ORIGINAL: stockwellpete
It seems a bit weird to me that players are investing 4 chits in Trench Warfare at the very beginning of the game when the armies are fighting a "war of movement" and are not expecting to entrench. I also find it odd that whole areas of Tech can be ignored and a player can still win. I would have expected the challenge in the game to be to generally advance your Tech on a broad front, and have 2-3 priorities for each particular nations (e.g. subs and airships for Germany, tanks for France etc). I think it would probably be better if a maximum purchase of investment chits was set at 2 for everything (except for those categories already restricted to 1 chit) and players could not buy excess chits beyond the maximum total achievable to speed along various Tech advances (so you could not have 2 chits to speed along the final level of research).
What I am picking up from a number of players now who play MP is that the way to win is to focus on a quite limited range of Techs and use them to win the war. What with completely OTT artillery fire, micro-landings and "weird diplomacy" as well, it is really putting me off playing MP at all (apart from the fact that once I start losing badly, and I will at first, I am not really going to want to carry on playing the same game for the next 6 weeks!).
Where do I begin to respond to statements like this, from someone who has never played a PVP match here with SC-WW1, but deigns to comment on how its being played in human to human matches currently.
Since I have been in 24 matches since Feb 2020, of which at least 20 were against what I would call intermediate to advanced opponents, I think I have a clearer idea of whats going on playing humans then you do. Also, some of us discuss game matters off the forums before we pop up here to opine. Also, I take screenshots..and have data to back up what I am saying.
First, broad categories of research ARE being done by all the opponents that I have played against. I will submit a screen shot of my British research as it is July 1917 in an epic match against Tanaka that is still on going.
As you will see, obviously, I have a broader palette than what what you surmise we are doing out here. Chernobyl was just illustrating what we all believe is the way to proceed early game.
In my current match with Tanaka, I had to re-prioritize my lagging aircraft tech..because Tanaka came in strong with that and Zeppelins, and was starting to dominate the airspace on the western front.
The thing is, playing PvP, YOU have to be creative...and there is nothing ahistorical about that.
Also, what is this so called 'weird diplomacy' your alluding too? If your referring to what is called in WaW and WiE 'uber diplo', which is spending expensive chits to keep a great power out of the war...I have NEVER seen that done for the USA..it would be ridiculous to do anyway.
Diplo on Bulgaria? Why shouldn't either side try to get her in or stay out of the war, if they want to spend the money. If the Entente is trying to suppress Bulgaria, let them try..for there are MANY mobilization triggers in Russian Poland and Serbia that the Central Powers can hit to get Bulgaria into the CP, Entente diplo or not.
Finally, some of the the PvP play that is posted here by us and makes you fussy, Stockwell, is presented so we can try to FIX to get a MORE HISTORICAL feel to the game...just the sameway you are when you contend with the AI.
With that, I present an image of the British research table as example. JULY 1917 OldCrowBalthazor (Entente) vs Tanaka (Central Powers). Broad Research is required to achieve success in PvP AND vAI.
(France's research is more robust but for security reasons I don't want to use her as an example)
o7
