Beginner questions, turn length, watch AI moves

[lessavini]

Hi! Got the game these days and trying to learn the ropes. I'm new to the series. I have a some questions:

1) Do turns really take around 4 minutes against the AI, even with "watch AI moves" setting off? Feels a bit too much, my PC isn't that old. I started as Italy in the main 1914 date for it's small front with Austria which seems perfect to learn the basics, while delegating the other Entente allies to AI control. But I'm spending more time waiting my turn around than actually playing the game Lol. Is that normal with these games?

Which leads me to..

2) Is there an option to "watch AI moves" only within my own faction (Italy) sight range? Right now with the option On I'm forced to watch the whole Entente moves including the enemies moves within their sight ranges, which makes the AI turns even longer than those 4min. By turning the option Off I don't see anything of that which is good, BUT I also don't see the AI troops attacking my own troops which is bad. I'd like to see only AI moves neighboring my own/Italian forces sight range, be it allies or enemies. Is that possible somehow?

3) Can my allies share their research with me somehow? I'm envious or their research breakthroughs every turn while my Italian efforts are sooo slow.

4) Finally, should I take these single nation playthroughs seriously? I mean, if I continue with Italy, can I count on my allies' AI to have a fair chance at winning? Or the game intends for the player to assume control of each side as a whole?

Thanks in advance. This is my first "pure" wargame. I come from more mainstream strat games like Civs and Pdox, which seem more accessible but shallower in some respects than Strategic Command.

[Torplexed]

4) Finally, should I take these single nation playthroughs seriously? I mean, if I continue with Italy, can I count on my allies' AI to have a fair chance at winning? Or the game intends for the player to assume control of each side as a whole?

The only time I ever played one nation was in Strategic Command: World at War as the Soviet Union when learning the game. I watched in horror as my feckless Western Allies dickered around in Africa, floundered in Normandy and stalemated with the Japanese in the Pacific. Living up to everyone of Joe Stalin's paranoid delusions that they were hanging him out to dry.

After that I started playing all nations of an alliance. It's not all that difficult. Compared to some of the micromanagement monsters out there this wargame is pretty straight forward and simple.

[BillRunacre]

Hi! Got the game these days and trying to learn the ropes. I'm new to the series. I have a some questions:

1) Do turns really take around 4 minutes against the AI, even with "watch AI moves" setting off? Feels a bit too much, my PC isn't that old. I started as Italy in the main 1914 date for it's small front with Austria which seems perfect to learn the basics, while delegating the other Entente allies to AI control. But I'm spending more time waiting my turn around than actually playing the game Lol. Is that normal with these games?

As Italy is not involved in the war at this point, and only has a small proportion of the Entente's armed forces anyway, this will be expected. There is a lot of combat early on in the war too, right from the start, and it is normally only in the winter of 1914 that things start to settle down a bit.

Which leads me to..

2) Is there an option to "watch AI moves" only within my own faction (Italy) sight range? Right now with the option On I'm forced to watch the whole Entente moves including the enemies moves within their sight ranges, which makes the AI turns even longer than those 4min. By turning the option Off I don't see anything of that which is good, BUT I also don't see the AI troops attacking my own troops which is bad. I'd like to see only AI moves neighboring my own/Italian forces sight range, be it allies or enemies. Is that possible somehow?

3) Can my allies share their research with me somehow? I'm envious or their research breakthroughs every turn while my Italian efforts are sooo slow.

4) Finally, should I take these single nation playthroughs seriously? I mean, if I continue with Italy, can I count on my allies' AI to have a fair chance at winning? Or the game intends for the player to assume control of each side as a whole?

Thanks in advance. This is my first "pure" wargame. I come from more mainstream strat games like Civs and Pdox, which seem more accessible but shallower in some respects than Strategic Command.

Viewing simply within your own controlled country's spotting range isn't possible, however you can intervene with your AI controlled allies at any time, directing their research, purchases, diplomacy, attacks etc, it is only when you press end turn that the AI takes over, and will allocate any remaining MPPs, move/attack with units still able to do so etc.

[mdsmall]

Just to add to the answers already posted, the powers on each side do share research among themselves, so once one Entente power reaches a certain level, it will increase the speed by which Italy will reach the same level. However, research sharing will be slowed down if the most advanced enemy power (usually Germany for the CP) has a higher level in Spying and Intelligence than the most advanced Entente power in that tech (usually the U.K.). See the section of the Manual on research for details.

[lessavini]

Thanks for the help, folks!

So, by the answers given, it seems the default mode of play is indeed going "all-in" with either Entente or Central powers, and playing individual nations is more of a side affair suited for challenge runs, tutorials, etc. That's non-viable for me at this time as it would require more time and commitment than my real life permits right now, so I'll keep going with my Italy campaign to learn the ropes (with "watch AI moves" Off to speed things up, I'm getting accustumed to it already) and later I come back (probably in my next vacation haha). If I may, I'd suggest the devs think about a more manageable tutorial scenario for cases like me, with a narrower scope where a beginner can learn things slowly. Italy in a 1915 starting date would feel perfect for this (I think). The default "all-in" mode where the player controls the whole Entente/Central members feels, frankly, overwhelming for someone new to the series.

So, with that out of the way, and while I'm here, some other questions come to mind:

- the basic MO of any offensive is: identify weak point > aerial recon it > soften it with arty > assault it with infantry > swap troops to keep pounding it, right? Am I forgetting something?

- I don't see stormtroopers type infantry. Am I right to infer they are represented by advanced/high level infantry warfare tech that one can research (I see in the Ludendorf scenario the Germans have higher leveled and more experienced infantry than the Entente's, which could represent stormtroopers). Makes sense?

- I miss some scenarios like Brusilov Offense or Russo-Japanese war. Are they somewhere? I have the DLC but can't find them.


Thanks again. Sorry if my questions feel stupid.

[Platoonist]

- I miss some scenarios like Brusilov Offense or Russo-Japanese war. Are they somewhere? I have the DLC but can't find them.

There is a Strategic Command scenario of the Russo-Japanese war available, but it's part of the DLC for their American Civil War game. I believe it's called Imperial Sunrise 1904. I've haven't played it yet, but I hear it's pretty good. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be ported over to the World War One game.

A section of the map at game start.

1904 Imperial Sunrise.jpg (107.16 KiB) Viewed 440 times

[lessavini]

- I miss some scenarios like Brusilov Offense or Russo-Japanese war. Are they somewhere? I have the DLC but can't find them.

There is a Strategic Command scenario of the Russo-Japanese war available, but it's part of the DLC for their American Civil War game. I believe it's called Imperial Sunrise 1904. I've haven't played it yet, but I hear it's pretty good. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be ported over to the World War One game.

A section of the map at game start.

1904 Imperial Sunrise.jpg

Thanks, that's neat. I'll check the ACW game.

[lessavini]

More questions:

- it's better to reinforce units ASAP right? I see there's a loss in XP when they're reinforced, and If it's proportional to the strength being refilled then maybe it's better to reinforce ASAP as to avoid significant XP loss. Makes sense?

- should I leave my HQs right behind my troops or over supply generating facilities (cities, industrial centers, etc)?

- how to use detachments? On first look I thought they were poorman corps but looking again I'm finding them pretty useful and cost effective. Also, do they have some situational bonus over corps? The manual cites them having more mobility than corps but I'm not seeing it?

- is there an ideal naval formation? I see subs and destroyers have a better chance at surprise attacking on enemy contact, and to evade after that. Should I put those ahead of my fleets like, "sea scouts" of sorts?

Thanks in advance.

[Platoonist]

I don't have all the answers, but I'll try a few.

- it's better to reinforce units ASAP right? I see there's a loss in XP when they're reinforced, and If it's proportional to the strength being refilled then maybe it's better to reinforce ASAP as to avoid significant XP loss. Makes sense?

I usually do. As a unit gets weaker so grows the chance that a follow-up blow could eliminate it altogether. Plus, it's quicker and cheaper to replace lost strength points in place than build a whole new unit, wait for it to deploy and get it to the front.

- should I leave my HQs right behind my troops or over supply generating facilities (cities, industrial centers, etc)?

It's very situational. In difficult terrain sometimes it's best if the HQ hangs back a few hexes on an infrastructure node like a town or city. Its command range will extend further along roads than cross country in certain weather and terrain.

- is there an ideal naval formation? I see subs and destroyers have a better chance at surprise attacking on enemy contact, and to evade after that. Should I put those ahead of my fleets like, "sea scouts" of sorts?

The ideal screen is submarines in hunt mode. They'll put the hurt on any approaching enemy and can usually withstand their wrath when discovered. The ideal scout is the sub in silent mode since it can better absorb the impact of ambush when running into an unseen enemy. Airships are great for scouting when you can get them. Seaplane carriers even better since they aren't bound to dry land.

[mdsmall]

- should I leave my HQs right behind my troops or over supply generating facilities (cities, industrial centers, etc)?

- how to use detachments? On first look I thought they were poorman corps but looking again I'm finding them pretty useful and cost effective. Also, do they have some situational bonus over corps? The manual cites them having more mobility than corps but I'm not seeing it?

On HQ placement, I agree with Platoonist: it is very situational. You want to keep your HQs close enough to sources of supply that they generate their maximum level of supply. For a supply source that is only at 5 strength, that means on top of it, in order to generate level 8 supply. For a supply source at 10 strength, you can place the HQs up to 4 hexes away on clear terrain or with a road connection back to the supply source and still have the HQ generate 10 level supply. I recommend using the S button constantly to check the supply level of your units and then double pressing it to see how that changes when you move your HQs.

From a combat perspective, there is a small but tangible benefit for each higher increment of supply. Sometimes that argues in favour of placing your HQs right behind your front line, especially in rough terrain which reduces HQs ability to project supply. The risk of course is that the enemy will destroy a front line unit and can move in and snipe the now exposed HQ. Even a couple of strength points loss to an HQ will significantly compromise the supply that it generates until you can reinforce it. So, I tend to think carefully before putting my HQs too close to the front line.

On detachments - yes, they are significantly more cost-effective than corps in a defensive role (look at their combat values and compare that to the unit cost of only 75 MPPs). It is not uncommon for an attacker to lose more MPPs in strength points in attacking and eliminating an entrenched detachment than the defender loses in rebuilding the detachment. However, they do not have any mobility or situational bonuses over corps.