Slight disappointment

[Aurelin]

I was really hoping that the Russian command structure would finally appear, but alas.

What does he mean by that, you ask?

The Russian Fronts, aka Army Groups.

Northwestern Front (until August 1915) Northern Front (from August 1915)
Western Front (from August 1915)

Southwestern Front
Romanian Front
Caucasus Front

They were using Fronts right from the start. The chain of command went STAVKA, (GHQ in game)--> Front--> Army-->Corps.

[Ace]

So, you would model Russian command structure better than for other countries? They didn't fair better than Germans?

[Aurelin]

No, I would model the historical reality that they did have army groups at the start. And the historical reality that the other countries adopted it later.

Kind of hard to have the Brusilov Offensive if said general is not the CO of Southwestern Front but only an army commander isn't it?

As I indicated, a slight disappointment

[fred zeppelin]

So, you would model Russian command structure better than for other countries? They didn't fair better than Germans?

The problem wasn't that they lacked a command structure. It was how their command structure performed.

It wasn't that the Russians somehow didn't understand how to make an Army or an Army Group. It was that their generals didn't perform well and that the Russians generally employed some outdated operational practices (i.e., failing to encrypt orders, etc.).

You model that best by modeling the generals and inherent limitations on Russian commands. Not by imposing artificial and nonsensical limitations on the ability to create a command structure at all.

[HerrDan]

The problem wasn't that they lacked a command structure. It was how their command structure performed.

It wasn't that the Russians somehow didn't understand how to make an Army or an Army Group. It was that their generals didn't perform well and that the Russians generally employed some outdated operational practices (i.e., failing to encrypt orders, etc.).

You model that best by modeling the generals and inherent limitations on Russian commands. Not by imposing artificial and nonsensical limitations on the ability to create a command structure at all.

Which "artificial and nonsensical limitation" are you talking about? Have you actually played the game? lol...

[fred zeppelin]

Which "artificial and nonsensical limitation" are you talking about? Have you actually played the game? lol...

I'm talking about this: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?36840-To-End-All-Wars-First-Impressions/page4

See posts 91 and 92.

[Aurelin]

Oh, and....

The French Army formed a number of Groupe D'Armees during the First World War. The first of these was Army Group North, formed on a provision basis in October 1914. Army Group East and Army Group Centre both followed in 1915 while Army Group Reserve was established in 1917. A Franco-Belgian Army Group Flanders also existed briefly in 1918, under the command of Albert I of Belgium.

Germany

The German Army formed its first two Heeresgruppen in 1915, to control forces on the eastern front. A total of eight Army Groups would ultimately be raised; four for service on each front, with one of the eastern front Army Groups being a multinational German and Austro-Hungarian formation. Originally the Imperial German Army Groups were not separate formations, but instead additional responsibilities granted to certain Army commanders. Crown Prince Wilhelm for instance, was simultaneously commander of the 5th Army and Army Group German Crown Prince from August 1915 to November 1916.

All eight German Army Groups were named after their commanders.

[Nico165]

It is a question of design choices.

AGEOD did not choose to mimic historical reality of the command chain. They chose to use the system they had to obtain what they think is the best possible outcome in game balance. I'm pretty sure they know that army group existed in WW1

[fred zeppelin]

It is a question of design choices.

AGEOD did not choose to mimic historical reality of the command chain. They chose to use the system they had to obtain what they think is the best possible outcome in game balance. I'm pretty sure they know that army group existed in WW1

How so? As I understand it, Armies can operate outside the command radius of the GHQ, but at a command penalty. But they can't be formed outside GHQ range. So you can build more armies, but you first have to move the general within GHQ range (or vice versa). Once the Army is built, it can operate anywhere.

So the limitation on the number of Armies is purely mechanical - you have to first go through the movement ritual. Not sure that mimics anything particularly historical.

[Nico165]

How so? As I understand it, Armies can operate outside the command radius of the GHQ, but at a command penalty. But they can't be formed outside GHQ range. So you can build more armies, but you first have to move the general within GHQ range (or vice versa). Once the Army is built, it can operate anywhere.

So the limitation on the number of Armies is purely mechanical - you have to first go through the movement ritual. Not sure that mimics anything particularly historical.

That is what I say, they went for game balance and not mimic reality (about army groups). About creating armies, the current system can be made better yes.

[StephenT]

So the limitation on the number of Armies is purely mechanical - you have to first go through the movement ritual. Not sure that mimics anything particularly historical.

On the other hand, creating an army was, I gather, quite an involved process. It took time to gather the army assets, appoint generals and headquarters staff, prepare all the paperwork and new orders for everybody. Back in the days before computers and reliable telephones, that all took time. It wasn't something you could do on a whim, from one two-week turn to the next.

And actually, I suspect it would be quite historical for a new army commander to be called in to headquarters to receive a briefing and orders from his commander-in-chief.

There might be another way to represent all this, but I can't see that it's as absurd as you're claiming.

[fred zeppelin]

On the other hand, creating an army was, I gather, quite an involved process. It took time to gather the army assets, appoint generals and headquarters staff, prepare all the paperwork and new orders for everybody. Back in the days before computers and reliable telephones, that all took time. It wasn't something you could do on a whim, from one two-week turn to the next.

And actually, I suspect it would be quite historical for a new army commander to be called in to headquarters to receive a briefing and orders from his commander-in-chief.

There might be another way to represent all this, but I can't see that it's as absurd as you're claiming.

They simulated that well in AACW (and probably other games since) by making a newly-formed Army wait a turn or two before being fully operational. You create the Army on the spot but you have to wait a turn or two before it will operate at full efficiency.

That's how you do it - and how they've done it in other games. The key concept: Penalize the army in the game, not the human playing the game. Don't make me have to go through some idiotic ritual to do something the game can easily be programmed to do itself.