Rabelesius
-
Posts
104 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rabelesius
-
-
I agree with wormwood. It's near perfect WWI and I believe the last kinks will be ironed out in 1.04...
I have never played the WW2 scenario.
-
Hidden undead French!
-
Excellent. I am really eager to see the patch. I suggest you share the patch notes beforehand with us to have some initial feedback (of course, it will be diverse but at least it's something we can discuss and who does not like discussing on the internet!).
-
Indeed, this is a huge problem in the game. I also forgot to mention that I consider the Arab revolt to be broken as Lawrence's forces even with some Allied help have no chance taking Medina against a corps entrenched there. The Arabs should have corps strength.
-
I am also ok with a 60-40 balance. Let's face it, Germany could have only won the war if the 1918 offensive would have been successful or the knockout would have happened in 1914.
However, if we want a historical game and not fantasy, we need certain incentives/constraints to mirror a historical outcome. Any good wargame in my opinion should be designed so as to allow the historical game to happen. Then we can talk about deviations (that's scripting).
Therefore, does SCWWI mirror history? Yes, in most games it does. Where it fails are the points we repeatedly discussed here:
1) The occupation of Eastern Europe by the CP and the teleporting of units. A change will hurt the CP in 1917/18.
2) The Caucasus front which makes the historical advance by the Russians impossible.
3) The lack of a Mesopotamian campaign absent the Entente having forces there.
4) The lack of supply lines for the Entente in Palestine (not a biggie in my book)
5) The strong Schlieffen plan forces which make holding Belgium almost impossible if the CP makes a broad front approach.
All these are in favor of the Entente which is more delicate to balance.
On pro CP change needed in my opinion is:
6) Serbia is difficult to conquer even with Bulgaria coming in. True, a German HQ and artillery will remedy that. However, this needs more investigation as I have never used this tactic
Other than that, I only believe that both sides need to suffer from attrition much more if cut-off and cut-off surrounded units should not be allowed to be rebuilt.
So, all in all one big change and some smaller changes.
-
Absolutely agree about toning down the Turks. I had a whole Turkish army on the Western Front once against the AI.
-
Wow, I never see units stronger than 10 except when they arrive as such. But I agree that the AH is pretty strong (only in one of my current games, Sharkman decided to cede Trieste, that brought them to historical performance quickly ;-))
-
2) Well, like I said, I don't even attack Belgium, in order to get an early hit in on Russia, and I can halve the amount of garrison corps needed on the west wall.
When me (just once for kicks) or my opponents attack the West, they are always stopped at the Somme, where are you stopped then?
4) It actually requires 2 detachments.
5) It's gamey to put 4 or more chits in one tech? What?
6) Yes. It's a major problem in my mind that cut off units in towns simply keep reinforcing (out of occupied enemy towns no less!) In my mind the whole supply system needs a re-thinking, my idea was supply depots (non-leading HQs). For example, it's very silly when the Cyprus detachment can invade and cut the Ottoman railway (I forget the name of the non-port town nearby) and reinforce from there, requiring 2 corps and a HQ to dislodge!
8) Yes, there's absolutely no action there. Even a single detachment can hold a mountain road town indefinitely.
Attacking Belgium should be no option. There was no choice to not enact Schlieffen. That is something to be explored in a variant/expansion.
We are always stopped at the Somme. That's the logical frontline. And it's not possible to save Belgium. Solutions welcome.
It's gamey that you put 4 chits in one tech and achieve a breakthrough instantly.
-
Ok, that's a cool move Bill. Let's discuss the following:
1) If Germany concentrates on the East after having achieved the usual gains in the West, Russia will collapse either by treaty or via surrender. Both events should require a decent garrison of CP troops (both AH and German) as this was the main limiting factor in bringing more troops to the West quickly.
Therefore, any time a Russian knock out happens, both CP forces should be required to maintain forces in the East. Furthermore, if the US have not been pulled in yet, the Russian surrender should give the US a greater percentage of coming into the war.
2) The early German advance: has anybody ever seen Belgium not surrender and German troops stopped at the Somme? Therefore, I propose to move some appearing French forces a few tiles more to the North. A race to the Sea never happens as the Germans are far too clever for a knockout move onto Paris. They will always advance on a broad front. How to fix this is difficult, maybe give the Paris option a huge NM for a guaranteed win in 1914?
3) The Mesopotomian front. Here, another Corps and/or artillery is needed in late 1916 and supply rules need to be changed somehow to allow a realistic chance of the Allies capturing Baghdad.
4) The Gallipoli desaster: Nobody in his right mind will ever commit the Anzacs there. Therefore, the attack should have a higher incentive. However, even the threat keeps a Turkish corps in the straits, so it's not a major problem at the moment.
5) Fast advances in tech: there should be a minimum research time so as to prevent gamey moves like putting 4 chits on one tech and achieving it in one turn (as reported by Sharkman earlier)
6) US starting tech seems to be rather low, can't the US assume the same tech level as Britain?
7) Do something about cut-off units being reinforced. That bothers a lot in the whole game.
8) The Caucasus front sees no movement at all due to terrain/lack of artillery. This is rather boring given the historical campaign's moves.
Anyhow, that's it for the moment and I also refer to earlier postings about other fronts.
-
Ah, that explains your level 2 entrenchments there...
-
Both good ideas. They both should work quite well with the engine.
-
I like that! Unfortunately, the retreat rule is a bit erratic at present.
-
Ok, but I think the description in the strategy guide is wrong then. It says that after Brest-Litovsk, Bolshevik agitation stops. I totally agree that it is needed!
-
-
Hi Bill, I think DE620 for the CP has a small problem. I still saw Austria-Hungary being influenced by Bolshevik agitation even after the Brest-Litowsk treaty. Please check...
-
I am also a bit surprised because I believe the WWI needs some urgent fixing in some areas (the rest is for later "to look at" as Hubert would put it):
1) The transfer timing for units from the US to Europe
2) The Kerensky NM boost which needs to be improved
3) The zooming of troops and lack of occupation troops in Russia
-
We are a bit losing sight of the game's problems with Russia. As said earlier, I would really love to see a solution for this.
-
No, wormwood, currently the game is treating the East like a Science Fiction movie. Units are teleporting and Russia and the clear historical needs which you call greed are ignored.
Same for Kerensky, the NM rebound is not near anywhere as strong as needed to have the Russians survive as they did.
Anyway, it does not destroy the game but it is annoying as Germany makes these super offensives in 1918 which are out of whack with its capabilities.
-
I somewhat agree, but we must first test the historical routes whether they can be replicated by the game. If that is the case (and I fear in some areas, it's not), then we can talk about balancing it out. I always admire designers who first play out the historical scenario with the game and if it's inside the game's possibilities and parameters, they start tinkering around the edges to allow for what-ifs.
In this sense, the game has some problems in the endgame. I would therefore wait and see (especially in our current game where the Russians are close to collapse) what happens in the West. If the Germans become overwhelmingly strong in 1917 already, it's a problem. I noticed that issue in my AI games.
With Mesopotamia and Romania, it's just minor tweaks. I just want to see Bagdhad fall as happened historically. Romania is no issue, they go down anyway.
-
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?
-
That's exactly, patrat, why the game should have the NM objectives as it does. The question is only: are the current NM objectives enough? We have seen with the addition of Budapest as NM objective, that changes can be made easily in the engine.
I for my part would like to see put more emphasis on Belgrade, the Italian cities and Alsace-Lorraine. The Russian front in Galicia and East Prussia works fine as well as the Middle East.
-
-
I think that most of the responses in this thread point out to some changes needed to make historical war aims possible and make the misuse of Italian assets more unlikely.
Therefore, I propose the following changes to be discussed:
1) Make Alsace-Lorraine a NM objective for the French player by giving one or two spaces a NM objective. This would also keep them honest. However, this needs to be balanced out against an all-out Schlieffen attack by the Germans.
2) Make the Italian cities of Trento and Trieste a NM objective in case AH does not hand over those cities. This will encourage a strong Italian presence there and strong AH involvement as well.
-
Very good suggestion!
Persia?
in Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
Posted
Never did this. The whole Near East needs to be tweaked as I repeatedly said to make it historical. I blame the supply model for this. Oh, and the Turks really suck. Attacking with Russians and Turks against superior units is an exercise in futility.