MTSG needs to be changed

[James D Burns]

I feel this issue brought up in another topic is important enough to the game that it needs its own discussion thread.

I’ve been mulling over the implications of how MTSG works in game and I feel it is rife with possibilities for exploits. Imagine if you will your main attacking army set up two regions behind the lines and a small soak-off attack force of cavalry (they usually retreat early in a fight and suffer few pursuit hits) is set up on the front lines to initiate an attack.

The cavalry attacks a region adjacent to some important objective city and the MTSG feature Hoover’s up the armies from all the surrounding regions pulling them off their more important objectives and into the unimportant wilderness region. The main army then arrives later in the turn due to it being further back from the front and grabs the real objective region without much effort since the army that was there left to fight in the soak-off battle and didn’t return. And even if it had returned, its trenches that took weeks/months to dig have suddenly vanished never to be seen again.

The game really needs to allow players to toggle a switch/button that will prevent stacks from automatically using the MTSG feature to prevent this and other possible exploits. And stacks that do use MTSG should return to their original regions and re-occupy their trench works no matter what outcome the battle they supported has.

Jim

[fred zeppelin]

I feel this issue brought up in another topic is important enough to the game that it needs its own discussion thread.

I’ve been mulling over the implications of how MTSG works in game and I feel it is rife with possibilities for exploits. Imagine if you will your main attacking army set up two regions behind the lines and a small soak-off attack force of cavalry (they usually retreat early in a fight and suffer few pursuit hits) is set up on the front lines to initiate an attack.

The cavalry attacks a region adjacent to some important objective city and the MTSG feature Hoover’s up the armies from all the surrounding regions pulling them off their more important objectives and into the unimportant wilderness region. The main army then arrives later in the turn due to it being further back from the front and grabs the real objective region without much effort since the army that was there left to fight in the soak-off battle and didn’t return. And even if it had returned, its trenches that took weeks/months to dig have suddenly vanished never to be seen again.

The game really needs to allow players to toggle a switch/button that will prevent stacks from automatically using the MTSG feature to prevent this and other possible exploits. And stacks that do use MTSG should return to their original regions and re-occupy their trench works no matter what outcome the battle they supported has.

Jim

I have this exact same concern, though I haven't yet played the game enough to see if it's a real problem.

One solution might be to distinguish between front-line units and reserve units. If the enemy attacks my line, I don't necessarily want my front-line units to leave their sectors and converge on the sector under attack. But I probably do want my reserve units stationed behind the front to do that. Reserves moving forward to reinforce a beleaguered front is good. But front-line units abandoning their positions to reinforce laterally could be a complete disaster.

This is one major difference between this game and WWI Gold. Reinforcements in WWIG are available at the Army and GHQ level, and can be committed to any battle anywhere along the front as needed. In fact, one of the nice strategy decision points in WWIG is "Do I commit my reserves in this battle or wait for the next one down the line? Or do I save them for a counter-attack?" It just feels very WWI-like.

I doubt the EAW engine can accommodate that level of flexibility, but I do think it should be possible to rework the MTSG mechanic so you have reserve units moving forward rather than front-line units moving laterally.

[Doctoxic]

Imagine if you will your main attacking army set up two regions behind the lines and a small soak-off attack force of cavalry (they usually retreat early in a fight and suffer few pursuit hits) is set up on the front lines to initiate an attack.


Jim

Note sure this would work unless its a Cavalry (or infantry) "Army" - the rules say :

"Depending on the situation, an Army or GHQ engaged in combat may decide to call for reinforcements. If it does, Armies attached to that same GHQ (Army Group) located in adjacent regions may answer the call and join the fight if they pass a check."

But even so a small army would do the same thing though with more losses maybe??

[Ace]

Good questions by both of you. I don't think engine is flexible enough to differentiate if the unit is moving laterally or forward to support, but returning to original province regardless of the battle result is a good suggestion. About the exploit you mentioned, if the battle is won, MTSG troops return to their original province on the same day with their starting entrench value.

[fred zeppelin]

Good questions by both of you. I don't think engine is flexible enough to differentiate if the unit is moving laterally or forward to support,

You could accomplish the same thing, though, by letting the player turn MTSG on or off per unit. I could set my front-line units to hold in place and then station reserves behind the lines with MTSG orders.

Ideally, the reserves would respond on an Army or GHQ basis - i.e., 1st Army reserves MTSG in the 1st Army front, etc., while GHQ reserves MSTG anywhere within command radius that AI perceives to be the most critical.

You'd end up with a very WWI-like front.

Of course, you'd have to program the AI to do it too.

[Ace]

Well the way I understand AGE engine goes like this. Units on offensive posture will seek combat vs the enemy. When unit is attacked, it will call neighboring units to MTSG. Neighboring units include units in the same region. So, for example in CW2, if you put 2 independent defending divisions in the same province, they are not guaranteed to participate in combat unless enemy attacks both of them. If they are Corps (in CW2), they will join the combat (being in the same region chance to join the combat are 100%). I guess the same may apply here, if you toggle MTSG off, the stacks sharing the region are not guaranteed to help stacks in the same region and we wouldn't want that, would we? The answer may lie in units retreating to their original province with original trench value regardless on win or loss.

[minipol]

For your cavalry remark, what I do is put them on passive (green) and use the evade combat button. I always use loose cavalry for this, never a corps or anything that would MTSG.
I want they to scout not fight.

As for the disappearing trenches, I always leave a small unit behind. It keeps the trench "alive" as it where.
If a force moves out, and attacks and retreats, when the turn is resolved, you can easily drag the force on the small unit and they immediately have the same entrenchement value again.
I used it all the time in CWII. I even used it for the garrisons behind the front. I kept at least 1 unit out of the city so there were always ready made trenches available when I needed to retreat.

[Tamas]

All friendly units in a region share trench values, so if you have an entrenched stack in the region, another stack moving (or retreating) there will receive the same trench level.

[Pocus]

This exploit was foreseeable, this is why armies in MTSG are put back in their original region before another battle or move is done by anyone.

[Highlandcharge]

I have done a few tests guys...

The evade button stops MTSG if the general commanding the Army or Corps is activated, if he is not activated there is still a small chance he will MTSG to a adjecent battle/region..

The good news is that if a stationary Corps commanded by an an active general on evade orders is directly attacked he will fight to defend his region..

I would say that maybe the best way to play EAW is with all generals activated (the most lenient activation rule) , that way you can issue evade combat orders to keep your front lines intact without Corps and army's marching to and fro... you can then set up reserve corps behind the lines without evade orders to support your front line Armys/Corps when attacked..

Thoughts?

[RGA]

Thanks, did you see if units that MTSG returned to their original locations after the battle (in case of victory and defeat) ?

[James D Burns]

This exploit was foreseeable, this is why armies in MTSG are put back in their original region before another battle or move is done by anyone.

Not if the first battle is lost. I had Belgian troops from Gent MTSG into Tournai and retreat to Lille with the defeated British leaving Gent undefended.

Perhaps my exploit example was a bad idea to use to showcase possible problems with the system as currently implemented. So instead lets assume two legitimate large armies attack adjacent regions, MTSG will virtually guarantee one of the battles will succeed as the defenders in the first battle that MTSG will be in bad shape when the second fight takes place. The game really needs to let players prevent units from MTSG otherwise cracking the trench lines will be relatively easy if attackers simply focus their efforts on adjacent regions forcing defenders to leave their carefully prepared positions.

Another idea if MTSG is actually a call that goes out and not an ability of the stack being called, perhaps you can simply limit the call to go only to regions not adjacent to enemy controlled regions?

Jim

[FroBodine]

This exploit was foreseeable, this is why armies in MTSG are put back in their original region before another battle or move is done by anyone.

But, apparently armies are NOT put back into their original region if they lose or retreat from the battle. This is the main problem, and is what needs to get fixed.

[Highlandcharge]

Hi RGA...

Its the same as in other ageod games, if an Army/Corps and supporting Corps are victorious then all supporting Corps return to there original regions with there entrench level intact... if they lose the supporting Corps retreat to the same region as the directly attacked Army/Corps and lose there entrench level unless a small force is kept in there starting region...

[Highlandcharge]

Hi FroBodine (great avatar, loved that movie) and James D Burns..

Why not use the method I posted, it works


I have done a few tests guys...

The evade button stops MTSG if the general commanding the Army or Corps is activated, if he is not activated there is still a small chance he will MTSG to a adjecent battle/region..

The good news is that if a stationary Corps commanded by an an active general on evade orders is directly attacked he will fight to defend his region..

I would say that maybe the best way to play EAW is with all generals activated (the most lenient activation rule) , that way you can issue evade combat orders to keep your front lines intact without Corps and army's marching to and fro... you can then set up reserve corps behind the lines without evade orders to support your front line Armys/Corps when attacked..

[James D Burns]

The good news is that if a stationary Corps commanded by an an active general on evade orders is directly attacked he will fight to defend his region..
[/I]

Better test this some more, I'm pretty sure there is an evasion die roll and if he succeeds he will go green/green and retreat without engaging. I've seen this occur in other games, but the die roll needed to succeed. I think it is effected by the evasion value of the defending stack and patrol value of the attacking stack so large armies will have a very tiny chance at succeeding, but I do believe there is a chance they will simply flee on occasion.

Jim

[Highlandcharge]

Hi Jim..

I will happily go back and test it, although I suspect and hope I am correct, I will post the results when I am done

[fred zeppelin]

Hi FroBodine (great avatar, loved that movie) and James D Burns..

Why not use the method I posted, it works

...

I would say that maybe the best way to play EAW is with all generals activated (the most lenient activation rule) , that way you can issue evade combat orders to keep your front lines intact without Corps and army's marching to and fro... you can then set up reserve corps behind the lines without evade orders to support your front line Armys/Corps when attacked.. [/I]

We shouldn't have to turn the activation rules off the make the game play reasonably. This is one of those areas where the CW2 model may not work especially well for WWI.

The way the game should work is pretty simple: I ought to be able to tell some units to stay home and defend aggressively and others to MTSG as reserves. The concept is not that complicated.

Under the current system, it seems like there are two options to make a unit stay put: (1) use the Evade Combat order, which may not work if the general is not activated (or possibly if a dice roll fails) or (2) perhaps (I'm guessing) to set up the fixed unit so it has no general (and thus won't MTSG). I'm not sure about the latter method, but neither seems ideal. I shouldn't have to choose between defend weakly or defend not at all.

The problem with the return-to-province rule, as Jim points out, is that it carries the risk that losing a single battle can destroy your entire front across multiple provinces. That's not how WWI combat worked, at least after trench warfare set in on the Western Front. WWI armies defended in depth, not laterally.

An on/off order per unit would solve the problem. Seems pretty simple.

[James D Burns]

Hi Jim..

I will happily go back and test it, although I suspect and hope I am correct, I will post the results when I am done

Hopefully Pocus will chime in and can save you the trouble of testing it, he should know for sure.

Jim

[Highlandcharge]

Hi Jim, I really don't mind testing

I done 10 tests with the exact same unit and orders(defend sustained versus attack sustained) and circumstances and 10 times out 0f 10 the defending active general with the evade combat orders stayed and fought...the only difference between the tests where who lost and who won...

[fred zeppelin]

Hi Jim, I really don't mind testing

I done 10 tests with the exact same unit and orders(defend sustained versus attack sustained) and circumstances and 10 times out 0f 10 the defending active general with the evade combat orders stayed and fought...the only difference between the tests where who lost and who won...

Sounds promising. Two questions:

1. I assume you have the activation rule set to Off? So your method works but you lose the activation mechanic across the entire game? (Come to think of it, but the concept that an inactive general would make troops more likely to jump out of their comfy trenches and charge laterally down the front line to join combat in another province seems nonsensical in the extreme.)

2. Can you tell from the combat results in what posture the "evading" unit defends? Is it normal defense? Can you set aggression levels (i.e., hold at all costs, etc.) and will they work?

Thanks for your work on this.

[Searry]

I'd rather go back to the old system of MTSG. I'd also like to make as many "armies" as I like. It's ridiculous that as Eastern Entente, I'm restricted to just one overall commander when I have multiple different fronts. Sure it makes the game harder but in an artificial way.

[StephenT]

The way the game should work is pretty simple: I ought to be able to tell some units to stay home and defend aggressively and others to MTSG as reserves. The concept is not that complicated.

That seems sensible to me.

'Marching to the sound of the guns' is more of a 19th century concept. In the First World War, with better communications and linear fronts, the real concept was that of army reserves. A general wouldn't pull his corps out of the line on his own initiative to march over to help out another corps; instead, there'd be units stationed behind the line ready to reinforce any threatened sector.

To show this in the game, the easiest solution might be to add a 'Front Line' button to the unit menu; stacks so designated would have MTSG disabled, and perhaps a little graphic of a trench superimposed on the counter to depict that. The AI should be taught to put enough units on Front Line status to meet the province's maximum frontage, and leave all others as reserves able to MTSG. (Though I'm not sure how that would work balance-wise; need to experiment.)

As an alternative, which would involve a more radical change to the game system; remove the MSTG ablity from normal stacks, and instead have the power to designate specific 'Reserve' stacks. These would have the ability to MTSG not only to adjacent provinces, but with a range equal to their general's strategic rating. That would let you deploy an Army Reserve in a province behind the lines, and keep comparatively minor troops in the front lines. There'd need to be an algorithm determining which combats got reinforced if several were in range, depending on the odds and the size of the attack.

[fred zeppelin]

A general wouldn't pull his corps out of the line on his own initiative to march over to help out another corps; instead, there'd be units stationed behind the line ready to reinforce any threatened sector.

Worse, the current system apparently models the opposite: Units will evade combat and stay put, unless their general is inactive, in which case the men somehow take it upon themselves to leap from their trenches and attack laterally across the front. I'm reasonably certain that never happened in the war. Certainly not as a rule.

As an alternative, which would involve a more radical change to the game system; remove the MSTG ablity from normal stacks, and instead have the power to designate specific 'Reserve' stacks. These would have the ability to MTSG not only to adjacent provinces, but with a range equal to their general's strategic rating. That would let you deploy an Army Reserve in a province behind the lines, and keep comparatively minor troops in the front lines. There'd need to be an algorithm determining which combats got reinforced if several were in range, depending on the odds and the size of the attack.

As long as we're dreaming, I'd love to see a system where units are designated as reserves, at both the Army and GHQ level. The former can reinforce units in the same Army; the latter can reinforce anywhere within the GHQ command radius.

Then, in the battle planner, you would have an option to commit reserves, with the available units (Army and/or GHQ) shown. You then would have a choice (an "interesting decision" as Sid Meier would say) whether and which units to commit (and whether and which units to save for the next battle or perhaps a counter-attack next turn).

This would give the player control (instead of the somewhat arbitrary MTSG mechanic) and make the battles less of a pure spectator sport.

Dreaming, I know.

[Highlandcharge]

Hi Fred, yes the different offensive and defensive postures seem to work as normal

Apart from a major change to the game system like a new MTSG button, the evade combat button seems to be the only way to stop your troops leaving there trenches when you want them to say still... but at least it works

Also Fred the battle reserve commitment system sounds eerily like the battle system in Calvinus's WWI gold battle system...

[fred zeppelin]

Hi Fred, yes the different offensive and defensive postures seem to work as normal

Good.

Apart from a major change to the game system like a new MTSG button, the evade combat button seems to be the only way to stop your troops leaving there trenches when you want them to say still...

How about leaving the defenders without a general (is that even possible)? That theoretically would keep them from MTSG. And allow the player to play with activation rules on.

EDIT: And I assume simply setting them in Defensive Posture won't work? They still might MTSG?

[Highlandcharge]

No I tested that idea last night, a Corps or division not commanded by general will not under any circumstances MTSG... but as the unit is not part of the army/corps system they wont have any other army or Corps from adjecent regions marching to help them...

[Krikke100]

How does MTSG affect moving units. Facing a German Schlieffen I noticed von Kluck's 1. Armee stack MTSG to a battle in Antwerp, MTSG to a second battle in Genth and then end up in Alost. I loaded the game as the Central Powers to check and units of the stack participated in both battles and still managed to finish their originally planned move which required 12 days to complete. If this is the result of units who MTSG warping back to their original location it opens the door for strong offensive exploits. Most of the army moving straight to the objective with small stacks branching off to attack enemy units/forts and each time the main units MTSGing to the battles without having to divert from their path.

[fred zeppelin]

How does MTSG affect moving units. Facing a German Schlieffen I noticed von Kluck's 1. Armee stack MTSG to a battle in Antwerp, MTSG to a second battle in Genth and then end up in Alost. I loaded the game as the Central Powers to check and units of the stack participated in both battles and still managed to finish their originally planned move which required 12 days to complete. If this is the result of units who MTSG warping back to their original location it opens the door for strong offensive exploits. Most of the army moving straight to the objective with small stacks branching off to attack enemy units/forts and each time the main units MTSGing to the battles without having to divert from their path.

My guess is that's an accommodation to fit the two-week turn length - offensives would stall otherwise.

[HerrDan]

My guess is that's an accommodation to fit the two-week turn length - offensives would stall otherwise.

Indeed. It's perfectly nett, I don't see any problem here.