Comment on the western front after two hundred hours of game time...

[ajarnlance]

Others have commented on this but I have a new perspective on the western front now that I have played the game against both the AI and a human opponent. First of all, I think the other fronts are working well in the game and there are all kinds of fascinating military and diplomatic combinations possible to keep players guessing. Where ageod really need to focus their development time with EAW is on the mechanics of western front warfare. After all, when most people think of WW1 they imagine soldiers in trenches getting shelled by artillery and dying by their thousands over a few muddy, shell pocked yards of ground. Historically there were a few breakthroughs between 1915 and 1917 but most of them only advanced a few miles before stalling due to being outflanked, unsupported, or counter attacked. Not until the huge German offensive in 1918 would an army truly advance a significant distance with a breakthrough on a wide front. Even then it was a short-lived success. What players want to see on the western front is a mostly static, trench warfare of attrition.. miles and miles of continuous trenches stretching from the Belgian coastline to the Swiss border... where it is very difficult (notice I didn't say impossible) for armies to move quickly and to gain significant advances. After a couple of hundred hours of playing EAW from 1.00 to 1.02 I can honestly say that this just isn't happening. Here is why and this is also why I think the western front theatre requires different game mechanics:

1) There is simply too much mobility. After a battle one side usually retreats out of the region.. this can even happen multiple times in one two-week turn leading to a ping pong effect of armies bouncing between regions. Opposing armies need to remain stuck in the same region much more often. Battles need to end in stalemate much more frequently.. I haven't seen a stalemate result yet... battles need to have the potential to become long drawn out affairs as each side commits more and more troops in attrition warfare... like Verdun IRL.

2) March to the sound of the guns... an excellent ageod game mechanic in other ageod games... and even on the other fronts in EAW... MTSG just doesn't work for western front warfare. MTSG is creating too much mobility and allowing situations like the one I recently reported in my AAR where an entire army abandoned its level five entrenched position and never returned.. leaving a gaping hole in my line.

3) I think that the game needs to differentiate between front line troops who would almost never vacate their trenches...and reserves which were more mobile and could be shifted to cover a threatened region. Currently there is no incentive for the player to keep much in reserve as armies will respond to attacks by mtsg. There is also no reason to spread your forces thinly, covering every region on the front with no gaps, as these forces currently can be easily overrun by a big stack. Power stacks unfortunately still rule.

Well, there are my thoughts. I think this game has so much potential and does many things very well. Hopefully special mechanics can be introduced that affect only the western theatre (which is already defined in the game files). Here are my suggestions:

1) The ground in the front line regions needs to be much harder to move over and through... the western front terrain was a nightmare of trenches, shell craters, mud and barbed wire which had the effect of slowing armies down significantly. Make new terrain modifiers that add movement and cohesion penalties along the actual front line regions.

2) It needs to be much harder to move entrenched defenders out of their positions... at least until creeping barrages and storm troopers make attacks more potent. Make the entrenchment levels much higher on the WF and prevent armies from abandoning trenches to mtsg.

3) Reduce the chance of retreat (out of the region) from combat significantly in the front line regions... stalemate should be the most common outcome. Retreating locally ie changing military control should be the focus.

4) Find a way to make artillery barrages and reserves a more integral part of the game. I feel as if there needs to be a clear distinction between the front lines in a region and 'behind the lines' where heavy artillery and reserves were located. Currently the role of heavy artillery only seems to be important when besieging forts.

There is a lot more... but I think this should be the focus: get the western front trench warfare working properly.. then this will be one of the best war games ever to come from any game studio.

[ATTACH]32617[/ATTACH]

[steelwarrior77]

Agree - I´d love to see a bombardment option for heavy artillery - so it can bombard adjacent units...

[ajarnlance]

Agree - I´d love to see a bombardment option for heavy artillery - so it can bombard adjacent units...

Yes, that would integrate artillery more into the game. Currently there is a decision card for a massive artillery bombardment but it is limited only to sieges and fortifications. This could be extended to include massive artillery bombardments of trenches prior to major offensives.

[steelwarrior77]

Exactly ;-)

[Merlin]

I do think an increase to entrenchment levels earlier on would help stagnate the front, but I disagree with some of the other points. Here's what I do to keep the line:

1. Defend in depth. This is kind of hard due to the low number of divisions in the game, but try to keep a corps in every region behind vulnerable points of the line. Keep armies no more than three regions apart, and try to keep a line of militia behind your front. All those ready entrenchments ensure you inflict maximum pain for minimum enemy gain. There's no reason not to have a front three regions deep in very vulnerable sectors.

2. Guns, guns, and more guns. These are the cohesion killers, and building out your LA pools is probably the single best thing you can do to stall enemy attacks.

3. Keep a reserve. This, in conjunction with the next point, will save you nearly every time. If your opponent hits you, hit him back. That one region breakthrough doesn't look so hot when you can counterpunch and MTSG from five adjacent regions.

4. Rails are everything. Keep them one region behind your MLR, no exceptions. Defending junctions is even more important than defending a salient, and this allows you to near instantly concentrate against a breakthrough. If you can't keep the rails at your back, don't fight over it.

5. Shorten your line wherever possible. If you actively prevent enemy from creating bulges in your line while simultaneously avoiding the creation of your own, you'll often find you can create a reserve.

[1alexey]

IMO, TEAW suffers a lot from engine mismatch.
It is still a fun game but WW1 would be far better handled on engine like in HOI3 or even upcoming HOI4, where a single "turn", or rather tick of the clock, lasts one hour as opposed to 14 days, there is far less abstract economy and production, and such, WW1 mod for HOI3 is probably the best WW1 game I played.

But really my problem with TEAW is the size of provinces and thus, it is almost impossible to have a "front-line" on most fronts except West front, my war in Russia looks more like Napoleonic campaign than WW1, when there are 2-3 places where there are a few stacks of troops on both sides, and the rest of the front is just empty, I don`t even bother capturing provinces that are not cities or rail line, and it doesn`t meter if I capture the main sources of Russian food and raw materials, the blockade is as effective, which makes no sense.

West front almost looks great, by comparison.

[Merlin]

The reason you have no incentive to form a front in Russia is because there simply aren't enough divisions to make it happen.

[Durk]

What I discovered is that a judicious blend of newly arriving division purchased pre-play with a bunch of cheap militia and one purchase of leaders = sufficient corps to hold a continuous front. Supply units take a bit of creativity, but is totally possible to get a rough front in place which then requires real effort of the Central Powers to dent.
So, there are enough divisions, and,
the size of provinces/regions is not an issue at all. I create a continuous front from the Baltic to Romania and then the Black Sea.

[steelwarrior77]

Hmm, beside the things I mentioned above, I sometimes feel it would be better to have one week turns - the AI seems to be able to react during turn times - I cannot and due to a lot of railroads things can change a lot during two weeks - so one week would be better to adjust to quickly changing situations...

[1alexey]

What I discovered is that a judicious blend of newly arriving division purchased pre-play with a bunch of cheap militia and one purchase of leaders = sufficient corps to hold a continuous front. Supply units take a bit of creativity, but is totally possible to get a rough front in place which then requires real effort of the Central Powers to dent.
So, there are enough divisions, and,
the size of provinces/regions is not an issue at all. I create a continuous front from the Baltic to Romania and then the Black Sea.

How much power does your average province garrisoned with?
How well does it fare against 1 or 2 full armies attacking it?