Glabro
-
Posts
299 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Glabro
-
-
Yes, I was not arguing that Sealion was likely in any case. Perhaps with Russia knocked out and time to develop the air force to meet this mission, along with a development of the Kriegsmarine of course.
-
Yes. I go as far as taking away any pre-set research points in intelligence, I find it so useless and annoying - and the 5% discount in research is neglible, I probably am better off getting the extra 50 MPPs outright in the beginning where money is tight.
-
Well yes, there is no industry east of Moscow and west of the Urals (in WW1 at least), that I know. I don't want Russia to get boosted in importance because it has a huge amount of these towns. But agriculture is important as well - just look at Holland. But I suppose the food only really helps if there is a shortage of it in the first place in national production, and I guess the Russians have no lack of food then.
So in a way, I see where you're coming from. Maybe then some more minor cities should be turned into major cities but with a strength cap of 5 instead? Would that be better?
Anyway, is there any chance of an official Storm over Europe with just corps and "light divisions" performing recon and mobile defense / capture of undefended locations?
I'm loathe to do it myself because a patch would require everything to be redone again, and I'm sure I'd mess it up. Plus it would be harder to get people to play it.
Armies are organizational units. Really, the HQ units are the "army" units.
-
Excellent ideas. The intelligence tech, and air recon was really important: it might even have been crucially important since it enabled the French to succesfully launch their offensive in the First Battle of Marne and prevent the capture of Paris.
-
Point 4:Wasn't the whole idea that by attaining air supremacy over England, the RN would be a non-issue? With suitable escorts and dominance over the air, the RN would have had no business in the Channel. Maybe a heavy investment in subs would have helped, but too late.
-
Oh yes, definitely.However, I don't think that a GB defeat would have been key to a Soviet defeat in 1941, all things being otherwise the same.
It would have been in the long run that the Soviets would have been defeated without outside help, and I don't see why they wouldn't have provided aid to the Soviets like they did when GB was in the war - if the RN was still operational, at least. Like I said, I don't know if the Germans would have held the brits hostage to get the RN to surrender instead of operating out of Canada / Soviet Union to facilitate lend / lease.
-
Another idea: I find it odd that minor cities are worth nothing at all MPP wise. Thus I find myself unrealistically sacrificing them because their worth is very neglible in certain situations.
Would it be possible to increase all costs and incomes, and make minor cities worth 5 MPPs at full strength? Or maybe they could somehow produce say 2 MPPs even at STR 5?
-
Yes, but it would've been much, much harder to operate to try to break through the Gustav Line in Italy and the Alps to get at Germany. Sure, they still could have knocked Italy out, but breaching the Alps is a whole another thing.
What sort of ransoming with hostages did the Germans do with the nations they were at war with? I don't think they threatened to kill off the inhabitants of the occupied French cities unless France capitulated, don't know if they would have done that to force the Royal Navy to turn themselves over. If not, the US could have together with the RN still done lend-lease.
-
I would request that normalized MPP would become the norm in all the campaigns. It's just a better and more logical way of handling things when you have different turn lengths, and creates interesting shifts in the war, from the attacking period in the summer where it's hard to replace losses, to the build-up phases in the winter.
-
Very well thought out. And yes, there is indeed merit in that hypothesis.
The Soviets were close to the breaking point even with Lend-Lease and D-Day, but it would be hard to say if they would have been defeated outright.
-
Well, I certainly don't mind the option, unless it somehow becomes the only accepted way of playing in the PBEM community, and makes it harder to get a normal game.
But I know some people get on the fence on things like these...
I like the idea of the battle reports getting more reliably accurate with more time and better HQs.
One would assume that this would definitely reduce assaults after moving a great deal, whereas it would be hard to judge when to make a prepared attack. For example, on the Western Front, the estimate shows 3-0 for the defenders even though the readiness is the same, with no river in between, in the open, but entrenched to level 3...That's pretty rough.
Plus, one could "cheat" and play a ghost game (hotseat) alongside the PBEM and replicate the moves, it would give an idea of the battle results.
-
Hmm, indeed...I'm sure that if Sealion would have had such an effect, german High Command would have taken this into account when planning for Sealion in late 1940! Or maybe this was the reason they HAD to do it in 1940 or never - (well, at least before dealing with the Soviets!) in Spring 1941.
-
This slowing down thing could instead be accomplished by supply & readiness drops after battles, even victorious ones - or greater ones, at least. Victories would increase morale more, though.
-
Hmm. I don't agree outright that this would be a good idea. For one, aren't the casualty estimates based on calculable factors that if you spent a lot of time calculating, you'd be able to decipher? That is, besides the unknown factors - but the estimate doesn't take those into account either.
It would make the game even more reliant on long experience in playing, because the veterans would be able to make better estimates purely based on experience. ((And no, not all newcomers to the game would automatically lose against experienced players anyway.))
Third, I think it's unrealistic to think that commanders had no idea of the odds they were facing. However, attacks like the disastrous Tannenberg or even the early attack into Serbia DID happen, and those kind of disasters probably didn't happen by "bad luck" and counterattacks alone. I would support making more factors into "unknowables", and I might also support enemy readiness something that isn't automatically known - estimates being reliant on the ratings of the HQs the units are subjected under - a rating of 4 might have 60% chance of an accurate estimate, while a rating 8 could have a 90% chance, for example - except for unknown factors again, of course. If the check fails, a random, reasonable result would be presented instead - and it might even be the correct one by chance. And spending further turns next to the unit(s) would give another chance to correctly estimate their readiness again (and if estimated correctly it would stick until separation).
Unled units could be made to attack blind - that's all right for me.
-
I think somehow we need to get rid of the attack-move away to make space for another corps-dance, which is frankly ridiculous. Movement should stop after a prepared attack (they're sacrificing their movement to make that improved attack), and some sort of stacking mechanism should take its place. Maybe you could switch places even with a unit that has acted AND be able to attack after the switching? This would enable better concentrated attacks, simulate shifting and reserves better. I know it's close to the same as now, but less gamey. Of course, it's a major change...
-
Hi Ev!
I'm not sure that inadequate equipment and poor leadership fully explains the fact, that the Italian forces were often simply melting away, when confronted by numerically inferior British forces, for example during the Operation Compass in 1940. Italian army wasn't able to break on it's own the resistance of Greece, which in this game is a minor country.
More than not being able to break the Greeks' resistance, they were not able to halt the advance of the Greeks into Italian colonies! Yes, poor leadership and equipment, but still, something was terribly wrong about their ability and will to fight. An inherently lower morale perhaps?
Rommel commented that the Italians did become competent soldiers when properly trained by the DAK and properly led by Germans, though....
-
Well, the maneuver was a success and the German HQ is toast, along with another Corps in the north. I botched up my screenshot, maybe the Kommadant will show the situation from his perspective? Italy is entering the war now, so things are going to spice up. They entered war without the decision event of giving up Trento & Trieste apparently? So their entry will happen in MAy 1915. I gave them UK support though, hopefully they'll get an extra corps or something for that.
By the way, the above Screenshot is two turns old. I made a pincer maneuver there in great scale, that took out the HQ and the front & center unit (that had reinforced to 10, next to Lodz) and is making progress at the other end of the pincer. And apparently I'll get the 200 mpp directly to Italy, perhaps it should be reduced to account for logistics cost? A 1:1 transfer of MPPs is maybe a bit too efficient, you don't end up paying anything for the Italian swing.
-
The Vienna operation was meant as a distraction to cause the CP to have to move troops away from other operations & waste MPPs on rail transporting. Based on that it was a success - destroying enemies & capturing Prague was a bonus. I'm always willing to sacrifice our brave heroes in the cavalry to cause mischief to the opponent!
At the moment I'm doing a risky pincer maneuver on the german formation shown on the picture, backed by arty at the pressure point on those 3 german corps at the front (2 of them damaged). We'll see how it goes.
-
But those Corps still got a bloody nose as the Russians destroyed one and a half corps when they eagerly attacked the Russians withdrawing in good order. They might even resume offensive operations in light of this turnover...
-
In my opinion not invading Belgium by Germany in 1914 is a gift to the Entente. The French and Brit forces at the beggining of the game are fare more stretched than the Gremans. Not invading Belgium by Germany, gives them time to regroup and gather sufficient forces for the future operations. I don't think that there is a better concept to wage the war in the West, than the one propossed by Herr von Schlieffen long time ago
Indeed, but what if you don't intend to wage war in the West?
Belgium joining via diplomacy is indeed the key, and the CP needs to invest heavily into counter-diplomacy there with this strategy, possibly even swaying the Belgians to their cause - but they need reserve troops to strenghten the Belgian front before they join. This is not such a big issue in probably late 1915 if this were to happen as it is in the beginning.
In any case, you do get the Belgian troops on your side when war is declared, or what's left of them in any case. Certainly Brussels will survive the initial invasion. They also have a corps defending a river crossing on the west border, that might not escape without support though.
I'll be convinced about the Schlieffen plan when I see someone actually take Paris with it by late 1915. In our current PBDB (Play by Dropbox) with the Kommandant, the line has stabilized at Somme once again - we'll see where he takes it from there.
-
I've been trying the Russia first option as the CP several times now, and one thing I've been wondering about is the Entente invading Belgium. I somehow assumed that this would not be a problem, given that the UK and Belgium were allies and the main reason the UK and thus eventually the US entered the war! However, I understand that the UK joins regardless - it wouldn't be much of a challenge for the CP to win against just France and Russia!
Still, invading Belgium as the Entente should usually not be a good option for the Entente. I don't think the UK would approve at all, and would likely withdraw support from France, and would help defend Belgium instead.
So what repercussions are there besides US disapproval for invading Belgium? This is the natural route for the Entente to take against the German defensive wall. I think diplomacy would have to be used instead - or an amphibious invasion!
-
Well, we could put up an AAR.
Naturally, it's possible to win in France, I just feel like invading Belgium means the decision will be made sooner rather than later. That might not be such a bad thing for the CP though.
Currently the Germans are closing on the Somme. They have lost 4-ish units to French counterattacks. The north coast near Abbeville is defended by a Belgian Corps in exile.
Meanwhile, the Russians have captured Krakow and one of the mines nearby, as well as the town near that, besides the Tarnopol oilfields.
-
Is it just 1.02 or is not the taking of Gallipoli required to pass the Dardanelles?
My opponent simply took the land-sea area southeast of Gallipoli and that enabled his ships to enter and start raiding to their hearts' content. I thought you needed to take Gallipoli to do that? Is this intended? Also, some units were able to move right past Gallipoli over the sea diagonally. Is this fixed in 1.03 ((- fixed a unit movement error from Land to Land + Water tiles (Iron Ranger))) already?
-
i don't like his tatic, not at all, the bet one is to invest in trench warfare with germany and make a steady line in northen france and drop the morale of the french army with attriction warfare.
It's not a tactic. It's a strategy. About the economic boost due to a bug, that's not something I can take into account in my planning. And what about the Russians taking over the bordering mines next to Poland? And Breslau? Where do you stop the Russian with non-existent troops? It's realistic to defend against France on the small strip for a time, but against Russia across Poland and East Prussia - how will you manage? Would be interesting to test though. In any case, in both of my games so far, it's worked out pretty well. But I haven't played experienced opponents yet.
Unless you are committed to taking Paris, why attack? The whole point of the Schlieffen plan is a quick victory, and then shifting forces east. This stretching of the line from Strasbourg to Somme takes up a lot more troops, basically giving up any offensive in the east until much later on in the war.
Plus you might even lose. I've seen that happen as I defended France against Schlieffen.
Historically it was a mistake to attack France, even without hindsight. Getting the UK provoked by invading Belgium was the big thing. And without this, there'd been no need to invest huge amounts of resources into the navy.
But...I will test it out, see how it goes. But an attrition plan in France? I don't see the point.
Multiplayer Thread - Opponent Finder
in Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
Posted
Well, I'll put myself up here as well, since the going is slow in my other games. (Actually only one running at the moment).
I'll play and offer a good challenge for anyone. I'll play either WW1 or WW2 (though I haven't played that yet), and prefer campaigns with normalized MPPs turned on in the editor.
You can e-mail me at zelekendel(at)gmail(dot)com. This is a standing offer until I otherwise inform!