patrat618
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by patrat618
-
-
Hi Albe.
I'd be willing to play a game of Assault on Communism if your still interested. I would prefer to play the USSR if that's ok by you. I've only been playing the AI and the USSR is the only side I'm really familiar with.
I got to warn you that it's been a long time since I've played a PBEM game, so I'm going to be a bit rusty. I'm able to easily beat the AI set to expert with a small experience bonus, but I'm aware that doesn't mean much compared to playing against a real opponent.
I'm a little busy at work, but I should be able to manage a turn a day.
-
I gotta say that I learn a lot from just reading your AAR's. It will really help when I finally get the time to play a pvp match.
Thanks to you both, for taking the time to do this.
-
Also as allied, you knew you were ahead on NM and that you were going to probably win because of it.
If there was no NM mechanism and you had to rely on battlefield victory, I would think you would of played that last year quite differently. Such as adopting a more defensive stance and simply wait for the Yanks to bail you out.
-
-
I think we can all agree that it is highly unrealistic (given costs and ingame engine mechanics) for the Japanese to build a lot of land based air and place them in low supply around the pacific, this would just get that air destroyed for little loss by carriers.
Perhaps the supply rules could be changed so that if a port in an island group is owned, then all the small islands in that island group would be considered in supply. That would solve the supply problem for land based air on small islands that are part of a larger group. For isolated islands that are not part of an island group, a port could be added to them if they lack one now.
Just brain storming here. I'm just trying to come up with a method that rewards historical behavior.
-
In real life the U.S. island hopped in order to seize airfields to provide land based air cover for their fleet and also to provide land based air support for some of their invasions.
in Europe the allies also made sure their invasions were within range of land based air cover. North Africa possibly being an exception, though I do believe some land based air was provided from Gibraltar.
If ingame you can pull off invasions with just carrier air support, perhaps carrier air, in both ground attacks and air vs air, is to strong compared to land based air.
As far as Italy goes. I don't think the Italians should be to tough to make surrender. In real life they quit soon as they were invaded. After Italy's surrender, neither the Italian fascists or the Italian troops that joined the allies, were worth very much to their respective sides. Perhaps reducing the ground attack strength of carriers can solve the problem of defending Rome as well, without the need of giving Italy a 2nd capital.
Just my 2 cents. I'm about as far from an expert on this game as you can possibly get.
-
I would just like to say that I'm really enjoying these AAR's. I myself just don't have time right now to play a game, even against the AI. But these AAR's are the next best thing to actually playing.
Keep up the good work. Judging from the number of views you guys are getting, I'd say you have a lot of fans out there.
-
I to am enjoying these AAR's. I myself just don't have time right now to play a game, even against the AI. But these AAR's are the next best thing to actually playing.
Keep up the good work. Judging from the number of views you guys are getting, I'd say you have a lot of fans out there.
-
In my current game the Japanese expert level A.I. is doing a pretty good job of kicking my butt in China.
I played the Chinese very aggressively and the A.I. is making me pay for it. Maybe if I played the Chinese more defensively they'd would of done better.
In the same game my Russians are thrashing the A.I. Germans. They launched Barbarossa in June and have only advanced as far as the Riga Minsk Kiev Odessa line by the end of 41. And I still hold Riga and Minsk!
-
make sure your not running alot of background programs. ive seen people running so many dam programs at startup that their computer was slowed to a crawl.
-
i must have one of the 2020 computers, because the game plays pretty dam fast on my machine.
-
Yes, you are right, they didn't trusted the bolsheviks.
But there was no danger that a bolshevik army would anytime soon start a new war against Germany.
Just look at the picture (source: wikipedia):
the pink area, that is THE GREED. If Germany had stayed out of it it would have had hundred of thousends men for the west.
The Germans occupied these territories AFTER the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk:
Imagine what would have happend if the germans had stopped at the armistice front line, or even behind it. That would have been possible if the germans would have stayed reasonable. But they didn't.
Thats why i don't like the now discussed demand for a need of strong german garrissons in the east.
As i already wrote: seduce me as a human player with a decision event to become greedy. Offer me something so that i have to think long about what to do: get soldiers out of the east or keep them in the east.
But if i decide to grab for more russian soil, than i would prefer a solution where i have to move my units manually into the east.
Example: every Ukrainian city i move into could generate some CP NM. To keep the NM one would have to garrission the city after the conquerest.
Every garrissoned city could generate each turn a chance for bolshevik propaganda. If propaganda chance hit, the CP income could be affected. And once the income of the CP falls below a certain amount, they could surrender (this way the income could become a second NM value after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk).
Or, another approach, it could affect the CP treasury. Every hit reduces the cash of the CP for a certain amount. If the CP fail to keep lets say 200 mpp in the treasury, they surrender. In this case the CP should get cash out of occupying the ukrainian cities and towns (garrisson to keep the money). Every game turn the nescessary cash amount to avoid instant surrender could rise. This way the CP could spent less and less on new units once they said yes to the poisenous seduction (go into the Ukraine).
Well, that were just some ideas. Probably not the best. But i would prefer a model like described better than a scripted event.
whether the germans do or do not try a land grab is immaterial. they were going to need to garrison the eastern frontier regardless.
to say that there was no danger of the bolsheviks restarting the war is you using hindsight that the germans at the time didnt have.
-
i for one find it incrediable that the game doesnt require some garrisons in the east.
come on, be realistic, theres no way in hell that the real life germans werent going to leave substantial troops in the east. the chaos in the east along with the threat of renewed hostilties (the germans trusted the bolsheviks about as far as they could throw them) alone would force them to leave troops there.
-
After having played against the AI and MP, can make the following observations about the years 1917 and 1918 which I believe need some change to make the end game work (if you ever come that far, of course):
1) Russia's occupation. As noted already in this forum, the Germans and AH have no need to actually occupy Russia as historically. Coupled with the instant beaming of their troops to the border, the change to the offensive in the West happens much faster than historically. Usually, the Germans start going on the offensive mid 1917. This is too fast.
Proposal: Force Germany to occupy certain points in Russia with troops and/or make the operational transfer more costly.
2) The Kerensky revolution: Let's face it, as soon as the Tsar abdicates, the game is over on the Eastern Front. Reasons for this is that the rebound from Kerensky is too weak. There is no chance that the Russians can hold out for another 6 months like happened historically with the Provisional Government.
Proposal: Increase the morale boost for Kerensky by at least 50%.
3) Mesopotamia: The historical campaign for Baghdad does not happen as the British are simply too weak.
Proposal: Add another corps to the Mesopotamian front by 1917.
4) Romania: They are mere speedbumps. Unfortunately, the Austrians usually are strong enough to conquer them without German help which is not historical. At that time, the Austrians were already spent and German forces were needed to support the conquest.
Proposal: Difficult. I would increase Romania's forces by at least one corps.
Thoughts and comments?
very good points, i whole heartly agree with all of them except number 4.
i have some reservations about the need for strengthing romania. as has already been mentioned, it all depends on how good or bad the austrians are doing.
-
i dunno if id call it working fine if masses of austrians as well as turks show up on the west front.
i myself dont see a problem with it because i know how to put a stop to it, attack their home countrys. i dont see why players cant stop the italians the same way.
-
im sorry, i just dont see what makes italy so special you have to penalize it for moving troops out of the country in ahistorical numbers, while allowing other countrys to ignore the historical political objectives (that were just as important to them as treiste was to italy) that constricted them from doing something similar irl. heck the war started because the austrians invaded serbia to avenge the killing of the archduke, but your willing to let them ignore without consequenses the real life political goal of avenging the archdukes murder by invading serbia.
at least irl italy sent some troops to france and also the balkans. like i said, i dont know of any ottomans being on the west front in real life, but in some games ive played they are sure showing up there.
of course the reason they are showing up there is because i left the ottomans free of any pressure on their homeland. if i attacked in force in palastine or iraq they would of stayed home, which is the same thing the cp player has to do to keep the italians at home.
-
ive played games where the AH player left the bare minium of troops screening serbia and used the troops not to defend against russia, but instead to launch an assault on russia.
they didnt send ALL their troops to russia, but by the same token nobody sends ALL the italian troops to france either.
note: irl the italians also sent troops to greece. if the serbian front hadnt collapsed they probaly would have sent troops there as well.
futhermore while we are speaking about the supposed miss use of italian troops. ive also have had games where not only large numbers of austrians show up on the west front, but turks as well. if anything thats alot more unhistorical than italians showing up in france. iirc a few austrian units did serve on the west front, but not whole armies of them. i dont recall reading about any ottomans there, maybe someone else has info on that.
-
while were on the subject of penalizing countrys for not following historical political goals, i got another one for you.
in real life the trigger that started the war was the asssasination of the archduke.
the austrian goverment and people were to say the least, upset with serbia. because of this, austria defied military logic (not to mention the german general staff wishes) to launch a major attack on belegrad.
in game, the austrian player is allowed to ignore this political goal without penalty.
since theres talk of penilizing italy for not trying to take treiste, i think its only fair that austria suffer a penalty for not attempting to punish sebia.
give me some time and i'll find a suitiable political goal for the germans, they shouldnt be left out either.
IMO if your going to put italy into a historical straight jacket, then you have to do something similiar for all the major countrys.
in the end, adding this kind of stuff will end up making most games follow the same old cookie cutter routine. maybe they should consider making historical political goals optional.
-
I have to disagree with that solution. If you don't want Italian troops in other fronts, just hand over Trento and Trieste. But we're talking about balancing the option of getting Italy involved.
And pray tell where do you "just" get the 5 corps and a hq to carry out an offensive against Italy all of a sudden? where do you take them away and operate them (for 230+ mpps) - the west front, east front or the Serbian Front?
.
who said all of a sudden. the italians arent going anywhere till they get some reinforcements.
irl the austrians had to make the same hard choices you describe when they lauched offensives against italy. why shouldnt the austrian player be faced with the same hard choices.
-
im against artificial constraints on italy.
if as the cp player, you dont want large a number of italian units showing up in serbia or france, just put some pressure on italy.
in real life it wasnt just political goals that kept most italian strenght in italy, it was also austrian offensives like that in the trento and the threat further attacks is what kept the italians mostly at home.
irl the austrians also had goals in italy, thats why they launched offensives like in the trento and later corporetto.
to allow the austrian player to just sit on the defensive in italy while the italians slowly lose morale because they cant take the citys is imo more historically incorrect than the present situation.
if your going to force historical poltical goals, you just cant single out italy. you would have to force austria to attack also.
and if your going to do that, why not force the french to attack in alsace lorraine in august 14, that was a historical political goal also. i could give more examples, but you probaly get my point.
-
Eventually I'll get to the WW2 version, but I don't do WW1! No carrier task forces, no fast moving mechanized/armored thrusts with ground support aircraft, no naval air, no large scale amphibious operations. In short, WW1 is three dimensional, I prefer the four dimensions of WW2 and needless to say, WW1 was a World War in name only, that's why they had to fight WW2.
well the ww1 game does have seaplane carriers and ground support aircraft.
heck you can use zepplins for ground support if you really want to.
also on the east front cav can run riot if it breaks through.
-
Hi
I like this discussion and just wanted to posit a few thoughts.
Firstly, with patch 1.02 we did introduce a new sub ambush mode in the sense that a submarine that attacks before moving will inflict about twice as much damage as one that moves then attacks. I'd be interested to know whether this new mechanism has affected your thoughts at all.
Secondly, in the example of the Carrier and Battleship helping to surround a U-Boat, my initial thought was that the Royal Navy can't be that afraid of the U-Boat if it's deliberately sending surface vessels to help fence it in.
Xwormwood's comments to form a pack of Destroyers to go sub hunting is very wise advice, because even if they don't immediately sink an enemy sub on attacking it, every attack they launch will reduce the sub's supply value. The lower this goes, the slower the sub will move and the lower its effectiveness in both commerce raiding and in attacking your surface fleet. So even unsuccessful attacks will help to send that submarine back to port, hopefully in need of some repairs as well as to refuel.
One note of caution regarding reducing the effectiveness of subs in attacking surface vessels, is that if their effectiveness is reduced too much then players will quite happily use Battleships and Cruisers not only to help defend their convoy routes, but also to block submarines' approach and withdrawal routes. There is a fine balance to be struck here.
actually in light of this post and my current game playing 1.02, im rethinking my objections to subs as they are in 1.02.
i launched an attack against the brit blockcade with the entire german navy, well supported by subs. the RN was able to force me into a rather humilating retreat. My opponent had plenty of destroyers on hand at the same level as my subs and most of his surface ships were the same level of anti sub tech. he was able to more than keep my subs at bay. in fact my subs are really taking a beating. im starting to think it was a mistake to use them against his fleet. i should of used the distraction my fleet provided in order to break my subs out into the open seas where they could of been more profitable used against convoys.
my surface ships did manage to sink 2 bbs without losing any myself, but my destroyers and cruisers took a beating. all in all i'd say the germans came out better, but just like irl they had to flee back to base.
in a nut shell, i'd have to say the subs as they are now in 1.02, are best used against convoys.
as stated by xworm and others, subs in 1.02 aren't that much use against a fleet well protected by destroyers and equal anti sub tech. which is how it was irl.
in short, disregard my previous posts on the subject.
-
subs would try to escape if it was destroyers coming at them. bb's or ca's are a differant story. random ecounter or not, i think that irl sub's would try to attack a bb that was passing by.
i really dont get the mechcanics of your ambush mode. why should a sub have to remain stationary AND go into ambush mode. why isnt remaining stationary enough?
how would you have it work out when a ship bumps into a stationary sub thats not in ambush mode, would that ship get a free pass? if thats the case then pretty much everytime i wasnt moving a sub i would put it in ambush mode.
it just seems like it would be a waste of time having to change modes on a sub that wasnt going to move anyway.
-
Again, i guess we are talking about different campaigns.
In WW1 it would be nice to get the Hochseeflotte at sea, as the german player can't afford much losses while the UK can.
actually i was talking about ww1.
with subs as effective against warships as they currantly are, the smaller german fleet can really threaten the RN with defeat by just building enough subs to support his high seas fleet.
irl having masses of subs supporting your fleet was a massive waste of the subs, they rarely accomplished anything beyond sinking cripples. this applies to both world wars. the main reason for this is that the subs were just to dam slow when submerged. during ww1 i expect that it was hard to comunicate tactically with subs during fleet actions. iirc warships despite having radios, still relied on signal flags and lamps for tactical communication. kinda hard to do with submerged subs i bet.
as already stated by others, subs were really only effective against warships when they could ambush them.
note: i dont think a separate ambush mode is really necessary. just really toning down the subs attack factor after moving should be enough. leave them as effective they are now if they dont move.
Failure to animate error.
in Strategic Command - Assault on Democracy
Posted
In then pbem game I am currently playing I experienced a failure to animate error when I tried to advance on Tobruk with my British forces. We are playing the latest version of the game.
I have a sav file of the turn in question.