Hey guys, I've been playing quite a few PBEMs lately and I've noticed some stuff that I would like to share or put up for discussion in general.
1. The Railpool (especially in the later game) seems excessive. Thanks to continuous rail connections, a German Army can mount a train in Königsberg, be in Krakau or Przesmyl even, 13-16 days later, fight a deceisive battle, remount the train, head back to hit another Russian Army coming down into East Prussia and so on. The bottom line is, armies can relocate too fast and too efficiently.
Possible solutions could be: (1) A penalty to cohesion after transportation, which would make sense. (2) Increased penalty to supply distribution when more than the needed amount is spend. (3) Higher railpoints cost for redeployment in general.
2. Replacing CinC's should be penalized throughout the game. Replacing Moltke in the very beginning of the game, comes at a cost of ~4NM I think. Dismissing Falkenhayn in 1915 comes at -12NM. If you dismiss Moltke early on, Falkenhayn does not take over automatically and the price for maybe dismissing Moltke's replacement is much lower then the price to dismiss Falkenhayn.
Right now, you can basically power up any General and appoint him CinC. Historically, there was much more to the matter than "Hey, you did well on the field, why don't you try". It was politics. Pure and simple. I don't think this is portrayed well by the game. Certain factions can turn into unbeatable hordes with the right General in charge.
3. Right now, I have had Romania join the CP in mid 1915, Bulgaria leans heavily towards the CP already. I don't know whether or not this is intentional.
4.There really is no free choice of warplans. Yes there are high penalties on the plans themselves (there should be) but the later hits on NM are just way too harsh. Especially the -10 for the Austrian Kaisers death, the large hits for possible Options, Warplans, War Weariness, Money printing and whatnot. It's just too much pressure on NM. Battles not even counted.
5.Is there a specific reason why neither Serbs, nor Rumanians or Bulgarians have a GHQ? Same goes for any overseas Independent stacks. There is no way to have British Armies in Egypt attached to a GHQ but to dissolve the one in France.
6. I am playing 3 different PBEMs as CP right now. Hindenburg has appeared in none, because players stay away from German territory. The question to be asked is why Ludendorff isn't included in the game. Whatsoever.
Just a couple of observations. I don't know, maybe other people can add their subjective ones.
Byrd wrote:Hey guys, I've been playing quite a few PBEMs lately and I've noticed some stuff that I would like to share or put up for discussion in general.
1. The Railpool (especially in the later game) seems excessive. Thanks to continuous rail connections, a German Army can mount a train in Königsberg, be in Krakau or Przesmyl even, 13-16 days later, fight a deceisive battle, remount the train, head back to hit another Russian Army coming down into East Prussia and so on. The bottom line is, armies can relocate too fast and too efficiently.
Possible solutions could be: (1) A penalty to cohesion after transportation, which would make sense. (2) Increased penalty to supply distribution when more than the needed amount is spend. (3) Higher railpoints cost for redeployment in general.
Traffic really knocks the hell out of the hyper-rail army shifting. I really don't see the need to change much now.
2. Replacing CinC's should be penalized throughout the game. Replacing Moltke in the very beginning of the game, comes at a cost of ~4NM I think. Dismissing Falkenhayn in 1915 comes at -12NM. If you dismiss Moltke early on, Falkenhayn does not take over automatically and the price for maybe dismissing Moltke's replacement is much lower then the price to dismiss Falkenhayn.
Right now, you can basically power up any General and appoint him CinC. Historically, there was much more to the matter than "Hey, you did well on the field, why don't you try". It was politics. Pure and simple. I don't think this is portrayed well by the game. Certain factions can turn into unbeatable hordes with the right General in charge.
The difference in NM for replacing the GHQ is purely political (every general has a political value which affects the amount of VP/NM lost if he is passed over/replaced). I'd actually suggest players never change GHQ because NM is too important and even 4 NM can put you under the remaining number of turns, guaranteeing you will lose if you don't generate some field miracles.
3. Right now, I have had Romania join the CP in mid 1915, Bulgaria leans heavily towards the CP already. I don't know whether or not this is intentional.
Romania's starting alignment may need some tweaking, but I think changes would be premature if the Italian and US events aren't fixed first.
4.There really is no free choice of warplans. Yes there are high penalties on the plans themselves (there should be) but the later hits on NM are just way too harsh. Especially the -10 for the Austrian Kaisers death, the large hits for possible Options, Warplans, War Weariness, Money printing and whatnot. It's just too much pressure on NM. Battles not even counted.
I think this should be handled in the opposite manner. War plans should come with very small NM increases/decreases because the success or failure of those plans depend entirely on both the chosen plans of opposition and how well the players themselves handle their forces in the first few turns. It's entirely possible to walk away with a 10 NM difference by taking a single objective.
5.Is there a specific reason why neither Serbs, nor Rumanians or Bulgarians have a GHQ? Same goes for any overseas Independent stacks. There is no way to have British Armies in Egypt attached to a GHQ but to dissolve the one in France.
I don't know about a GHQ, but a starting army would be nice for the minors. As for overseas stacks, you can form armies with them. The most obvious example is the British in Egypt: Ship Kitchener to Egypt, form your armies, and ship him back. No need to dissolve and reform the GHQ. It's awkward, but has been this way since AACW, I think. Certainly CW2 works this way.
6. I am playing 3 different PBEMs as CP right now. Hindenburg has appeared in none, because players stay away from German territory. The question to be asked is why Ludendorff isn't included in the game. Whatsoever.
I think Hindenburg represents both him and Ludendorff, which makes sense when his godly stats are considered. As for avoiding German territory to keep him/them out of the war, I've made an issue of that as well. A simple event or two could activate Hindenburg in Late August for the non-Moltke plans or Late September for the Moltke plan if no Russian forces enter German territory.
Traffic really knocks the hell out of the hyper-rail army shifting. I really don't see the need to change much now.
I disagree. In relation to the gains, the penalty is not nearly sufficient, in my opinion.
The difference in NM for replacing the GHQ is purely political (every general has a political value which affects the amount of VP/NM lost if he is passed over/replaced). I'd actually suggest players never change GHQ because NM is too important and even 4 NM can put you under the remaining number of turns, guaranteeing you will lose if you don't generate some field miracles.
I agree that players shouldn't. I'm just saying that IF one goes for a penalty, why not go for -12 NM all along. For Germany, the heavy late penalty can be circumevented by dismissing Moltke early on. That way, you don't have to spend -12 NM later on Falkenhayn. I think it's a gamey feature, so access to it should be there to allow for some freedom, but the sanctions should be heavier. Although I'd do it differently for different nations.
Romania's starting alignment may need some tweaking, but I think changes would be premature if the Italian and US events aren't fixed first.
Romania wanted Transylvania from Austria. For them to join so rapidly without the CP playing an option that grants them that, is kinda weird. Bulgaria also tends to lean the CP way pretty heavily even with Romania already joining, which makes even less sense. As far as the other events go, yes, they need fixing too.
No need to dissolve and reform the GHQ. It's awkward, but has been this way since AACW, I think. Certainly CW2 works this way.
Great, I thought the GHQ reacted like every other HQ when shipped. Still, only because it has been this way since AACW doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed now. Especially with Britains involvement in Egypt, the Serbs and all the other minors, there needs to be a way to allow them to build Armies. Right now, it's tedious and awkward and if it has been this way since AACW, even worse in my opinion.
I think Hindenburg represents both him and Ludendorff, which makes sense when his godly stats are considered. As for avoiding German territory to keep him/them out of the war, I've made an issue of that as well. A simple event or two could activate Hindenburg in Late August for the non-Moltke plans or Late September for the Moltke plan if no Russian forces enter German territory.
I agree with you on the second part of your posting, I suspected as much as your first part goes, but I think it's very odd. Ludendorff was the absolute key figure on the German side, this has probably been argued often enough. For him to be absent, or to be there in spirit only, just does not seem right to me.
Byrd wrote:I disagree. In relation to the gains, the penalty is not nearly sufficient, in my opinion.
Have you turned it up? My experience has been that rail redeployment is vital to being able to conduct offensives past 1915. If you make it so a few armies overload the network, you transfer a massive advantage to the defender every time. I rather like that I can rail in large reserves to carry a region through MTSG, but those same forces are completely incapable of following any success until the region has greater friendly MC. As it stands you can mount offensives, but they're very ponderously paced against organized resistance.
I agree that players shouldn't. I'm just saying that IF one goes for a penalty, why not go for -12 NM all along. For Germany, the heavy late penalty can be circumevented by dismissing Moltke early on. That way, you don't have to spend -12 NM later on Falkenhayn. I think it's a gamey feature, so access to it should be there to allow for some freedom, but the sanctions should be heavier. Although I'd do it differently for different nations.
This presupposes you have someone much better than Falkenhayn or Moltke so early in the game. Hindenburg gets one GHQ (assuming he's in the mix, and this is where we need house rules for now), and there aren't too many options for the other, at least not early in the game. I'm fine with the way things are, though perhaps that's just long familiarity with the political and promotion systems.
Romania wanted Transylvania from Austria. For them to join so rapidly without the CP playing an option that grants them that, is kinda weird. Bulgaria also tends to lean the CP way pretty heavily even with Romania already joining, which makes even less sense. As far as the other events go, yes, they need fixing too.
Understood, but Romania going CP isn't anywhere near a guarantee unless the CP player knows precisely how to play the diplo game. I think fixing the far more broken/unbalanced Italian/US events will provide a better idea for the way the diplo game should generally play out with specific long term strategies. Once players start reporting in their observations with fixed events for the majors, then we look at adjusting initial alignment in the Balkans. Romania going CP the majority of the time is just as much a consequence of the greater diplo game being somewhat off the level, not exclusively an alignment problem with Romania.
Great, I thought the GHQ reacted like every other HQ when shipped. Still, only because it has been this way since AACW doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed now. Especially with Britains involvement in Egypt, the Serbs and all the other minors, there needs to be a way to allow them to build Armies. Right now, it's tedious and awkward and if it has been this way since AACW, even worse in my opinion.
It hasn't been changed through the entire AACW lineage of games and CW2 needs it far more than EAW, so I'm assuming it's something deeper in the code for such an issue to be unresolved at this point. The minor armies could be set by event, just as their actual forces are on entry. Only Bulgaria could really justify a GHQ, and even then I'd prefer them having two or three armies. GHQs allow army formation, so the player could change commanders at will which is something I don't think should happen when the leadership pool is so limited.
I agree with you on the second part of your posting, I suspected as much as your first part goes, but I think it's very odd. Ludendorff was the absolute key figure on the German side, this has probably been argued often enough. For him to be absent, or to be there in spirit only, just does not seem right to me.
I think if Ludendorff were added as a separate commander, Hindenburg would lose about five points in stats. Either way, I'm a bit ambivalent about it since just getting Hindenburg guaranteed entry is the most important thing.
Have you turned it up? My experience has been that rail redeployment is vital to being able to conduct offensives past 1915. If you make it so a few armies overload the network, you transfer a massive advantage to the defender every time. I rather like that I can rail in large reserves to carry a region through MTSG, but those same forces are completely incapable of following any success until the region has greater friendly MC. As it stands you can mount offensives, but they're very ponderously paced against organized resistance.
I have. And you're right, the highest level might well be sufficient if the network is overloaded. I'll play a couple more campaigns and see how that turns out. I still got the feeling that the rails are linked too well, especially in the east. The continuous railroads are still a problem in my book (I'm trying very hard not to generalize). One German and one Austrian army have a continuous semi-circled railroad from East Prussia to Galicia to easily block off any Russian force that crosses into Germany. But I'll play some more with the highest Traffic Penalties to see where it takes me.
This presupposes you have someone much better than Falkenhayn or Moltke so early in the game. Hindenburg gets one GHQ (assuming he's in the mix, and this is where we need house rules for now), and there aren't too many options for the other, at least not early in the game. I'm fine with the way things are, though perhaps that's just long familiarity with the political and promotion systems.
Well, the idea is to replace Moltke early so you can replace at a discount later in the game. Hindenburg can be shipped west almost instantly if triggering him is a house rule, if he stays east, there are still generals that do at least as good as Moltke, which will allow a later replacement at a much lower cost when Generals are powered up. Replacing Moltke is -2, not -4. Works for the Russians too. With Brusilov in command, Russian Generals turn into little animals and the penalty that should be Russian command is gone.
Understood, but Romania going CP isn't anywhere near a guarantee unless the CP player knows precisely how to play the diplo game. I think fixing the far more broken/unbalanced Italian/US events will provide a better idea for the way the diplo game should generally play out with specific long term strategies. Once players start reporting in their observations with fixed events for the majors, then we look at adjusting initial alignment in the Balkans. Romania going CP the majority of the time is just as much a consequence of the greater diplo game being somewhat off the level, not exclusively an alignment problem with Romania.
Either the diplomatic game you speak of is so easy to play or everyone knows how to do it. I haven't seen a PBEM yet where the CP player hasn't Bulgaria and Romania drifting his way in late 14/ early 15. I won't disagree that the Italy and US events are broken and require attention more urgently.
The minor armies could be set by event, just as their actual forces are on entry. Only Bulgaria could really justify a GHQ, and even then I'd prefer them having two or three armies.
Sounds good to me.
I think if Ludendorff were added as a separate commander, Hindenburg would lose about five points in stats. Either way, I'm a bit ambivalent about it since just getting Hindenburg guaranteed entry is the most important thing.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. =)
Byrd wrote:I have. And you're right, the highest level might well be sufficient if the network is overloaded. I'll play a couple more campaigns and see how that turns out. I still got the feeling that the rails are linked too well, especially in the east. The continuous railroads are still a problem in my book (I'm trying very hard not to generalize). One German and one Austrian army have a continuous semi-circled railroad from East Prussia to Galicia to easily block off any Russian force that crosses into Germany. But I'll play some more with the highest Traffic Penalties to see where it takes me.
That's quite far from the experience I've had. I haven't had to move beyond the least severe setting, and even then players have to be quite careful or several stacks get cohesion-nuked. I understand what you mean by circular routes and general abstraction, but that's always been a thing in the games within EAW's lineage. I generally find myself at or near the transport limit (not cutting into supply transport) nearly every turn without abusing the networks, though I do agree if any faction has too much capacity, it's the CP.
Well, the idea is to replace Moltke early so you can replace at a discount later in the game. Hindenburg can be shipped west almost instantly if triggering him is a house rule, if he stays east, there are still generals that do at least as good as Moltke, which will allow a later replacement at a much lower cost when Generals are powered up. Replacing Moltke is -2, not -4. Works for the Russians too. With Brusilov in command, Russian Generals turn into little animals and the penalty that should be Russian command is gone.
Again, that's very much a thing in AACW and CW2 as well. You can fast-track Grant, give him nine corps, and let him near single-handedly smash the Confederacy. The art is in preventing your opponent from accomplishing that kind of maneuver. Perhaps I don't see it as a problem because the dilemma of titans is a familiar one. I'm not dismissing you; your points are factual. I simply can't call it a problem with certainty unless it becomes The Only Way Things are Done.
Either the diplomatic game you speak of is so easy to play or everyone knows how to do it. I haven't seen a PBEM yet where the CP player hasn't Bulgaria and Romania drifting his way in late 14/ early 15. I won't disagree that the Italy and US events are broken and require attention more urgently.
Well, the WE has to screw their own goat too, something far more common than most people think, and all this presumes Romania is a WE priority to begin with. I've played a lot of WE PBEMs and have only seen Romania go CP twice. I think that makes it roughly 1 in 5. Ironically, Romania usually goes CP because the Entente players don't want to allow Bulgaria to go CP, and keeping Bulgaria on the fence for a good portion of the game or have it go outright Entente is, in my experience, actually more common than Romania going CP. This is also why I'm reluctant to see any changes until the larger diplo issues are sorted; I'm not convinced it's inherently a problem other than as a consequence of larger plays.
My 2 cents on the issues..
Railway Issue-
Traffic setting at highest has removed the Advantages of Rails, also if you see the History of the Great War it is basically the CP making each and every offensive with only German Troops, where and how did they come and go so fast? Railways, whether it is the 8th Army destroying Samsonov and Rennenkampf, the Gorlice-Tarnow in 1915, the Serbian and Romanian Campaigns, Caporetto, Counter-Attacks pre-during-post BRUSILOV offensive, all of them were done by German forces for the CP, which railed in, fought and disappeared only to re-appear later and hit some more.
CIC issue-
I agree with Bryd, NM losses need to be big and CIC should not be able to be replaced. Moltke is the only exception, as he was historically replaced in early War, the reminder need replacement only when they have strong political ability and highest seniority else HUGE NM loss is a must.
Diplo-
The Romanians also wanted Bessarbia from Russia, the Tsar was a Hohenzollern, so Romania moving towards CP is not so much difficult to fathom. As the Greek King was also a Hohenzollern, hence- the Greeks were able to resist Venizelos plans for war.
Similarly, Belgium was supposed to 'roll over' as the King was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, in fact- most of Europe had German/Germanic Kings, primarily due to the diplomacy of Frederick the Great and Bismarck but also due to the fact they had such a huge surplus of Royalty.
Ludendorff-
Hindenburg is the best general of the war due to Ludendorff and Max Hoffman making the plans, later Hans von Seeckt, von Lossberg and Max Bauer and Bruchmuller making the plans.
Railway Issue-
Traffic setting at highest has removed the Advantages of Rails, also if you see the History of the Great War it is basically the CP making each and every offensive with only German Troops, where and how did they come and go so fast? Railways, whether it is the 8th Army destroying Samsonov and Rennenkampf, the Gorlice-Tarnow in 1915, the Serbian and Romanian Campaigns, Caporetto, Counter-Attacks pre-during-post BRUSILOV offensive, all of them were done by German forces for the CP, which railed in, fought and disappeared only to re-appear later and hit some more.
CIC issue-
I agree with Bryd, NM losses need to be big and CIC should not be able to be replaced. Moltke is the only exception, as he was historically replaced in early War, the reminder need replacement only when they have strong political ability and highest seniority else HUGE NM loss is a must.
Diplo-
The Romanians also wanted Bessarbia from Russia, the Tsar was a Hohenzollern, so Romania moving towards CP is not so much difficult to fathom. As the Greek King was also a Hohenzollern, hence- the Greeks were able to resist Venizelos plans for war.
Similarly, Belgium was supposed to 'roll over' as the King was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, in fact- most of Europe had German/Germanic Kings, primarily due to the diplomacy of Frederick the Great and Bismarck but also due to the fact they had such a huge surplus of Royalty.
Ludendorff-
Hindenburg is the best general of the war due to Ludendorff and Max Hoffman making the plans, later Hans von Seeckt, von Lossberg and Max Bauer and Bruchmuller making the plans.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Juste Diplo for me -
In my 3 PBM I see in two time Romanians join Russia. The only time when I see Romanians in CP is when Blockus neutral is play before Italy and also CP not play event for Bulgaria, for me is good because is not play blockus you have time to do come back the Romanians, and also if Germany not play Event he can never have Bulgaria.
For finish when one country enter war he help other side to have country white event. (I see that in Entente not sure white cp Romanians )
In my 3 PBM I see in two time Romanians join Russia. The only time when I see Romanians in CP is when Blockus neutral is play before Italy and also CP not play event for Bulgaria, for me is good because is not play blockus you have time to do come back the Romanians, and also if Germany not play Event he can never have Bulgaria.
For finish when one country enter war he help other side to have country white event. (I see that in Entente not sure white cp Romanians )
Shri wrote:My 2 cents on the issues..
Railway Issue-
Traffic setting at highest has removed the Advantages of Rails, also if you see the History of the Great War it is basically the CP making each and every offensive with only German Troops, where and how did they come and go so fast? Railways, whether it is the 8th Army destroying Samsonov and Rennenkampf, the Gorlice-Tarnow in 1915, the Serbian and Romanian Campaigns, Caporetto, Counter-Attacks pre-during-post BRUSILOV offensive, all of them were done by German forces for the CP, which railed in, fought and disappeared only to re-appear later and hit some more.
That's kind of the point I was trying to establish: Rail redeployment is fine as is with traffic; it's the amount of rail capacity available to the CP which may need to be adjusted. I regard it as a minor issue compared to the event inconsistencies and outright non-starting problems we have right now.
CIC issue-
I agree with Bryd, NM losses need to be big and CIC should not be able to be replaced. Moltke is the only exception, as he was historically replaced in early War, the reminder need replacement only when they have strong political ability and highest seniority else HUGE NM loss is a must.
I very much disagree. The political and seniority system now in place serves the game well. I'll readily concede the possibility that the political cost for certain generals needs to be adjusted, however the system isn't remotely the problem. Additionally, the manual references the possibility that changing the GHQ will be beneficial if the war is going poorly, and there is no game mechanism which corresponds to that reference. I find that to be a lost opportunity since GHQ changed multiple times for several nations in the actual war and it didn't cripple their respective war efforts. I find that an intriguing possibility which could greatly enhance the game if implemented.
Diplo-
The Romanians also wanted Bessarbia from Russia, the Tsar was a Hohenzollern, so Romania moving towards CP is not so much difficult to fathom. As the Greek King was also a Hohenzollern, hence- the Greeks were able to resist Venizelos plans for war.
Similarly, Belgium was supposed to 'roll over' as the King was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, in fact- most of Europe had German/Germanic Kings, primarily due to the diplomacy of Frederick the Great and Bismarck but also due to the fact they had such a huge surplus of Royalty.
Agreed. I'm all for leaving the diplo game as is until the Italian/US events are fixed or changed. Then we can talk about the Balkans.
Ludendorff-
Hindenburg is the best general of the war due to Ludendorff and Max Hoffman making the plans, later Hans von Seeckt, von Lossberg and Max Bauer and Bruchmuller making the plans.
I take it you're stating Hindenburg is supposed to represent a composite command? That would confirm my information from other betas and explain his godly ratings as well as answer player questions if true.
Lindi wrote:Juste Diplo for me -
In my 3 PBM I see in two time Romanians join Russia. The only time when I see Romanians in CP is when Blockus neutral is play before Italy and also CP not play event for Bulgaria, for me is good because is not play blockus you have time to do come back the Romanians, and also if Germany not play Event he can never have Bulgaria.
For finish when one country enter war he help other side to have country white event. (I see that in Entente not sure white cp Romanians )
I want to state this first since I don't feel I have a full understanding of your statement: "Blockus neutral" refers to the Neutral Blockade? I also don't understand precisely what you mean be "country white event". Understand that I know English is not your first language and I mean no disrespect. I want to be as precise in my understanding of your statement as I possibly can.
Here's my current understanding of what you said: "I've played three PBEMs and Romania has joined Russia twice. The only time I've seen Romania join the CP is when the Neutrals Blockade is played before Italy joins the war and the CP hasn't played the Bulgarian Promises event. I agree with the current setup because delaying the Neutrals Blockade allows time to spend on Romanian diplomacy, and if the CP player doesn't play Bulgarian War Goals, then Bulgaria won't join the war."
Please clarify whether or not I've managed to summarize your statement, because we need the input of every player to help AGEOD get all our dreams to come true.
@Merlin
Pocus has scolded me to continue my discussion here. As the Headmaster has instructed, let us keep it here instead of on forum.
CIC Issues-
CIC changed for the UK mainly due to death of Kitchener, if this is to be shown, the Death of Kitchener should be random of 10% per turn after 1/1/1916, giving the WE a -5NM and also a chance to replace the UK CIC. The Germans did due to failure of Schlieffen and Russians did due to the 'Great Retreat', Ottomans never changed, Italy did after 'Caporetto', France did after 'Verdun' and again after failure of 'Nivelle Offensive' and start of 'French Mutiny (Mutiny events present for France, Russia and Austria- you can change CIC easily in those periods without loss of NM).
Basically, for change of CIC we need to get back the 'GRAND OFFENSIVE CARDS' played year-on-year in WW1GOLD game. In this- You decided where you want to do the Grand Offensive, (which area/region, for Germany it was which Front, also for Austria). Then if you succeeded you got NM and opposition lost NM and if not the CIC lost a lot of seniority and could get fired without loss of political capital or loss of NM.
Hindenburg-
Yes, Hindenburg is a composite command consisting of mix of several stalwarts including Ludendorff, Hoffman, Bruchmuller etc. Hence, the Godzilla attributes.
This was a big topic in the initial BETA run.
Diplo-
This is a dicey field and open to interpretation, depending on whom you play/support.
Pocus has scolded me to continue my discussion here. As the Headmaster has instructed, let us keep it here instead of on forum.
CIC Issues-
CIC changed for the UK mainly due to death of Kitchener, if this is to be shown, the Death of Kitchener should be random of 10% per turn after 1/1/1916, giving the WE a -5NM and also a chance to replace the UK CIC. The Germans did due to failure of Schlieffen and Russians did due to the 'Great Retreat', Ottomans never changed, Italy did after 'Caporetto', France did after 'Verdun' and again after failure of 'Nivelle Offensive' and start of 'French Mutiny (Mutiny events present for France, Russia and Austria- you can change CIC easily in those periods without loss of NM).
Basically, for change of CIC we need to get back the 'GRAND OFFENSIVE CARDS' played year-on-year in WW1GOLD game. In this- You decided where you want to do the Grand Offensive, (which area/region, for Germany it was which Front, also for Austria). Then if you succeeded you got NM and opposition lost NM and if not the CIC lost a lot of seniority and could get fired without loss of political capital or loss of NM.
Hindenburg-
Yes, Hindenburg is a composite command consisting of mix of several stalwarts including Ludendorff, Hoffman, Bruchmuller etc. Hence, the Godzilla attributes.
This was a big topic in the initial BETA run.
Diplo-
This is a dicey field and open to interpretation, depending on whom you play/support.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Merlin wrote:
I want to state this first since I don't feel I have a full understanding of your statement: "Blockus neutral" refers to the Neutral Blockade? I also don't understand precisely what you mean be "country white event". Understand that I know English is not your first language and I mean no disrespect. I want to be as precise in my understanding of your statement as I possibly can.
Here's my current understanding of what you said: "I've played three PBEMs and Romania has joined Russia twice. The only time I've seen Romania join the CP is when the Neutrals Blockade is played before Italy joins the war and the CP hasn't played the Bulgarian Promises event. I agree with the current setup because delaying the Neutrals Blockade allows time to spend on Romanian diplomacy, and if the CP player doesn't play Bulgarian War Goals, then Bulgaria won't join the war."
Please clarify whether or not I've managed to summarize your statement, because we need the input of every player to help AGEOD get all our dreams to come true.
Yes is that and sorry for my bad english. So for me you need to see this two chose for 100% sur to see Roumania join CP. If CP play event or if West Entent wait for blocus in normal Russia have time, I guess, for event to Help Romania
Shri wrote:@Merlin
Pocus has scolded me to continue my discussion here. As the Headmaster has instructed, let us keep it here instead of on forum.
Me too, since I was part of that discussion.
CIC Issues-
CIC changed for the UK mainly due to death of Kitchener, if this is to be shown, the Death of Kitchener should be random of 10% per turn after 1/1/1916, giving the WE a -5NM and also a chance to replace the UK CIC. The Germans did due to failure of Schlieffen and Russians did due to the 'Great Retreat', Ottomans never changed, Italy did after 'Caporetto', France did after 'Verdun' and again after failure of 'Nivelle Offensive' and start of 'French Mutiny (Mutiny events present for France, Russia and Austria- you can change CIC easily in those periods without loss of NM).
Basically, for change of CIC we need to get back the 'GRAND OFFENSIVE CARDS' played year-on-year in WW1GOLD game. In this- You decided where you want to do the Grand Offensive, (which area/region, for Germany it was which Front, also for Austria). Then if you succeeded you got NM and opposition lost NM and if not the CIC lost a lot of seniority and could get fired without loss of political capital or loss of NM.
I really do understand what you're saying, however I don't want this game to be that deterministic. Changing GHQ should be as simple as it is, and I really like the idea that a "failed" commander is easier to replace. That way we get the best of both worlds, and a change in GHQ isn't the end of the faction, but an intriguing change in strategy. I'd love for the "failed commander" to be replaced at less NM than is currently possible.
Hindenburg-
Yes, Hindenburg is a composite command consisting of mix of several stalwarts including Ludendorff, Hoffman, Bruchmuller etc. Hence, the Godzilla attributes.
This was a big topic in the initial BETA run.
Understood. Can we please have an event to activate Hindenberg, since the way things work now it requires Russian intervention in German territory?
This is a dicey field and open to interpretation, depending on whom you play/support.
It's really not. If the Italian events are 15% either way and Promises gives 15% alignment, as well as War Goals giving 15% alignment, we'd have a near-perfect game. If they kept 15% alignment, Italy would be a 30%/10% as opposed to 40%\20%, and thus much closer to the CP 70& needed to get 1% per/turn. If the Italian events were capped at 10% depending upon which were chosen, we'd have a certain uncertain storm of potential events. I really think that would derail the guaranteed CP policy of investing solely in Italian or US diplo regions.
Lindi wrote:Yes is that and sorry for my bad english. So for me you need to see this two choice for 100% sur to see Romania join the CP. If CP, play event or if West Entent wait for the blockade from Russia. I have time, I guess, for event to Help Romania
No worries, your English is good enough.
@Merlin
for the headmaster comments. We shall continue 'sparring' here or in BETA forum.
@BBBD316
Hindenburg was more or less sure to get command, after all several retired Generals got it - Von Der Goltz Pasha as Governor of Belgium and later Head of Ottoman Forces in Mesopotamia, etc. War means most of the 60+ Generals, were called back. Look at France- Gallienni was semi-retired but back as Governor of Paris in those crucial days. Or even UK- Kitchener and Lord Roberts reappeared (Roberts died on the Western Front soon after start of War due to health issues).
Secondly, Hindenburg as i have written, is a composite command structure of OberOst- one of the most successful commands in History of Warfare, in late 1914, they destroyed 2 armies totaling 450000Troops having some 180000 at their disposal. So, Hindenburg must auto appear in Koenigsburg in late August irrespective of Russian Decisions. Or he could begin locked in Koenigsburg and any invasion of CP lands (inc. Austrian) unlocks him as CIC of Eastern Front.
@Merlin
CIC Issues-
A successful commander being replaced in mid-War is an anomaly according to me. Hence, i gave the example of 'command failure' resulting in change of command.
Eg: Haig couldn't be called a great commander, but John French was worse and so he was replaced, the English did not have senior Generals (of appropriate age and standing) to replace Haig and kept him till the end.
Similarly for the imbecile Tsar of all Russia and also for Enver Pasha. If you change the Tsar, that means military coup occurs. Same for Enver Pasha.
Diplo-
I agree with what you say, but then; even USA Lusitania is over powerful, an innocent cruiser triggers it. I dread it when playing as CP to put even a transport ship in the Atlantic Shipping Box due to that event.
for the headmaster comments. We shall continue 'sparring' here or in BETA forum. @BBBD316
Hindenburg was more or less sure to get command, after all several retired Generals got it - Von Der Goltz Pasha as Governor of Belgium and later Head of Ottoman Forces in Mesopotamia, etc. War means most of the 60+ Generals, were called back. Look at France- Gallienni was semi-retired but back as Governor of Paris in those crucial days. Or even UK- Kitchener and Lord Roberts reappeared (Roberts died on the Western Front soon after start of War due to health issues).
Secondly, Hindenburg as i have written, is a composite command structure of OberOst- one of the most successful commands in History of Warfare, in late 1914, they destroyed 2 armies totaling 450000Troops having some 180000 at their disposal. So, Hindenburg must auto appear in Koenigsburg in late August irrespective of Russian Decisions. Or he could begin locked in Koenigsburg and any invasion of CP lands (inc. Austrian) unlocks him as CIC of Eastern Front.
@Merlin
CIC Issues-
A successful commander being replaced in mid-War is an anomaly according to me. Hence, i gave the example of 'command failure' resulting in change of command.
Eg: Haig couldn't be called a great commander, but John French was worse and so he was replaced, the English did not have senior Generals (of appropriate age and standing) to replace Haig and kept him till the end.
Similarly for the imbecile Tsar of all Russia and also for Enver Pasha. If you change the Tsar, that means military coup occurs. Same for Enver Pasha.
Diplo-
I agree with what you say, but then; even USA Lusitania is over powerful, an innocent cruiser triggers it. I dread it when playing as CP to put even a transport ship in the Atlantic Shipping Box due to that event.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri,
I am not against Hindenburg coming into play, I am just trying to understand if his appointment was logical German process or if the movement of Russian troops into Prussia forced their hand. If he was always going to be the CiC of the East then I would be all for his appointment to just be triggered at the appropriate time.
Having seen what a good EE player can do when they replace their commander early on to a more suitable candidate, the NM can certainly be of benefit if it allows them to be more competitive and aggressive.
I am not against Hindenburg coming into play, I am just trying to understand if his appointment was logical German process or if the movement of Russian troops into Prussia forced their hand. If he was always going to be the CiC of the East then I would be all for his appointment to just be triggered at the appropriate time.
Having seen what a good EE player can do when they replace their commander early on to a more suitable candidate, the NM can certainly be of benefit if it allows them to be more competitive and aggressive.
BBBD316 wrote:Shri,
I am not against Hindenburg coming into play, I am just trying to understand if his appointment was logical German process or if the movement of Russian troops into Prussia forced their hand. If he was always going to be the CiC of the East then I would be all for his appointment to just be triggered at the appropriate time.
Hindenburg was re-activated days after the battle of Gumbinnen, to replace Von Prittwitz after his withdrawal behind the river Weichsel. It certainly wasn't a logical process. His career until his retirement in 1911, wasn't that extraordinary. Ludendorff, former quartermaster, impromptu hero, had just been awarded the order Pour le Merite after his bloodless conquest of the citadel at Liege. Why Hindenburg and not Ludendorff? Well, seniority and the absence of a 'Von' in Ludendorffs name, I'd argue.
An event to automatically trigger Hindenburg and/or Ludendorff in late August should do it.
Well, in 1905; Moltke Jr. a thorough imbecile was posted as CIC of the German Army.
The other strong contenders were - GFM. von der Goltz, a veteran of several wars, a commander of a military mission to Turkey, a famous theorist etc etc. (the most competent)
von Bulow, a senior General and fairly competent though a bit over-cautious (the same guy who led the 2nd army) and von Mackensen- the famous Hussar who coached the Kaiser and the Crown Prince in horsemanship (he was a palace favourite just like Moltke Jr.)
So precedents in the Imperial Army were present.
The other strong contenders were - GFM. von der Goltz, a veteran of several wars, a commander of a military mission to Turkey, a famous theorist etc etc. (the most competent)
von Bulow, a senior General and fairly competent though a bit over-cautious (the same guy who led the 2nd army) and von Mackensen- the famous Hussar who coached the Kaiser and the Crown Prince in horsemanship (he was a palace favourite just like Moltke Jr.)
So precedents in the Imperial Army were present.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Precedent for a "Popular Figurehead" in command, ably supported by an extremely competent team acting below him in name, but actually giving orders in "his name".
Called "VOLLMACHT" in the German Army.
Ludendorff did it in Hindenburg's name. The Chiefs of Staff (CoS) of the armies led by the Crown Prince Wilhelm, Rupprecht, Leopold as also Grand Duke Albrecht and other senior royal commanders did it.
Col. von Lossberg, a very junior officer did it on the Western front from 1916 onwards in the name of "Hindenburg".
Hans von Seect, a very junior General (seniority wise) did it in the name of von Mackensen.
Long ago, GFM Helmuth von Moltke Sr. did it in the name of the Kaiser Wilhelm I, his senior army level CoS did it in the name of their respective Royal Commanders like Crown Prince Frederick etc.
Several of Frederick the Great's generals did it in 'Frederick's name' during the 1st Silesian War/War of Austrian Succession when Frederick was still learning the ropes.
Called "VOLLMACHT" in the German Army.
Ludendorff did it in Hindenburg's name. The Chiefs of Staff (CoS) of the armies led by the Crown Prince Wilhelm, Rupprecht, Leopold as also Grand Duke Albrecht and other senior royal commanders did it.
Col. von Lossberg, a very junior officer did it on the Western front from 1916 onwards in the name of "Hindenburg".
Hans von Seect, a very junior General (seniority wise) did it in the name of von Mackensen.
Long ago, GFM Helmuth von Moltke Sr. did it in the name of the Kaiser Wilhelm I, his senior army level CoS did it in the name of their respective Royal Commanders like Crown Prince Frederick etc.
Several of Frederick the Great's generals did it in 'Frederick's name' during the 1st Silesian War/War of Austrian Succession when Frederick was still learning the ropes.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
BBBD316 wrote:Merlin,
Does that take into account the Tunisa decision? I know it costs NM but it gives the WE wiggle room.
With a Hindenburg event would this cost NM?
Did you look at what I outlined in my 1.01 suggestions? That would more or less balance all the Italian decisions to a 30%/15% WE/CP total alignment shift if the CP plays first, and would give the correct penalties to the events. Right now it's 40%/20% for all events, and a little too easy to get a pro-Entente stance, so the CP is better off not wasting their major diplo in Italy and not even remotely considering concessions. It's all playing into a total CP commitment to the US.
Shri wrote:@Merlin
@BBBD316
Hindenburg was more or less sure to get command, after all several retired Generals got it - Von Der Goltz Pasha as Governor of Belgium and later Head of Ottoman Forces in Mesopotamia, etc. War means most of the 60+ Generals, were called back. Look at France- Gallienni was semi-retired but back as Governor of Paris in those crucial days. Or even UK- Kitchener and Lord Roberts reappeared (Roberts died on the Western Front soon after start of War due to health issues).
Secondly, Hindenburg as i have written, is a composite command structure of OberOst- one of the most successful commands in History of Warfare, in late 1914, they destroyed 2 armies totaling 450000Troops having some 180000 at their disposal. So, Hindenburg must auto appear in Koenigsburg in late August irrespective of Russian Decisions. Or he could begin locked in Koenigsburg and any invasion of CP lands (inc. Austrian) unlocks him as CIC of Eastern Front.
That's precisely what I want, though I think if Germany chooses the Moltke plan he should show up a month later. I think he'd get a bit lost in the crowd with so many officers deployed in the East.
CIC Issues-
A successful commander being replaced in mid-War is an anomaly according to me. Hence, i gave the example of 'command failure' resulting in change of command.
Eg: Haig couldn't be called a great commander, but John French was worse and so he was replaced, the English did not have senior Generals (of appropriate age and standing) to replace Haig and kept him till the end.
Similarly for the imbecile Tsar of all Russia and also for Enver Pasha. If you change the Tsar, that means military coup occurs. Same for Enver Pasha.
I don't think you can replace Nicholas or Enver. I've certainly never even tried, and the NM hit would be too harsh anyway. Russia can't afford any NM at all unless they get over 100 in 1914, and filling out the other German GHQ with someone competent (I generally try to get Mackensen) takes time and all the NM the CP should be willing to commit to GHQ changes.
Diplo-
I agree with what you say, but then; even USA Lusitania is over powerful, an innocent cruiser triggers it. I dread it when playing as CP to put even a transport ship in the Atlantic Shipping Box due to that event.
Again, in my proposals for 1.01, I addressed this. Make Lusitania and Zimmerman independent of any player action, with just a small chance to trigger per turn, starting in 1915. That way the CP player can have fun in the Atlantic box and Mexico, something he would never, ever do right now. It would also make the US-first CP strategy an actual gamble, where right now it's a guarantee to keep the US out of the war. I'm completely serious. If you put the CP major diplo in the US on turn one, never enter the Atlantic shipping box, and never mess with Mexico, the US will never join the war. Guaranteed.
I agree about you being able to keep the US out of the war. My opponent did that to me, and I almost got to 60% for the WE by the end of 1917 (when the war ended with the fall of Paris). So you can keep the US out by keeping subs out of the Atlantic, and placing a diplomat there very early in the game.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
Merlin wrote:Again, in my proposals for 1.01, I addressed this. Make Lusitania and Zimmerman independent of any player action, with just a small chance to trigger per turn, starting in 1915. That way the CP player can have fun in the Atlantic box and Mexico, something he would never, ever do right now. It would also make the US-first CP strategy an actual gamble, where right now it's a guarantee to keep the US out of the war. I'm completely serious. If you put the CP major diplo in the US on turn one, never enter the Atlantic shipping box, and never mess with Mexico, the US will never join the war. Guaranteed.
If true, something definitely needs to be changed.
Shri wrote:Well, in 1905; Moltke Jr. a thorough imbecile was posted as CIC of the German Army.
The other strong contenders were - GFM. von der Goltz, a veteran of several wars, a commander of a military mission to Turkey, a famous theorist etc etc. (the most competent)
von Bulow, a senior General and fairly competent though a bit over-cautious (the same guy who led the 2nd army) and von Mackensen- the famous Hussar who coached the Kaiser and the Crown Prince in horsemanship (he was a palace favourite just like Moltke Jr.)
So precedents in the Imperial Army were present.
And that's the difference. Hindenburg was anything but a palace favorite or a prominent figure. Yes, one could probably argue that at that point in time all prominent figures were already serving in different commands, and that he was as prominent as prominent could hope to be.
Byrd wrote:And that's the difference. Hindenburg was anything but a palace favorite or a prominent figure. Yes, one could probably argue that at that point in time all prominent figures were already serving in different commands, and that he was as prominent as prominent could hope to be.
Well, Byrd; Hindenburg represents OBEROST in the game not himself alone. Oberost had stalwarts like Max Hoffman, probably the best strategist of the war. Hans von Seeckt a great strategist and the best tactician of the war, Col. Bruchmuller (best artillery tactician) from 1916 onwards, Ludendorff from late 1914 onwards, Col. Lossberg (pre-eminent defence expert) from 1916 onwards; now so many key people are missing as generals in the German command, that is the reason Hindenburg more than deserves his GODLike status, in-fact, he can be buffed even more to show- EE lacked AMMO and Officers and NCO's from 1915 onwards in all their corps, also EE's infantry-artillery co-ordination was atrocious to say the least, all this is skipped.
EE is fairly good in game much better than real. Though EE should have way more starting manpower, closer to 5000 than 2000, this aside; EE is way way better in game than they were in August 1914.
Despite having 175 million population against the 68 million German Empire population (2.5 times +), they mobilised a pathetic 12 million, the German mobilised 13.25 million. In the second world war on the other hand, USSR with a population of 163 million in 1937 vs Germany's 82 million in 1940, mobilised a stupendous 27 million.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri wrote:Well, Byrd; Hindenburg represents OBEROST in the game not himself alone. Oberost had stalwarts like Max Hoffman, probably the best strategist of the war. Hans von Seeckt a great strategist and the best tactician of the war, Col. Bruchmuller (best artillery tactician) from 1916 onwards, Ludendorff from late 1914 onwards, Col. Lossberg (pre-eminent defence expert) from 1916 onwards; now so many key people are missing as generals in the German command, that is the reason Hindenburg more than deserves his GODLike status, in-fact, he can be buffed even more to show- EE lacked AMMO and Officers and NCO's from 1915 onwards in all their corps, also EE's infantry-artillery co-ordination was atrocious to say the least, all this is skipped.
EE is fairly good in game much better than real. Though EE should have way more starting manpower, closer to 5000 than 2000, this aside; EE is way way better in game than they were in August 1914.
Despite having 175 million population against the 68 million German Empire population (2.5 times +), they mobilised a pathetic 12 million, the German mobilised 13.25 million. In the second world war on the other hand, USSR with a population of 163 million in 1937 vs Germany's 82 million in 1940, mobilised a stupendous 27 million.
I won't disagree with you on that. You're right.
Ehm, yes it was a logical process, since von Pritwitz lost his nerves after the battle of Gumbinnen and wanted to retreat behind the Vistula river. Moltke replaced him by Hindenburg. Hindenburg himself wasn't a great general or anything like that, but I severe disagree, that Hindenburg would represent Ober Ost. Why? That is a very simple answer the staff of Ober Ost was the same like under Prittwitz, the only remarkable addition was Ludendorf. So, if you don't include Ludendorf, but boost Hindenburgs stats sky high, "because" he represents the whole Ober Ost, then my Question is, why are the stats of von Pritwitz so low? Yes, I know he was incompetent, but this argument, that Hindenburg represent the whole Ober Ost as a argument, when von Pritwitz did the same, seems to be inconsistent. Just add Ludendorf, who was one of the man, who led the siege of Liege in early August '14 and I will be satisfied. The really joke is, that Max von Hoffman is included in the '16 scenario as well as Bruchmüller both as seperate generals with pretty low stats 3-1-1. Byrd was right, since I changed the CiC as EE player and got little freaky beasts, which could beat nearly every German or Austrian commander. hehe. Furthermore there was a really interesting bug, when the Tsar took over the command. Brusilov my CiC, just disappeared, he was just gone. I couldn't find him in a Siberian camp or in Vladivastok, I think he had enough, hehe. Another interesting thing is, that Conrad von Hötzendorf has pretty good stats in comparasion to his historical perfomance, which was more terrifying for his own troops, than for the Russians or Serbians or Italians, he even perfomed bad as an army commander in '18. I really don't understand his ratings? Falkenhayn was a pretty good CiC and has lower stats, than "I send my troops over mountains, which I haven't seen on my map Hötzendorf". That is just a really funny thing at least for me, since I didn't served under him, obviously.
@Klucktier
It was the same "staff" of Ober Ost, then called as the "Staff of the 8th army", of which Max Hoffman a Jr. Lt. Col, was a part; that devised the strategy to defeat the 2 armies- 1 & 2, the only problem was Prittwitz was too scared to "sign the dotted line", which Hindenburg did under Ludendorff's strong gaze.
The plans were already in motion, all it required was a sign and a few phone calls. And Lo- SAMSONOV's army disappeared.
Yes, i too agree the stats of bruchmuller and hoffman are terrible to say the least.
Also, Falkenhyn's tenure is better than Hotzendorff but when you see 'verdun', not so much.
Continuing..
One of the biggest problems since the early BETA days is the game does not penalise the player going a-historical.
The CP is more or less straight boxed into Schlieffen or Moltke alongwith one of the many Austrian plans (most are equally bad).
But WE can take Plan XVII and not attack in the mountains and instead send forces into Belgium. This makes a complete mockery of Schlieffen and you get "reverse schlieffened".
Same way EE can avoid Germany and Hindenburg and concentrate on Austria alone with no problems.
WW1 Gold had a much better way to do this= BIG NM losses if you do not follow the war-plan, you have to commit hara-kiri in Aug-Sept as WE and EE or else it breaks the game, i guess.
I will explain the background to it in a boring lecture-
In 1906, the Russians post Manchurian war decided that best plan in War was to pull back into Forts and deep into Bylorussia and Ukraine.
In 1910, they revised it to partial attack against Austria and defend against Germany.
In the meanwhile Gen. Michel proposed Plan XIII but was criticised as soundly defeatist and sacked and replaced by Joffre.
Col. Grandmaison and Ferdinand Foch taught "Attack a la outrance" to the French in these years and in 1912 they forced the Russians to adopt this stupid attitude of 'elan' blah blah blah... Hara-Kiri.
So, by 1912, the French, Russian and to a great extent the Austrian staffs had already committed themselves to HARA_KIRI on a mass scale, banging their heads against stone walls and trying to break the wall was their golden idea.
The Germans prepared somewhat better, using the Austrian Skodas and their own Krupps they had a decent Siege train and also equipped their troops with Howitsers and Heavy artillery at Corps and Army level. In addition they emphasized machine guns, digging in using the shovel etc.
A player playing as General of one of these armies cannot be God Almighty and change their thinking of several years overnight. If he does he should accept a massive penalty in NM.
It was the same "staff" of Ober Ost, then called as the "Staff of the 8th army", of which Max Hoffman a Jr. Lt. Col, was a part; that devised the strategy to defeat the 2 armies- 1 & 2, the only problem was Prittwitz was too scared to "sign the dotted line", which Hindenburg did under Ludendorff's strong gaze.
The plans were already in motion, all it required was a sign and a few phone calls. And Lo- SAMSONOV's army disappeared.
Yes, i too agree the stats of bruchmuller and hoffman are terrible to say the least.
Also, Falkenhyn's tenure is better than Hotzendorff but when you see 'verdun', not so much.
Continuing..
One of the biggest problems since the early BETA days is the game does not penalise the player going a-historical.
The CP is more or less straight boxed into Schlieffen or Moltke alongwith one of the many Austrian plans (most are equally bad).
But WE can take Plan XVII and not attack in the mountains and instead send forces into Belgium. This makes a complete mockery of Schlieffen and you get "reverse schlieffened".
Same way EE can avoid Germany and Hindenburg and concentrate on Austria alone with no problems.
WW1 Gold had a much better way to do this= BIG NM losses if you do not follow the war-plan, you have to commit hara-kiri in Aug-Sept as WE and EE or else it breaks the game, i guess.
I will explain the background to it in a boring lecture-
In 1906, the Russians post Manchurian war decided that best plan in War was to pull back into Forts and deep into Bylorussia and Ukraine.
In 1910, they revised it to partial attack against Austria and defend against Germany.
In the meanwhile Gen. Michel proposed Plan XIII but was criticised as soundly defeatist and sacked and replaced by Joffre.
Col. Grandmaison and Ferdinand Foch taught "Attack a la outrance" to the French in these years and in 1912 they forced the Russians to adopt this stupid attitude of 'elan' blah blah blah... Hara-Kiri.
So, by 1912, the French, Russian and to a great extent the Austrian staffs had already committed themselves to HARA_KIRI on a mass scale, banging their heads against stone walls and trying to break the wall was their golden idea.
The Germans prepared somewhat better, using the Austrian Skodas and their own Krupps they had a decent Siege train and also equipped their troops with Howitsers and Heavy artillery at Corps and Army level. In addition they emphasized machine guns, digging in using the shovel etc.
A player playing as General of one of these armies cannot be God Almighty and change their thinking of several years overnight. If he does he should accept a massive penalty in NM.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Shri wrote:@Klucktier
It was the same "staff" of Ober Ost, then called as the "Staff of the 8th army", of which Max Hoffman a Jr. Lt. Col, was a part; that devised the strategy to defeat the 2 armies- 1 & 2, the only problem was Prittwitz was too scared to "sign the dotted line", which Hindenburg did under Ludendorff's strong gaze.
The plans were already in motion, all it required was a sign and a few phone calls. And Lo- SAMSONOV's army disappeared.
Yes, this is absolutely correct
Shri wrote:Yes, i too agree the stats of bruchmuller and hoffman are terrible to say the least.
Also, Falkenhyn's tenure is better than Hotzendorff but when you see 'verdun', not so much.
Oh, disagree about Verdun, that could be a very long discussion only about Verdun, but let us remember, that Wilhelm von Preußen wanted to capture Verdun, which was never the plan of Falkenhayn, there are other unused chances to kill and disrupt the French. The very heavy and heavy artillery wasn't used to bombard the Voie Sacrée, the French artillery batteries were no prime target for the German artillery and so on, but this is hardly the fault of Falkenhayn, but of the executing leaders. The fault of Falkenhayn was his unclear formulated instructions.
Don't know it, but the game doesn't break only because the WE player shifts his troops north, I haven't seen suicidal attacks against Metz or Straßburg for a long time , but I was able to beat the French and British later(in most pbem's I played).Shri wrote:Continuing..
One of the biggest problems since the early BETA days is the game does not penalise the player going a-historical.
The CP is more or less straight boxed into Schlieffen or Moltke alongwith one of the many Austrian plans (most are equally bad).
But WE can take Plan XVII and not attack in the mountains and instead send forces into Belgium. This makes a complete mockery of Schlieffen and you get "reverse schlieffened".
Same way EE can avoid Germany and Hindenburg and concentrate on Austria alone with no problems.
WW1 Gold had a much better way to do this= BIG NM losses if you do not follow the war-plan, you have to commit hara-kiri in Aug-Sept as WE and EE or else it breaks the game, i guess.
I will explain the background to it in a boring lecture-
Shri wrote:In 1906, the Russians post Manchurian war decided that best plan in War was to pull back into Forts and deep into Bylorussia and Ukraine.
In 1910, they revised it to partial attack against Austria and defend against Germany.
In the meanwhile Gen. Michel proposed Plan XIII but was criticised as soundly defeatist and sacked and replaced by Joffre.
Col. Grandmaison and Ferdinand Foch taught "Attack a la outrance" to the French in these years and in 1912 they forced the Russians to adopt this stupid attitude of 'elan' blah blah blah... Hara-Kiri.
So, by 1912, the French, Russian and to a great extent the Austrian staffs had already committed themselves to HARA_KIRI on a mass scale, banging their heads against stone walls and trying to break the wall was their golden idea.
The Germans prepared somewhat better, using the Austrian Skodas and their own Krupps they had a decent Siege train and also equipped their troops with Howitsers and Heavy artillery at Corps and Army level. In addition they emphasized machine guns, digging in using the shovel etc.
A player playing as General of one of these armies cannot be God Almighty and change their thinking of several years overnight. If he does he should accept a massive penalty in NM.
Well, I can't see how the French would have a benefit from Russian involvement, if they would take a defensive attitude. Sitting behind fortresses wouldn't help the French and would enable Germany to deal with them first and later with the Russians in full force, so I see the benefits of an agressive Russian approach, but the Russian army had a "few" problems more, than just the attitude. Very poor officers, bad trained infantry, illiterate serfs, who had no initiative, a very poor logistic, even with the brand new French financed railroad system, not enough rifles, low ammo production at the start of hostilities and approxomately 1000 shells per gun stockpiled. I am against a big penality, if the player plays ahistorical, but a NM penality for not achieved warplan objecitves should be introduced, since that would prevent to take the advantage of a plan(plan XVII for example), but don't execute the plan, perhaps you meant that, when you wrote about big penalities, "if you don't follow the warplan"(?). I understand your historical point of view very well, but a few plans more or variation in these plans would be nice, a different deployment of troops within the Schlieffen plan to build up a stronger right wing and to neglect East Prussia would be nice.
Well, what i meant is this -
When you execute a plan well, you gain NM, similarly if you fail to execute the plan and not one of the main objectives is in your kitty, you lose NM, a good deal, not too much to break the game, but enough to 'force' you to try to achieve the objectives.
See, the problem in game is the WE and EE mistakes were operational, tactical and strategic whereas CP blunders were political; the WE and EE mistakes and blunders can be easily avoided but CP has to pay the political price irrespective of how a player plays.
The HARA_KIRI enforced will balance this out.
As for the Royal Commanders, most did not deserve a regiment, W.v.Preuben was a nincompoop leader is right. But Falky entrusted the job to him and did not give proper objectives/instructions.
The amount of men and guns/ammo given to Willy Jr, half would have been enough for Mackensen-Seeckt to destroy Russia in 1916 itself and no Brusilov Offensive would have happened. So, the blame does lie with Falkenhyn.
When you execute a plan well, you gain NM, similarly if you fail to execute the plan and not one of the main objectives is in your kitty, you lose NM, a good deal, not too much to break the game, but enough to 'force' you to try to achieve the objectives.
See, the problem in game is the WE and EE mistakes were operational, tactical and strategic whereas CP blunders were political; the WE and EE mistakes and blunders can be easily avoided but CP has to pay the political price irrespective of how a player plays.
The HARA_KIRI enforced will balance this out.
As for the Royal Commanders, most did not deserve a regiment, W.v.Preuben was a nincompoop leader is right. But Falky entrusted the job to him and did not give proper objectives/instructions.
The amount of men and guns/ammo given to Willy Jr, half would have been enough for Mackensen-Seeckt to destroy Russia in 1916 itself and no Brusilov Offensive would have happened. So, the blame does lie with Falkenhyn.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Didn't want to open a new thread for this observation: Austria can only build river boats in three mediterranean ports without access to the inland rivers. So they're basically useless.
Speaking of useless, can anybody explain to me how minesweepers work? Couldn't find it in the manual, couldn't make it out in game. Even testing them didn't show a result of any satisfying kind. Attaching them to a fleet, moving into a minefield didn't work, having them in the field alone didn't either. Maybe I'm missing something.
Speaking of useless, can anybody explain to me how minesweepers work? Couldn't find it in the manual, couldn't make it out in game. Even testing them didn't show a result of any satisfying kind. Attaching them to a fleet, moving into a minefield didn't work, having them in the field alone didn't either. Maybe I'm missing something.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests