Does the ET have too much advantage over the CP

[*Lava*]

Okay...

During our PBEM game, EUBanana and I, traded emails over whether or not the CP is at too much of a disadvantage.

I'm still not sure because I think I am just now getting my hands around the whole game (the importance of the naval side eluded me for quite sometime).

But in general... I think it should be very difficult for the CP player to win.

Thoughts?

Ray (alias Lava)

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Okay...

During our PBEM game, EUBanana and I, traded emails over whether or not the CP is at too much of a disadvantage.

I'm still not sure because I think I am just now getting my hands around the whole game (the importance of the naval side eluded me for quite sometime).

But in general... I think it should be very difficult for the CP player to win.

Thoughts?

Ray (alias Lava)

Changing history should never be easy [;)]

[TheBlackhorse]

I agree with both of you. The CP should have a great challenge winning, and changing history should be neither easy nor a 50-50 chance. The onus must be on the CP player.
 

[hjaco]

That depends on CP strategy and especially on your ability to recognize and accepting early on if your initial offensive in France will fail.

I sense that too often the possibility of pursuing a historic 1915 offensive against Russia is thrown away while achieving nothing decisive in the west.

Of course you could begin straight away with a Russia first and go for west in late 1915 ?

Remember the winner is determined at end of 1919 based on especially surrendered powers and possession of cities and end morale.

But then again - most games don't go that far yet (well not my games that is).

[TheBlackhorse]

Well stated hjaco.
 
I'm always intrigued by the CP desire to slug it out mano et mano in the west while doing nothing but "hold/delay" in the East.
 
I'm convinced it's a recipe for certain CP defeat.
 
 

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse06

Well stated hjaco.

I'm always intrigued by the CP desire to slug it out mano et mano in the west while doing nothing but "hold/delay" in the East.

I'm convinced it's a recipe for certain CP defeat.

Perhaps it's because the cities you need to knock France out are so close.
Also the French/Brits can do a lot of damage on the offensive so you can't leave the front as sparely garrisioned as you can the East Front. Realistically you need to keep a lot of the starting corps on the west front or risk a collaspe if the TE attacks go well.

[TheBlackhorse]

It's part of the beauty of the GoA simulation.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse06

Well stated hjaco.

I'm always intrigued by the CP desire to slug it out mano et mano in the west while doing nothing but "hold/delay" in the East.

I'm convinced it's a recipe for certain CP defeat.

Perhaps it's because the cities you need to knock France out are so close.
Also the French/Brits can do a lot of damage on the offensive so you can't leave the front as sparely garrisioned as you can the East Front. Realistically you need to keep a lot of the starting corps on the west front or risk a collaspe if the TE attacks go well.

I will challenge your statement with the proximity of French Cities.

If you make a count from Prussia and Galicia towards the Riga hex row you only need to cover a maximum of 5 hexes. The included cities equals a morale loss of 65, you leave only 5 food hexes for Russia to cover a demand of 11. Russia won't get any reinforcements until November and by then you could have it all occupied waiting for a revolution freeing troops for action else where. Add to this a side show conquest of Serbia which also will give a morale hit and you are on your way.

I think the main reason for France first is that it's historic.

[EUBanana]

Problem with east first is :-

If the French army is not ruined by mid 1915 then the French + British are going to lay the mother of all smackdowns on the CPs.  At least a west first strategy, even if it doesn't knock France out, will cripple France and reduce her to offensive abilities for pretty much the rest of the game.

Other problem is, Russia is just so big and has so many men.  I know against the AI I didn't have much luck with east first, I think against a human I would get even less far.


I don't really have any answer to this though, I think the CPs are just screwed, myself.  Unless you really pull something out of the hat. 

I think one problem with the west first strategy is that CP players, myself included, don't know when to quit.   You see the Germans attack and attack and attack all through 1915, and by 1916 they have attacked so much that their armies are in a state of complete collapse.  Thats what happened to me, anyway.

I think you have to attack at least a bit in the west, but by spring 1915 'call it quits' if you're not getting anywhere and start digging, and let the Entente batter against you for a while.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse06

Well stated hjaco.

I'm always intrigued by the CP desire to slug it out mano et mano in the west while doing nothing but "hold/delay" in the East.

I'm convinced it's a recipe for certain CP defeat.

Perhaps it's because the cities you need to knock France out are so close.
Also the French/Brits can do a lot of damage on the offensive so you can't leave the front as sparely garrisioned as you can the East Front. Realistically you need to keep a lot of the starting corps on the west front or risk a collaspe if the TE attacks go well.

I will challenge your statement with the proximity of French Cities.

If you make a count from Prussia and Galicia towards the Riga hex row you only need to cover a maximum of 5 hexes. The included cities equals a morale loss of 65, you leave only 5 food hexes for Russia to cover a demand of 11. Russia won't get any reinforcements until November and by then you could have it all occupied waiting for a revolution freeing troops for action else where. Add to this a side show conquest of Serbia which also will give a morale hit and you are on your way.

I think the main reason for France first is that it's historic.

That may be true but I have never knocked Russia out by occupying those cities. I have knocked out France every game that I take the cities on the Paris/Lyon axis.

[esteban]

I would say that there are a lot of bugs/design features that favor the Central Powers:

1. Forts won't allow defending units in them to retreat, no matter how badly the units get chewed up and if there is a retreat path--So the CP player assaulting without siege artillery can pin French units in Belfort, Nancy and Verdun in place and destroy these units with repeated assaults. So the TE player has to pretty much ahistorically abandon his frontier defenses in France.

2. In my experience, unrestricted submarine warfare is politically far too cheap for the CP. I have been in games where 5-6 TE merchants ships have been sunk without seriously angering the U.S.

3. There is a bug where if you attack Russia and take out much of their western territory, Russian supply availability collapses, making the defense of the rest of their territory nearly impossible.

4. There is another bug that makes hexes in a conquered Ottoman Empire want to revert to CP control. So the TE has to keep retaking hexes in the OE, while the CP can march right in and retake Constantinople and other territory in the OE. This bug is supposed to be patched soon

5. The criteria for getting a sea zone "contested" and thereby preventing sea movement (nearly always Allied in the game) is too easy. Historically for example, the BEF had very little trouble moving from England to France. However, historically at the time there was a very large CE "naval move" into the North Sea that lead to the historical Battle of Dogger Bank. In game turns, this move would have left the North Sea contested and the BEF stuck in England, which didn't happen historically. The same could be said for the Eastern Med, which remained open to troop transports despite the activities of the Austrian and Turkish navies. I would say that to block sea movement, one side should have very nearly equal numbers of units at sea to the other side.

6. There is another bug that often prevents British units from using strategic movement in France, even if you get them across to France. That hurts a lot in getting the Brits up to the front lines to help the French. This bug is also supposed to be patched soon.

[FrankHunter]

3. There is a bug where if you attack Russia and take out much of their western territory, Russian supply availability collapses, making the defense of the rest of their territory nearly impossible.

That's not actually a bug, its a colapse of the Russian supply system because of lost food hexes.  The supply level per hex is affected if you don't have enough food to meet your requirements.

[SMK-at-work]

France offers a quicker KO of one of hte 2 main opponents than Russia.....certainly it is expensive in terms of manpower and resources, but I've tried a Russia first strategy...and if France is left unattacked it can push into Western Germany very easily in 1914, which is not good.

This implies to me the border forts are not good enough for either side.

[palne]

Hi Guys,
 
I LOVE THIS GAME!


I used to work at SSI with Gary Grisgby and Norm Koger, etc...
 
First time posting so be gentle!
 
Some of my notes:
 
 
I think the CP are hosed because:
 
1.  Invasions into Wilhelmshaven cause scuttling.  I stick the 2 BEF inf there and entrench.  AI will do nothing.  Humans CP players will be forced to abandon an offensive (it takes about 4 corp and 2 HQ points to blast them out of the city).  It's so cheesy, I would anounce a house rule against this move.
2.  Garrison requirements in port cities really hurts the GE player.  House rule: no TE invasions into Europe.  No Ger invasions into Russia.
3.  Artillery is deadly.  As soon as barrages are 3 for 1 production, it gets deadly.  I just use them to grind through corps in the open.  The AI will always have a couple of hexes where it keeps corps in the open.  I line up about 5 artillery and watch whole corps evaporate.  It's like watching sausage getting made....
4.  The size of my armies ALWAYS gets smaller as time goes on.  Doesn't matter who I am.  The carnage from my side or the AI side is sufficient that I never really have to build any corps because I can't keep my corps above 10 anyway.With the cost benefits of artillery (especially with Air Recon), it's just to efficient to blast 'em to bits....All of the history shows everybody's armies getting bigger, not smaller...
5.  Man is the Naval moves tricky.  I can't say how many times I've forgotten to move my ships during stretegic phase.  Or, not built enought navy points.  I spend all this money to get control of a sea area, but then don't really get anything for it.  There should be shore bombardment from BB's in controlled seas. That would certainly give everybody an incentive to party over a sea zone.  Political points for control of sea zones should also be given.   It is VERY expensive to send the fleet out and during months with only 1-2 impulses, too expensvie for what you for it.
6.  As soon as the TE player gets the baltic and the northsea, and then sends ALL of his Industry to Russia, it's all over for the CP.  Austria usually hasn't even taken Serbia before Russian production is 10+.  This results in the GE player having to pull off of France to defend.  If the Russian player plays conservatively, like only replacing used HQ's and storing up replacements and entrenching, a human CP can destory himself in France and Destroy himself in Russia.  It's just knarly....
 
 
 
Questions:
 
1.  I'm assuming that if I saved up enough navy points, I could build DN's?  What do they cost?  About 150?  Man, that is pricey for how many barrages I could get for that....
2.  How do I get resources to the minors so I can at least get the barrages, trenches, or airplanes....
3.  Personal Opinion:  I think Italy going either way would be cool.  But, from an historic sense, I have to agree with the majority in the forums that Italy goes TE or nuetral at best....
4.  Personal Opinion:  HQ refits are too expensive.  Any testing done with them at 2 pts' per pip?
5.  I have never run out of manpower.  I saw posts about this happening.  I don't ever come close.....anybody have this issue?
 
 
Thanks for making this game!

Phil Alne
 
 

[SMK-at-work]

The next patch will stop invasions of cities where significant warships are based (Cruisers or higher)
 
People rarely buy new Corps..the ones in the reinforcement queue are generally sufficient
 
It is expensive to send the fleet out.......but what happens if hte othe side does and yuo don't?  Especially if you're the UK?  Losing all your transports is a bad thing....
 
1/ No you can't buy Dreadnoughts at all
2/ You can't - minors get random allocations of a few replacement, HQ, artillery & entrenchement points
4/ Yes.  Attacks were too easy, too many resources freed up for other things
5/ You're only playing the AI...wait until a PBEM opponent puts 5 artillery into a hex and starts blowing YOUR Corps to kingdom come!!

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

5/ You're only playing the AI...wait until a PBEM opponent puts 5 artillery into a hex and starts blowing YOUR Corps to kingdom come!!

Personally, since you cannot destroy artillery with your own artillery I view this tactic as an exploit.

Ray (alias Lava)

[FrankHunter]

I always run out of manpower.  Perhaps its my play style at fault.

Artillery barrages against troops in the open isn't being changed but trenches are being made to give better protection.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

5/ You're only playing the AI...wait until a PBEM opponent puts 5 artillery into a hex and starts blowing YOUR Corps to kingdom come!!

Personally, since you cannot destroy artillery with your own artillery I view this tactic as an exploit.

I wasn't meaning only having artillery in the hex.....

[Joel Rauber]

If I have an infantry corp in a port, does that prevent invasion of the hex??

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

I always run out of manpower. Perhaps its my play style at fault.

Artillery barrages against troops in the open isn't being changed but trenches are being made to give better protection.

Frank, if you are willing to discuss it in the open, is the protection being made better, by better defence bonus in combat or by allowing a build every impulse or a combination of the two??