Hyazinth von Strachwitz

@ Terrier: believe me one thing: it takes a long times to fully understand SC. Most of us play it since years, and esp. when playing against the AI, there are ways to outmaneuver it. I hope you are not loosing fun to continue playing, because the longer you play, the easier it will get. If you want, a lot of people here in this forum will give you a helping hand.. just open a thread and post a few screen shots, and we will give you detailed advice. @ Patrat: Click on one unit. Press shift. Now an Icon appears. If you move this icon over an adjacent unit and press the mouse button, the swap will occur.

When playing the Axis, you need almost all of your garrison troops to suppress russian partisans.

Dear Dizpatcher, there is no clear definition of a rail hub. Moscow is one, Berlin is one... and a lot of major cities as well. But there is nothing special you need to know.. owning hubs makes it easier to operate troops and receive supplies, that´s all. Rgds

Honestly I think that Hubert will do some tweaking here.. Germany has too few unit for their MPP income. Either the MPPs have to go down or the unit limit has to go up. I bet on MPPs going down :-)

I agree to Kuniworth`s idea.. that would be the same scale as in the WWI version. Catacacol Highlander: I LOVE the late Sealion idea... wonder how that works out.

Ev, I haven`t tried not to take Belgium.. and I won`t try it. I play these games in an almost "historical" mode, that means I try to stick to the historic facts as long as possible. Fighting in Belgium belongs to WWI.. that`s it. But you are right: fortifying the german border in the west would be a very good option.. France will not get through it. But that is a road I wouldn`t go down.. coz I don`t like it. Of course I do not play 100% as in history, but I simply don`t like that option. So the answer to your question "why invade Belgium" is: because it is there.. and it brings me into a better position for later stages of the war. And it has a few producing cities that bring MPPs.. and you can plunder a bit. Belgium is easy to conquer.. a must-do in my eyes. And if Germany doesn`t take Belgium, someone else might.. Coming back on Napoleon: I´m not quite sure if the strategy to attack the strongest enemy first is the best way. Usually you start with what you can achieve easy and quick... that works pretty well if you can handle the threat of getting attacked.. After reading all of your posts carefully I think the main problem is the AI. And I´m pretty sure this will improve when Hubert has implemented a few changes. A big step to make a AI better is to reduce Arty from 3 to 2 (Tech Level 2)... because range 3 was devastating. In 1.01 defensive fire of my own Arty killed a lot of Entente Arty units.. strange. And you see: already fixed :-)

Thomas, Some of the features you suggest would be very difficult to implement into the current engine.. or even impossible. You are basically right with most of these things, but SC follows a certain model. To alter the whole model might work in SC3 or SC4, but that is a long way to go. But let`s get more into detail. We all know the good old AI is not really an AI.. it is more an artificial stupidity than an intelligence. Hubert`s AI is way better than anything else on the market, but it is still an AI (or AS, as I use to call it). We cannot expect it to play like a human player. I see your point, and most of them are familiar to me. But we need to focus on those points we can really change. So the AI focuses on sinking naval units before they can retreat to the harbor and be repaired.. this is why the AI attacks enemy unit with low strength. One thing where you are 100% right: it doesn´t make sense that a Battleship with strength 1 is repaired to full strength in just one turn. We have have read about the Battle of Midway and the emergency repairs of the american carriers where they did all necessary works in just a few days, but this is an exception. Unfortunately I don`t know the engine well enough, but if the engine can deliver that I would love to see longer repair times for major ships, i.e 2 or 3 turns. Maybe Hubert can answer that question.

Hello ev! Basically there are two things to mention. At first: it is not really necessary to advance across the Somme river in summer 1914. A total victory can be achieved without it. I suggest to read my AI report, there is a lot of detail information in it. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99176 But to be a bit more precise: You can advance to Amiens in the second turn by avoiding to fight the Belgian strongholds (elimininate these later). Usually I don`t take Amiens (but you can take Abbeville in the second turn, it is undefended), but this can be achieved in the third turn if you want that. An english unit garrisons it.

Thomas, may I ask what version you are playing? Some of your objections sound very familiar to me.. I did a similar post a few weeks ago. But I`m pretty sure some of your points have been resolved in the current 1.02 update. For SC games it is a usual process that the games get way better from patch to patch.

I do agree with Wushuki. Given the fact that this is a strategic game, a whole Air fleet sitting on a tile for one week means more than one plane flying around. Pretty sure most planes fly once a day and not once a week, so an Air Fleet consisting of hundred of planes should be able to deliver recon up to their maximum range. If they can do recon, they can fight against incoming attackers. In one of my games vs. the AI I had a Bomber in Brest to raid convoys and a fighter just a few hexes nearby, but not in interception range. English and american raiders from Cornwall started to attack my poor Bomber, and my fighter didn`t help although it was no in range.. think this doesn`t make sense.. I would love to go back to the old rule. Hubert, I understand your point.. but this idea leads to some strange situations.

ev, I do basically agree with what you say. Maybe I didn`t point out exactly what I wanted to say. In reality Germany occupied and controlled a lot of countries and benefitted a lot from it. Tanks from the Czechs, Guns and Motors from the French, precious metals from Norway.. the list ist endless. My point is: please count the mines and production cities in the Donezk Bassin.. and you will find that this area way overrepresented. Due to these circumstances the Ukraine is a must-have, the Axis cannot win without it. Maybe they loose even after having it, but they will loose for sure if they don`t have it. In reality the lack of oil wells was a severe problems for Germany, and after the destruction of Ploesti in August 43 Germany was economically defeated. The devastating result of Operation Bagration was (among other reasons) just possible because the german troops were almost immobile. 1.400 ME-262 were produced, but half of these didn`t fly a single minute because they didn`t have fuel. This fact is not represented in the game, because MPPs are MPPs. The daring move into the caucasus was mainly because the Wehrmacht needed oil, and they won`t find oil in the Ukraine. Maikop was taken, but it never produced a single gallon of oil before it was lost again. What I wanted to say it: Kuniworth is right about the position... and attacking Stalingrad an the Causasus brings Germany into an exposed position (you know the historic result). With the Ukraine being as precious as it is at the moment, Germany can allow to take it, be defensive on that frontier and focus elsewhere. If the Ukraine would be less precious, Germany would be forced to continue Fall Blau deep into the east.. My argument is simple: when there is something in the game that is easy to achieve and brings a lot of MPPs (like Norway), it will get some kind of "standard path" I don`t like standard paths, because it makes the game less variable. Should Germany be motivated to take the Ukraine? YES Should Germany benefit from taking the Ukraine? YES Should Germany be in a position to take the Ukraine and be happy with it? NO I might be wrong, but I simply feel there is too much industrial capacity in the Ukraine.. that is all I`m saying. Setting up a defensive positin around Rostov is way easier for Germany than moving their whole force to the endless plains that lead to Stalingrad. Take troops away from there and take Leningrad frees a lot of forces and establishes the link to Helsinki. When you do that, you have a large force whith almost no oppenent in the north..

Agreed. Unless there are no changes, that will be the standard path. Apart from that: as we have seen in the AAR, a german conquest of the Ukraine means an economic catastrophe for the Allies.. the longer Germany outproduces the Allies, the higher the probability of a german victory will be. A potential solution can be to reduce the amount of mines in that area. In reality the russians redeployed their industry around Sverdlosk, and they also do that in the game.. but the fact that the industry in no longer in the Ukraine is not modeled.. all of these mines produce for the Wehrmacht. This makes the Ukraine a must-have target. Controlling this area gives you around 900 MPP per turn in late 1941, and this is enough to maintain Fortress Europe forever.

Guys, the amount of work you have done is unbelievable. We all cannot say "Thank you" often enough...

I do agree on your views on motorization. 20% per Level is too much, esp. when you keep in mind that tanks need a lot of reinforcements. A Tank is motorized anyway..

It`s gonna come when it`s ready. That`ll be soon. If you don`t like it, use the editor. (That is an excerpt of usual answers to comparable questions in the past years!)

Will do... should be in your mailbox tomorrow.

Yesterday I finished the game mentioned above where Russia decided to produce for Germany.. ended in late 1917.. Germany´s NM was at 275.

For me tech advance is a crucial factor is in SC2.. it can turn the tide easily. Sometimes I`m quite frustrated with slow advance, and somestimes you have maxed all relevant technologies out long before the game ends. In my eyes the accidental character of tech development has too much weight... I have seen it so often that I had all possible MPPs invested and almost nothing happens for half a year.. and in other games you get all important technologies early in the game, and you win it quickly. This should be tweaked.. too much influence. Maybe a player who has invested all MPPs should get some kind of bonus.. or a minimum advance.

Great work, guys... looking forward to play it. That game is the best model of strategic warfare you can get these days.

Dear Marshall Ney, the campaign you mention will be an addition to the game that is gonna be published sooner or later. It is not yet existing. The AAR you can read is just make us hungry :-)

Dear Bill, I understand that this game is a really big task. Pls do not regard my writing as a negative critic, my target is to make a very good game even better :-)

In history a lot of units remained in former Russia.. in TGW no single unit remains there at all in case of an Armistice or a surrender due to NM.. they all teleport back. When Russia surrenders due to loosing their Capitals, all units remain where they are. Recently conquered cities have to recover their supply values, all others come in at supply value 5. That makes it fairly easy to operate all your units to France quickly.

Dear Readers, this post is to reflect some of my thoughts on behalf Russia. When playing The Great War, usually the Central Powers defeat Russia in 1916 or 1917. In history there was a longer peace talk that ended in March 1918 which left Russia crippled and drained of their ressources. But these month of ongoing peace talks brought France the time it needed to survive until the American troops came to France in large numbers and turned the tide. Germany seized control of the Baltic states and the Ukraine, and Finnland worked together with Germany. But Germany had to leave a lot of troops in former Russia to prevent Anarchy and Bolschewism to spread. In my eyes these facts are not fully represented in TGW. The "teleport" of the german troops happens immediately after the Russian Ambassador deliver the proposal, and this is way too quick. The usual way for most players will be to accept a russian Armistice offer. German and Austrian units will "teleport" back to their home countries while the three Baltic States and Ukraine get independent. Germany has a very good diplomatic relation to these new states, gets food deliveries from Ukraine and Poland is under german government. Any free troops can be used on other theatres, and that will most likely be France. In my eyes this effect is quite strong, esp. when you divert the biggest part of your troops to Russia early in the war and then transport them back in 1916. But there is a second option: you neglect the russian inquiry and wait until their NM drops to zero so they will surrender. The allover effect is basically the same, but your NM gets a small boost. In general I would say that forcing a russian surrender is not worth the effort, because it takes longer and your troops get infected with bolschewism. It is an option if you need a boost in your NM. Yesterday I discovered a third way: in October 1916 I conquered Petrograd and Moscow in the same turn, and after one additional turn Russia surrendered completely. All former russian territory became german, and any ressource was under german control. All bolschewiks disappeared, and a heavenly silence (=christmas) laid itself over russia. No partisans popped up, no garrisons required, all ressources produce steadily.. my income per turn as Germany was well above 1.000 MPP. No baltic states, no independent Ukraine.. just Finnland which delivered MPPs to Germany. In a Human vs Human game this would be a game cracker.. unlimited ressources for Germany, more troops than free tiles in Northern France.. that means Game Over. In my eyes the russian defeat is not very well modeled at the moment. I suggest a kind of mechanism that represents the turmoil in Russia after the bolschewik revolution. One solution could be that the 3 baltic states and Ukraine need some kind of garrison, or they will immediately fall back to Russia. This would prevent Germany from moving all troops to the west. Let`s look at it realistically: as Germany had to pull their troops out of Poland after the war, the Sowjet Union and Poland hat a quick war.. Russia wanted the old territory back. So it would make sense that Germany has to garrison these states to prevent Russia from taking them back. A possible way to do that is to treat those 4 countries a "occupied by Germany" with a massive partisan popup facility in case they are not garrisoned (the partisan popup represents the bolschewik threat). At the moment the game has one major path you need to follow: defeat Russia quickly, and you win.. if it takes you to long, you will loose.

Good fun seing those PzKfW VI "Tiger" waltzing through Russia in 1941... Do you think it would work with tech Level 2 as well? Honestly I love the early assault strategy a lot, but if you have bad luck in tank research, you loose the game.. just because of bad luck.

Thx Hubert... good to know. Operating with the german fleet in the North Sea reminds me a bit on playing Axis&Allies.. it`s good to have a lot of subs :-)