thebull0425
Corporal
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:55 pm

Thoughts and comments

Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:17 pm

So, I have been playing PBEM and it's been fun. But it also has not been fun.

1. Build times - if it says 60 days, then make it 60 days. I had ships say they would be ready in 360 days, that was in 1914 and we are in 1916.
2. Movement - if it tells you 8 days, or 20 or whatever, why is it that you aren't there in the timeframe? I have seen plotted moves that say 20 days take 4 turns. Makes no sense. Also, traffic penalty in the Age of Total War? Seems so out of place in this game. In a 19th century or earlier wargame, yes, but here, no. just no.
3. Combat results - 160 Arab Camel Riders wiped out a garrison of 6,000. Some battles I have seen 0 casualties for one of the combatants and some casualties for the others. Just seem inconsistent
4. Why if I attack territory A, does the defenders in A and B take part in the battle. Marching to the sound of battle? Not here in this type of warfare

I really like the game overall. Don't let the above fool you. Having said that, these types of things do impact my overall enjoyment of the game.

csiemers
Sergeant
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 4:19 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Thoughts and comments

Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:19 pm

1. Maybe your dock workers went on strike is why it took longer.
2. Maybe your troops got lost and went down the wrong road initially.
3. Maybe those 6,000 partied the night before the battle and were drunk.
4. Maybe B knew of the attack before hand and came to the aid of A unexpectedly.

Not trying to be snarky, but I think there are imponderables that happen in real life and there was no way to precisely have production, movements, and battles to happen exactly as we'd like them to happen. I think AGEOD does a pretty decent way to reflect that everything can't be perfectly planned.

thebull0425
Corporal
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:55 pm

Re: Thoughts and comments

Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:21 pm

Agreed. I like Ageod games. I just think that this engine does not suit World War 1 for the things that I pointed out. This was a war of massed troops. If I attacked at the Somme, troops in the next sector do not rally over for defense. That just doesn't make sense.

Agree, or disagree, just my thoughts.

epaminondas
Colonel
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:35 pm

Re: Thoughts and comments

Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:47 am

I actually like the imprecision of the build and movement mechanics. It frustrates the hell out of me but I think it's a reasonable representation of the way these things worked at the time - and still do for that matter.

On the build issue, for example, I can't think of a capital ship serving during WWI that was fully commissioned and ready for action on a specified projected date - in fact there was rarely, if ever, a "to-the-day" date included in the build programme. As far as the movement issue goes, one need only consider the implausibly ambitious march schedule of the German First Army in August 1914. I'm similarly a fan of the traffic penalty. Any road or rail system has a finite capacity and when that is approached - especially when movement in different directions is involved - "sub-optimal" performance inevitably results.

When it comes to "marching to the guns", though the wording might be anchored in a different era the actual mechanic seems to me to be very apt to the WWI setting. As long as functioning road and rail systems existed it was perfectly feasible, indeed standard practice, to reinforce actions with forces drawn from adjacent regions - witness the German Spring offensive of 1918. In the game this function appears compressed by the way time-lapse is managed in the display (with major battles being apparently resolved in a single day) but if we accept this as a limitation of the display rather than a representation of the way the mechanic actually works then I think it's a perfectly valid inclusion in the combat structure.

I will jump on the combat results bandwagon, however. I've just come off a turn in which a strength 80 cavalry unit assaulting Riga saw off a defending Russian infantry corps (artillery and all) with a casualty ratio of 340:7,280.

Return to “To End All Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests