Jump to content

Game Balance - 1914 Call to Arms


Recommended Posts

Of course Austrians were better than Italians! Let's not exagerrate here. Italian troops were...well, Italian. They're unique in how bad they were!

So there you go - it's correct that the Austrian army was slightly better equiped than the Italians ( at least in 1915 ), but in the game there is no difference in the quality beetween the armies of both belligerents. So if the Alps will be make more accessible, then the balance will swing inexorably in favour of Italy. That's the whole point.

By the way, I think that the prevailing myth of "bad" Italian soldiers has more to do with WWII than with WWI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course Austrians were better than Italians! Let's not exagerrate here. Italian troops were...well, Italian. They're unique in how bad they were!

All time witness accounts i ever read (be it WW1 or WW2) stated that the italians fought as good and valiant as every other soldier, sometimes even better.

But they were usually badly led by their general and higher officer staff.

So if we need an adjustment, it would be best to change HQ values.

Or italian units could be limited in the infantry weapon tech, under which i would file tactics as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does every discussion on Italian troop quality always lead to a discussion on the issue to the bravery of the general soldiery?

I think that's not in question here. The normal soldiers were probably of average quality bravery wise, but the leadership problem was not limited to HQs, but unit commanders as well (down to company level and such) and the troops were not properly motivated or led in both wars. In addition, their doctrines were outdated, and they lacked modern weaponry because of that.

Rommel was able to, with German officers, make brave troops out of the Italians.

So it's a bit like someone saying "that guy sucks in football!" "No, he's a good kicker and a fast runner!", doesn't matter if the guy has no eye for the game at all and no training or coaching, plus his leg happens to be busted.

Myth or no, Italian troops are usually garbage in any wargame, board or computer, and the arguments are always about the bravery of the soldiers. I apologize if you felt like I was saying Italians were / are cowards. But them being brave wasn't unfortunately enough to cope with their major shortcomings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In comming..... WALL OF TEXT

I'm not sure how this deals with the OP question. But as a side note I think if we all were to check we would find that in WW1 italian troops fought 'under' conditions that were very tough and gave an exellent accounting of themselfs. From what I have read the closest compariason would be Russian troops in WW2. And I dont think anyone faults them, afterall they really won the war. Perhaps the HQs are too good for italy, but they do start at str 5.. right?

That aside, I'm not sure what exactly the OP is looking for on this post with 12 (?) pages. I have not read all 12, but parts here and there, I'm sure I will sound or come off poorly here.... sorry about that but I just not sure what to think of this whole thread.

Note that whatever I say here, its based sadly on a very low number of games played vs people, and none have gone 'deap' IE i have only once come close to the end game. Normally that would mean that decisions on such low population data is at best a good guess.

First what kind of game is this and its style of play: A long time ago in a... wrong opening.. too much SW TOR. Anyway back during SC 1 several long threads where written about what kind of game SC was... the end decision was a 'Beer and Nuts' game. One where the play vs AI was fun, one you could site down with ANY friend and play Hot Seat/IP/PBEM. As SC has aged its clearly moved away from this as it has layers and layers of rules and condisions. IE in the past a person with 20% knowlage of the game + history playing someone with 70% of the game and history might win, or at least take it close to the end depending on randon 'events'. But as we asked for more 'toys' (and I'm happy we got them) the guy with less experance lasted a shorter amout of time. So how can we balance the game, this game? I'm sorry but thats very hard, because we normally dont make the same mistakes made during WW1 that they made, and due to the level of complexity a person at 48% skill will normally lose handly to someone at say.. 55% skill. I'll try to cover this more latter. Second the style of play; I think that most of the play is PvsAI.. many of us hard core are asking for this and that, but how will it effect AI play? Now I want to see improved PvP but I dont want to try things against the AI and find myself watching 'thinking' for one hour per turn.

I would say Historically WW 1 walked a knifes edge for close to 4 years before ending. I think with todays engine you would have to have very very closely skilled players to achive that event. This is because we are given two condisions and HC/BF is trying to balance them. HISTORICAL TRUTH vs PLAYERS DECISIONS

Five, hopefully, short notes and I'll be off to drink beer and play pool.

Itilian units: The game starts Italy with str 5 HQs, now if they were to stay that way we might see events unfold closer to history. Italy did ok during most of the war but failed in 1917 when german troops showed up in high numbers. However in most games I think getting Itlian HQs to str 10 is in the top three of objectives. Its a players decision not to follow history.

Bulgeria's Entry: There seams to be some question that its not historical, or too soon/late enough. If your not investing 4 chits, forget getting it early / historical. Bulgeria was highly woo'ed by both sides; its a players decision if he wants to try and influance Bulgeria. I dont want an exact historial event, if so then remove all diplo chit use from the game.

MTs: This I can see as a balance of play issue - it looks like its getting beta tested and we might see some changes here.

Montanegrio: Posts above say its too hard to take. I feel this is a players decision, put the units into the location and it will fall. Historically AH didnt go for the county till after Serbia fell, it then send in a 500 gun barge, 35+K troops, 10K 'axualliry' troops and General Staff support. In game terms thats 2 corps, 1 DT, 1 HQ and eather a DN BB or 1 HA unit. Historically it took something like 7 days to force surrender, if you use that much power it should fall in 1 turn, depending if you need the DN BB to push supply to 0 or not.

Germans garison Eastern Eroupe: Historically Ger left over one millon men in eastern eroupe after russia fell. These were not all combat troops, a low % I would think but still troops not used in the 1918 push. The game, in time allows you to send all your troops west. I dont have enough experiance to guess whats best however it seams at this point you have a compounding interest problem. If the CP has been slowing gaining an advantage now is when you see it explode (as it should), if both sides are close to even they stay close to even as the USA should be entering VERY soon, if the ET as been slowing gaining ground then the loss of Russia is just the last gasp of the CP.

One overall starting play balance issue, and thus not effect by players decisions is AH.... she simply starts WAY too strong. Historically she could not take Belgrade quickly (in game its almost always falls in 3 turns), she couldnt hold onto her polish lands (I have never seen the two NO fall to Russia), she was a dead corpse pulling Germany down (in Game shes a power house with a few tech hits).

Yea, lots of poor grammer ect.... I"m off to drink beer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good point that the silent majority who buy the game only ever play the AI and never post on the forums, even for this type of game.

However, I don't see how that should be a concern for the forum-going PBEM public; it's a concern for Battlefront and Fury Soft. However, we can be understanding of that, but we don't need to "cater" to that in our wishes and suggestions.

I wonder how much less effort would a game like this without AI be. Probably not nearly enough less in comparison to the overall workload to make multiplayer-only strategy games.

Still, I don't think we should hold back in our wishes for the AI's sake. Let's leave that to Hubert and Bill to implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...