel there. It is not a bad platform, it's secure and a very good (and cheap) advertisement method for the game.
My reason for not using Facebook is not a tin-foil hat reason. I am a teacher and my students frequently ask to add me to their friends list which is absolutely forbidden. They can be remarkably persistent and will not accept that it is not alright in their particular case. After long talks where I had to insist that I couldn't I decided to close my Facebook account. Now I tell them that I can't be their Facebook friend because I don't have a Facebook account. Much, much easier and it has the advantage of being true so I'm not lying to them. And, ironically enough, they think it's 'kinda cool' that I don't too
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
-
sandman2575
- Corporal
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:48 am
fred zeppelin wrote:If they think their fan base is to be found on FB, then they seriously misunderstand their demographics.
QFT
Ageod is perfectly welcome to make use of FB as a promotional vehicle for TEAW as far as I'm concerned. However, if they're using FB as the *primary* promotional vehicle outside the AGEOD website proper, I think that's ludicrous and, like Queeg says, really seems to misjudge the make-up of their fanbase.
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
I’m really looking forward to this game, but some of the recent statements made about game play make me nervous about how the game will feel. WWI was a huge attritional slugfest that saw millions of men’s lives thrown away in horrendous battles that had little or no chance of success. Trench lines were all but impervious to assault for several years until finally new weapons and tactics were created to finally break the stalemate.
Using the MTSG feature from earlier games that cover the age of linear warfare to somehow bolster defensive trench lines is NOT what WWI combat should be like. Opening up the combat system to allow the potential for breakthroughs and maneuver to get players to do something in game and keep the game from being boring is, simply put, a HORRIBLE idea and turns the game into something that is not simulating the realities that existed during early years of WWI.
Unit firepower should shred attackers that try and close to assault trench lines and only the most heavily favorable odds ratios should ever see any kind of success for attacks. Only when new modern weapons and tactics arrive should the game engine allow attackers to get close enough to reliably assault enemy trench lines while taking acceptable losses.
If you’re worried about inactivity by players, then players should be forced to make big bloody attacks by the game engine or lose huge chunks of NM, production, or high level commanders who fail to launch an attack should be sacked. Heck a simple random event engine that tells players “you must launch an attack this turn involving at least x attacking AV or lose x” would be enough to suffice.
You could easily hold a round table discussion in here to get ideas and inputs on how to model things in game. If the game fails to feel like WWI, then it will get hammered by critics, you need to get the history right and then tweak the engine to make it a fun game. Throwing out history in favor of playability fails every time in the wargame market.
Jim
Using the MTSG feature from earlier games that cover the age of linear warfare to somehow bolster defensive trench lines is NOT what WWI combat should be like. Opening up the combat system to allow the potential for breakthroughs and maneuver to get players to do something in game and keep the game from being boring is, simply put, a HORRIBLE idea and turns the game into something that is not simulating the realities that existed during early years of WWI.
Unit firepower should shred attackers that try and close to assault trench lines and only the most heavily favorable odds ratios should ever see any kind of success for attacks. Only when new modern weapons and tactics arrive should the game engine allow attackers to get close enough to reliably assault enemy trench lines while taking acceptable losses.
If you’re worried about inactivity by players, then players should be forced to make big bloody attacks by the game engine or lose huge chunks of NM, production, or high level commanders who fail to launch an attack should be sacked. Heck a simple random event engine that tells players “you must launch an attack this turn involving at least x attacking AV or lose x” would be enough to suffice.
You could easily hold a round table discussion in here to get ideas and inputs on how to model things in game. If the game fails to feel like WWI, then it will get hammered by critics, you need to get the history right and then tweak the engine to make it a fun game. Throwing out history in favor of playability fails every time in the wargame market.
Jim
Hi Jim.
You made some interesting concerns here, routed in popular culture that assaulting trenches was bloody and futile. It was futile, but defending trenches was bloody as well. Let's take for example Battle of the Somme. It is firmly routed in popular culture as futile assault that made little progress. It was bloody defeat for the British, but not without the price for the Germans. Ratio of casualties according to Wikipedia (not the best source, but good approximation) Entente: 600.000 Germany: 350.000. So it was a slaughterhouse for the both side. Remember, it was not the machine gun fire that did most carnage, it was artillery fire, and shells flew to both sides. At Verdun, the numbers are even closer, with 400.000 casualties for the French and 350.000 for the Germans. So, how would you model this ratio of casualties if you made defense impervious to any attack. These ratios are much closer than frontal infantry assault in American Civil War (Fredericksburg or Cold harbor for example).
You made some interesting concerns here, routed in popular culture that assaulting trenches was bloody and futile. It was futile, but defending trenches was bloody as well. Let's take for example Battle of the Somme. It is firmly routed in popular culture as futile assault that made little progress. It was bloody defeat for the British, but not without the price for the Germans. Ratio of casualties according to Wikipedia (not the best source, but good approximation) Entente: 600.000 Germany: 350.000. So it was a slaughterhouse for the both side. Remember, it was not the machine gun fire that did most carnage, it was artillery fire, and shells flew to both sides. At Verdun, the numbers are even closer, with 400.000 casualties for the French and 350.000 for the Germans. So, how would you model this ratio of casualties if you made defense impervious to any attack. These ratios are much closer than frontal infantry assault in American Civil War (Fredericksburg or Cold harbor for example).
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
It would be modeled in the combat engine. The thing that changes between CW2 era combat and WWI combat is battle losses occur within a much shorter time frame and the shock of such huge sudden casualties should crash the cohesion level of attacks so much that going from the fire phase into the assault phase in the combat engine in game before the battle breaks off should be a rare occurrence.
Late war techs and tactics should begin to mitigate losses enough that the assault phase portion of combats again become a regular occurrence thus retreats become more common allowing things to open up in the late war.
Jim
Edit:
Been mulling it over some more and thought I’d post some further thoughts.
The thing that was unique about WWI combat was no man’s land. Once the trenches were dug, getting across that last bit of dirt to get at your enemy was what stymied both sides for several years. Huge human wave attacks saw half or more of the men killed before they could cross and those who made it across no longer had the will nor the numbers to carry the day. Think of Pickett’s charge, but imagine all the Union infantry had bolt action rifles and every cannon was a Maxim machine gun, no way would the CSA have reached the clump of trees.
Early in the war the only tool available that had any chance of seeing some success vs. trench lines was massed artillery fire used in an attempt to smash the enemy’s defensive works, thus making the jaunt across no man’s land relatively safe for the infantry. But more often than not even massive coordinated multi-day bombardments saw little long term success and some defenders always survived to mow down the attackers.
I think the way to model this reality in game is to turn a defenders trench level into a direct modifier to the cohesion loss an attacker suffers. So if your trench level is 3 the attacker takes 3 times the cohesion losses he would normally take. The hoped for result would be most combats break off during the fire phase due to cohesion loss and very few combats early in the war make it to a point where a retreat can occur during an assault phase. Massed bombardments would not use on map artillery units, instead it would be an expensive card played on the region plotted to be attacked that has a small chance of reducing the defenders trench level before the battle goes into the combat engine for resolution, but no one sees it until after turn resolution, you go over the top no matter what.
Then you could make techs like gasmasks and storm troop tactics a modifier to unit cohesion. So late war units would see their max cohesion level rise more and more as new techs come online. Eventually they’d have high enough max cohesion that getting through the fire phase and entering the assault phase would not see combats break off as much late in the war.
Anyway these are some ideas I thought I’d throw out there for discussion.
Jim
Late war techs and tactics should begin to mitigate losses enough that the assault phase portion of combats again become a regular occurrence thus retreats become more common allowing things to open up in the late war.
Jim
Edit:
Been mulling it over some more and thought I’d post some further thoughts.
The thing that was unique about WWI combat was no man’s land. Once the trenches were dug, getting across that last bit of dirt to get at your enemy was what stymied both sides for several years. Huge human wave attacks saw half or more of the men killed before they could cross and those who made it across no longer had the will nor the numbers to carry the day. Think of Pickett’s charge, but imagine all the Union infantry had bolt action rifles and every cannon was a Maxim machine gun, no way would the CSA have reached the clump of trees.
Early in the war the only tool available that had any chance of seeing some success vs. trench lines was massed artillery fire used in an attempt to smash the enemy’s defensive works, thus making the jaunt across no man’s land relatively safe for the infantry. But more often than not even massive coordinated multi-day bombardments saw little long term success and some defenders always survived to mow down the attackers.
I think the way to model this reality in game is to turn a defenders trench level into a direct modifier to the cohesion loss an attacker suffers. So if your trench level is 3 the attacker takes 3 times the cohesion losses he would normally take. The hoped for result would be most combats break off during the fire phase due to cohesion loss and very few combats early in the war make it to a point where a retreat can occur during an assault phase. Massed bombardments would not use on map artillery units, instead it would be an expensive card played on the region plotted to be attacked that has a small chance of reducing the defenders trench level before the battle goes into the combat engine for resolution, but no one sees it until after turn resolution, you go over the top no matter what.
Then you could make techs like gasmasks and storm troop tactics a modifier to unit cohesion. So late war units would see their max cohesion level rise more and more as new techs come online. Eventually they’d have high enough max cohesion that getting through the fire phase and entering the assault phase would not see combats break off as much late in the war.
Anyway these are some ideas I thought I’d throw out there for discussion.
Jim
James, what you mention is factored in to how things work. I think the way MTSG is used in End All Wars nicely simulates the fact that defenders had the way to quickly "shovel" reinforcements into defensive battles, and in turn the bloody attrition battles do happen.
As for trench warfare: yes it can become pretty static in the game, especially on the western front, as it very well should be. We are not seeking to elevate fun over historical realism, if for nothing else than because there is no need: there is plenty of things happening in the game, and just because it is extremely hard to get going in the west once the trenches are set up, it doesn't mean there are no strategic decisions to be made in the West.
It is a total misconception that on a strategic level WW1 is boring/not interesting. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Worth noting, though, that just because the system to simulate trench warfare is there, it doesn't mean the player can just park some stacks along the frontline and forget about it for the rest of the game.
Yes, the Western Front didn't really move for most of the war, but for it not to move, a huge effort was put in by the defenders. Think of Verdun, or the Germans sending all those reinforcements to the Somme, etc.
In other words, properly setting up your frontline and keeping an eye on it is crucial: Having enough replacements, of course, and also personally when I can I like to set up a stack of reserve units behind the section of the front which seems to be vulnerable, especially if I am seeing the AI starting a build-up in front of it.
And speaking of AI build-up, that is also a factor: it is a contest of attrition of resources and national will. Can you afford to just sit tight in the West? You may just let the AI build up reserves and strike with an overwhelming force where and when it chooses. And the AI is quite good in building up for a breakthrough attempt if let alone with no defensive concerns.
To summarise: no, the game is not opened up for ahistorical maneuver and breakthroughs to facilitate fun, as the game is plenty fun already.
But, maintaining the static frontlines is a strategic struggle between the two sides in the game just as it was in real life.
As for trench warfare: yes it can become pretty static in the game, especially on the western front, as it very well should be. We are not seeking to elevate fun over historical realism, if for nothing else than because there is no need: there is plenty of things happening in the game, and just because it is extremely hard to get going in the west once the trenches are set up, it doesn't mean there are no strategic decisions to be made in the West.
It is a total misconception that on a strategic level WW1 is boring/not interesting. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Worth noting, though, that just because the system to simulate trench warfare is there, it doesn't mean the player can just park some stacks along the frontline and forget about it for the rest of the game.
Yes, the Western Front didn't really move for most of the war, but for it not to move, a huge effort was put in by the defenders. Think of Verdun, or the Germans sending all those reinforcements to the Somme, etc.
In other words, properly setting up your frontline and keeping an eye on it is crucial: Having enough replacements, of course, and also personally when I can I like to set up a stack of reserve units behind the section of the front which seems to be vulnerable, especially if I am seeing the AI starting a build-up in front of it.
And speaking of AI build-up, that is also a factor: it is a contest of attrition of resources and national will. Can you afford to just sit tight in the West? You may just let the AI build up reserves and strike with an overwhelming force where and when it chooses. And the AI is quite good in building up for a breakthrough attempt if let alone with no defensive concerns.
To summarise: no, the game is not opened up for ahistorical maneuver and breakthroughs to facilitate fun, as the game is plenty fun already.
But, maintaining the static frontlines is a strategic struggle between the two sides in the game just as it was in real life.Since I feel audience here is more thirsty for some stats rather than just nice images, I decided to post (hope Ageod guys won't mind) early war regular British infantry stats and heavy German guns stats:
[ATTACH]29980[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]29981[/ATTACH]
So, apart from nice graphics, what do those stats tell us?
Compared to heavy railroad artillery, infantries initiative, range and rate of fire is rather low. Artillery fires 8 times at ranges 7,6,5 and 4 before poor infantry has even chance to fire, inflicting 6 damage hits (out of 15 hits infantry brigade has) for each successful hit. 6 hits equals about 2000 men lost.
Artillery stats are similar in offensive and defensive, but entrenched defender gets huge protection bonuses for being in the trenches. MTSG guys do not receive entrenchment bonuses, but this simulates defenders counterattacking to retake that 1 lost trench to keep the line where it was.
So, the key to the game is to mass as much artillery as you can. Compared to CW2, infantry frontage has been reduced, but artillery frontage is rather similar. Overall, cohesion of all troops is lower, so attacking and moving pretty much quickly expends available cohesion.
[ATTACH]29980[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]29981[/ATTACH]
So, apart from nice graphics, what do those stats tell us?
Compared to heavy railroad artillery, infantries initiative, range and rate of fire is rather low. Artillery fires 8 times at ranges 7,6,5 and 4 before poor infantry has even chance to fire, inflicting 6 damage hits (out of 15 hits infantry brigade has) for each successful hit. 6 hits equals about 2000 men lost.
Artillery stats are similar in offensive and defensive, but entrenched defender gets huge protection bonuses for being in the trenches. MTSG guys do not receive entrenchment bonuses, but this simulates defenders counterattacking to retake that 1 lost trench to keep the line where it was.
So, the key to the game is to mass as much artillery as you can. Compared to CW2, infantry frontage has been reduced, but artillery frontage is rather similar. Overall, cohesion of all troops is lower, so attacking and moving pretty much quickly expends available cohesion.
- Attachments
-
-
Kensai wrote:Guys, Facebook is rather secure with the right settings nowadays. But even if you don't want to use a real name, it's ok. Create an account with a fake one and follow the channel there. It is not a bad platform, it's secure and a very good (and cheap) advertisement method for the game.
Though Ageod has a very limited following there (681 likes currently, even if you assume followers sharing content (which was not the case for any of the "to End all Wars" topics) you end up with a rather small audience). But I believe all material posted there has appeared here too. By the way, most of the graphics posted were requested (for instance I had asked for ANZAC Light Horse and Imperial Camel Corps and someone else for Hussar graphics just before the Light Cavalry images were posted). So blame us facebook followers and not Ageod itself for the material released so far :-) ...
P.S.: Even as a facebook user I'm not happy with facebook's dataprotection, image rights etc., the day they reuse one of my reenactment pictures for advertisment will lead to some fun days in court ;-) ...
Marc aka Caran...
-
TrenchFoot
- Private
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:50 pm
-
fred zeppelin
- Colonel
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm
fred zeppelin wrote:I think they figure the folks who visit here are pretty much automatic buyers.
They shouldn't.
The game producers have different strategies - some releases the manual, some makes an youtube walkthrough, some plays an AAR etc.. But here? Well, I will not buy a game blindly on the release date.
-
thehistoricalgamer
- Civilian
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:22 am
Guys I'm going to livestream on twitch the day the game comes out. Ageod's site says its the 25th on the product page but everyone else I've talked to says the 26th. If its the 26th, I'll probably live stream from roughly 12pm CST till 2 or 3pm. I don't do much in the way of streaming but I think it could be fun, though I hope I'm not too boring! I do more video on demand stuff, my YouTube channel is thehistoricalgamer if anyone wants to get a gist of what I do though I think this stream would be more initial impressions and gameplay than historical discussions. I'm not terribly familiar with AGEOD games, I've played a few but nothing recent (BOA, CW1, WW1Gold) so forgive me if I'm not an expert. Still figured you guys might wanna check it out. I'll post a link to where I'll be streaming as we get closer.
thehistoricalgamer wrote:Guys I'm going to livestream on twitch the day the game comes out. Ageod's site says its the 25th on the product page but everyone else I've talked to says the 26th. If its the 26th, I'll probably live stream from roughly 12pm CST till 2 or 3pm. I don't do much in the way of streaming but I think it could be fun, though I hope I'm not too boring! I do more video on demand stuff, my YouTube channel is thehistoricalgamer if anyone wants to get a gist of what I do though I think this stream would be more initial impressions and gameplay than historical discussions. I'm not terribly familiar with AGEOD games, I've played a few but nothing recent (BOA, CW1, WW1Gold) so forgive me if I'm not an expert. Still figured you guys might wanna check it out. I'll post a link to where I'll be streaming as we get closer.
Looking forward to it thehistoricalgamer! I am a subscriber to your YouTube channel and I enjoy your commentary very much.
thehistoricalgamer wrote:Guys I'm going to livestream on twitch the day the game comes out. Ageod's site says its the 25th on the product page but everyone else I've talked to says the 26th. If its the 26th, I'll probably live stream from roughly 12pm CST till 2 or 3pm. I don't do much in the way of streaming but I think it could be fun, though I hope I'm not too boring! I do more video on demand stuff, my YouTube channel is thehistoricalgamer if anyone wants to get a gist of what I do though I think this stream would be more initial impressions and gameplay than historical discussions. I'm not terribly familiar with AGEOD games, I've played a few but nothing recent (BOA, CW1, WW1Gold) so forgive me if I'm not an expert. Still figured you guys might wanna check it out. I'll post a link to where I'll be streaming as we get closer.
I do appreciate that thehistoricalgamer! But I really wonder why the devs do so little to sell their product. Everywhere else the devs try to create an enthusiasm.
Well, we are quite excited about TEAW, and about to release a short video explaining the very basics of the game. This is admittedly aimed at those new to the AGEOD series of games, but it does give you a glimpse on the game even if you are a veteran of the series.
And I am about to wrap up my AAR, which is less about explaining basics and more about showing the general flow of the game.
And I am about to wrap up my AAR, which is less about explaining basics and more about showing the general flow of the game.
-
H Gilmer3
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 822
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:57 am
- Location: United States of America
thehistoricalgamer wrote:Guys I'm going to livestream on twitch the day the game comes out. Ageod's site says its the 25th on the product page but everyone else I've talked to says the 26th. If its the 26th, I'll probably live stream from roughly 12pm CST till 2 or 3pm. I don't do much in the way of streaming but I think it could be fun, though I hope I'm not too boring! I do more video on demand stuff, my YouTube channel is thehistoricalgamer if anyone wants to get a gist of what I do though I think this stream would be more initial impressions and gameplay than historical discussions. I'm not terribly familiar with AGEOD games, I've played a few but nothing recent (BOA, CW1, WW1Gold) so forgive me if I'm not an expert. Still figured you guys might wanna check it out. I'll post a link to where I'll be streaming as we get closer.
I hope there is a way to view it after the fact, because I will be at work during your stream.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests