AGEOD Forums

Well, this is a thread about CP- Command Points, NM- Morale and VP- Victory Points.

Basically, VP as on date is quite useless, unless you are a player who waits for RIGOR MORTIS.
CP, is evaded using only corps instead of armies; the problem with the GHQ being able to help only a few generals is evaded using corps and hence is a big loophole. GHQ in the age of Aircraft, Telephone and Telegraph not able to communicate with the top Generals is a bit strange- came up in the BETA testing also.

NM- Big cities should give some +- NM, if you abandon Congress Poland without a Fight there should be a price to pay for Russia .. etc.
the VP cities can start giving some +-NM, also the Minors need 1/2 NM cities too, long overdue; the Capital and the second city of the country can give +-5NM and +-2NM respectively. Will force the minors to also protect the capital and second city compulsorily, if both lost- GAME OVER for minors. (mostly historical, did happen in the case of Romania; happened partially in the Serbian and Belgian Cases).

Now to one more problem with VP-
If you do not get the objectives stated in the WAR plan a huge loss of VP and small loss of NM is necessary.
Why?
A player never attacks East Prussia or Alsace thus Germany doesn't get the easy victories in Aug-Sept coupled with the slow 'Schlieffen' means that Germany is penalised and the Allied- WE and EE are given a bonus, the losses for AI are atleast 1 army each for WE and EE against a CP.
Now granted, Austria doesn't follow path of disaster too and this bonus is partly matched in the Eastern Front, but the bonus for WE is not matched at all.

So, Hindenburg should be shown from the start, maybe locked in Koenigsburg in first turn, but otherwise too 'gamey' a tactic.
(Showing Prittwitz is historical but then can make a game too 'gamey').
Also France should be forced to commit HARA-KIRI in Alsace.

+1

Shri wrote:Well, this is a thread about CP- Command Points, NM- Morale and VP- Victory Points.

Basically, VP as on date is quite useless, unless you are a player who waits for RIGOR MORTIS.
CP, is evaded using only corps instead of armies; the problem with the GHQ being able to help only a few generals is evaded using corps and hence is a big loophole. GHQ in the age of Aircraft, Telephone and Telegraph not able to communicate with the top Generals is a bit strange- came up in the BETA testing also.

The GHQ should be your reserve, armies should hold your loose divisions which you can't consolidate into corps, and your corps should of necessity be commanded by generals. I'm very much okay with the current system, and if you launch an offensive beyond the range of the GHQ, you deserve the defeat. EAW is not CW2. What we have represented is a much more formalized chain of command with the corresponding penalties for acting without or in the absence of orders. I respectfully see no need to change the current system outside my reply to your post in the "Help Improve..." sub-forum.

NM- Big cities should give some +- NM, if you abandon Congress Poland without a Fight there should be a price to pay for Russia .. etc.
the VP cities can start giving some +-NM, also the Minors need 1/2 NM cities too, long overdue; the Capital and the second city of the country can give +-5NM and +-2NM respectively. Will force the minors to also protect the capital and second city compulsorily, if both lost- GAME OVER for minors. (mostly historical, did happen in the case of Romania; happened partially in the Serbian and Belgian Cases).

I very much agree... to an extent. Here's what I want to see: Several cities/fortifications worth between 1-5 NM behind friendly lines. This way, the harder they are to take, the more they are worth. Having a few NM scattered through every city would subject factions to premature collapse. For example: why would Reims be worth more than Verdun? Making every city worth NM invites a steamroller, and I don't remotely feel that represents WW1 at all. If it interests you, here's my list of improvements for EAW, and NM objectives are number four.

If you do not get the objectives stated in the WAR plan a huge loss of VP and small loss of NM is necessary.
Why?
A player never attacks East Prussia or Alsace thus Germany doesn't get the easy victories in Aug-Sept coupled with the slow 'Schlieffen' means that Germany is penalised and the Allied- WE and EE are given a bonus, the losses for AI are atleast 1 army each for WE and EE against a CP.
Now granted, Austria doesn't follow path of disaster too and this bonus is partly matched in the Eastern Front, but the bonus for WE is not matched at all.

Here I strongly disagree. Under the current setup, you can cause the loss of 5 NM and get 5 NM just by taking one single objective. Yes, it requires the proper plans and failure from your opposition, but it's entirely possible. If so, why change anything? Russia not attacking Prussia and "slow Schlieffen" are entirely different matters. In PBEM, I've taken Paris. In PBEM, I've stolen a Prussian objective from Germany as Russia. In PBEM, anything is possible. Honestly, I think the war plan NM penalties/additions are too high. Drop them to a maximum of 6 NM total loss/gain, let the players try to make the difference in the field, and now you have the "would've-could've-should've dynamic of WW1.

So, Hindenburg should be shown from the start, maybe locked in Koenigsburg in first turn, but otherwise too 'gamey' a tactic.
(Showing Prittwitz is historical but then can make a game too 'gamey').
Also France should be forced to commit HARA-KIRI in Alsace.

Again, I strongly disagree. I do think Hindemburg/Ludendorff should be added to the German OOB in Late September at the latest, but committing France to Plan XVII? Bullshit.

We have alternate war plans for a reason. Let them play out.

@Merlin

GHQ-
I agree with your stance, just added a point of view, that point came up during BETA phase also.

NM-
Good to see your suggestions box, i have gone through it before also, excellent ones.

War Plan-
Well, PBEM opponent strength matters.

French Alsace-
I meant only about France choosing Historic Plan XVII and not attacking Alsace esp. in PBEM, instead choosing to rail or move armies to stop SCHLIEFFEN.
I did not mean that in the "alternate plans". Actually as France- PLAN XIX is the Best plan in most cases.

Hindenburg-
Hindenburg represents the complex command structure of OberOst, not just himself as a figurehead but Ludendorff as CoS, Hoffman and Seeckt as Planners and Bruchmuller as Artillery co-ordinater and later Col. Bauer and Col. Lossberg in Storm trooper and Defense in Depth Tactics.
If you play PBEM, CP does not gain Hindenburg and hence, a big blow to CP, that is why in the HISTORIC plans alone- - Hara-Kiri is to be enforced for WE and EE.
The other plans should rightly give a malus, as you are going - ahistorical.

Again i repeat, if you go - ahistorical and agree to take a NM hit, no need to commit Hara-Kiri in Alsace or East Prussia.

Should this not be in the Help Improve EAW subforum? Particularly because you still have access to the beta forum, as being an EAW beta?

@Pocus.

Well, sorry, i will stop the discussion here and will shift it to Help Improve, i guess MERLIN does have the BETA Access.

Shri wrote:@Pocus.

Well, sorry, i will stop the discussion here and will shift it to Help Improve, i guess MERLIN does have the BETA Access.

No, I don't. However, I certainly want EAW to be the best of AGEOD games, so I'm posting my opinion wherever I can. FWIW, our verbal sparring should help the Big Three to improve the game.

I'll move the discussion to Help Improve EAW then