Matrix Games Forums

Still learning, at a fast pace... How exactly are you to successfully employ subs at the price? I don't see them as very practical for the amount of punishment they dish out. They're better as little ghost spies(if you're lucky 2 or 3 subs can dish out 50% or 70% damage on a Convoy with early techs) Meanwhile look at what a sub costs and how long the research is to get to them? The Allies don't take them that seriously unless you target their transports! Many of really ready level 2 subs dish out 0 damage

Also research, focus totally loses me. First of all, research costs an arm and a leg and generally unless you play a later scenario than 1914 going in to Airplanes and Tanks are rare. Even more rare to invest in a Navy. The issue is that a super land war is on the way and there is just no reason to go there, or you'll lose. I would like to see in earlier scenarios a slight adjustment in the price to incorporate more viable strategies for earlier scenarios...Which are by far the most enjoyable!

Entrenching, I'd like a choose to, or choose not to feature here... Even destroy my entrenchments on my way out, unless I'm forced out at gunpoint. It would really improve a dynamic in the game. Who leaves their pillboxes in tact for enemy when they've got plenty of time to TNT them out of existence...

Just ideas for the designers, people, and what not

its about the "abstract nature" of the trenching system, until we go to one week turns and have a dynamic system of building smaller units and creating corps, omg Ive re created the AGE ageod engine lol, and then its really a different game, with the current system the trenches exist and aare created and added to, perhaps the only issue I have is the trenches go away automatically if unused ... did you know this?
fyi, start playing nicer and not beating me up so badly
lol

Intrigued by the idea of destroying entrenchments, at the strategic level (where the game operates) entrenchments are much more than pillboxes, but first line trenches, second line, third line, communication and support trenches, saps, dug-outs and bunkers, built mostly by shovel, over weeks, or months under fire, covering many square miles. Would you expose your troops to the time and danger of shovelling it all back and if you try and use explosives (expensive) to remove a hole in the ground, you get a ............. hole in the ground.

Entrenchments need constant repair and maintenance, so it's reasonable that they become ineffective, over time, if not used and if captured they are probably positioned and organised to defend in the wrong direction, so maybe not as fully useful to the enemy at first capture, until they have occupied and improved them. Loosing entrenchment level on capture seem reasonable.[:)]

Still learning, at a fast pace... How exactly are you to successfully employ subs at the price? I don't see them as very practical for the amount of punishment they dish out. They're better as little ghost spies(if you're lucky 2 or 3 subs can dish out 50% or 70% damage on a Convoy with early techs) Meanwhile look at what a sub costs and how long the research is to get to them? The Allies don't take them that seriously unless you target their transports! Many of really ready level 2 subs dish out 0 damage

Are you buying crusiers/battleships to take on convoys? What I have noticed is the English AI builds a huge army in egypt when convoys go unmolested. Noticed also, the CP tends to attack after recieving convoys. Personelly, I attack the AI's navy/convoy as much as possible. The AI does not seem to repair its navy, thus it is weakened, prone to be eliminated. Have not tried playing a game yet without a navy or it's techs, going purely on a land to me would be extremely hard. IMO

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Intrigued by the idea of destroying entrenchments, at the strategic level (where the game operates) entrenchments are much more than pillboxes, but first line trenches, second line, third line, communication and support trenches, saps, dug-outs and bunkers, built mostly by shovel, over weeks, or months under fire, covering many square miles. Would you expose your troops to the time and danger of shovelling it all back and if you try and use explosives (expensive) to remove a hole in the ground, you get a ............. hole in the ground.

Entrenchments need constant repair and maintenance, so it's reasonable that they become ineffective, over time, if not used and if captured they are probably positioned and organised to defend in the wrong direction, so maybe not as fully useful to the enemy at first capture, until they have occupied and improved them. Loosing entrenchment level on capture seem reasonable.[:)]

I would have to agree with this above post. As far as not leaving entrenchments to the enemy, might the developers consider booby traps or minefields in their place? The map scale may not allow this, just a thought.

Well, there is leaving and there is retreating
if you allow "minefields" to slow .. then you need scorched earch where not only rails but the cities dont produce....
Having rails taken over and used in the same turn is my gripe.. oops sorry I stole the thread
now where where we? ok
trenches being destroyed? I vote NO

To take this a step further, in winter conditions (for instance), a player may have to rest a unit to get it's morale up and perhaps it's strengh, inadvertantly be creating entrenchments for which the player may regret when he moves on. I, myself like nothing better to move into a high value abandoned entrenchment built by the enemy. I doubt that entrenchment capacity would change in this game, however, there are times I would consider turning it on or off for a unit.