User avatar
Egg Bub
Major
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Scotland

Reactions and Romania

Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:59 pm

Hello.

I have two questions today:

1) Is there anything to be gained by having "reactions" enabled when playing in the strictly turn-based mode? It seems to me that only the AI is capable of using this effectively.

2) Playing as the Entente, I can't see that there is anything to be gained from Romania joining the war. They have only one army, it is weak and scattered everywhere. What is more, it destabilizes the Southern tip of the Russian front. So very annoying!

User avatar
Random
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:10 pm

Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:01 pm

I like questions of the day...

1) Is there anything to be gained by having "reactions" enabled when playing in the strictly turn-based mode? It seems to me that only the AI is capable of using this effectively.

Reaction movement does work for the Player but it would seem to be best used for an army that does not have move orders. I think that if you move an Army that has a Reaction order you stand the risk of moving it away from its trigger provinces before the enemy forces arrive to trigger the reaction movement. You also need to decide how big the reacting force is going to be and have only a limited time to make that decision. During August and September turns in the West, reaction movement for the French Fifth Army and the BEF can help block the German left wing if the AI is aggressively prosecuting the von Moltke Plan. On the other hand, any reaction movement can leave the reacting forces isolated and vulnerable and at the mercy of battles fought in nearby provinces and can also see you fighting outnumbered and at a disadvantage. Like most WW1G decisions, there is no absolute "right" response and everything is a trade-off. Setting Reaction Movement can be a powerful operational tool or the recipe for a disaster of significant proportions.

2) Playing as the Entente, I can't see that there is anything to be gained from Romania joining the war. They have only one army, it is weak and scattered everywhere. What is more, it destabilizes the Southern tip of the Russian front. So very annoying!

The chances of Romania eventually joining the war are considerable and if it joins on the side of the Central Powers, Russia's problems increase if only because the defendable front becomes about eight or nine provinces longer with the existing force levels to take up the slack. Getting Romania on your side (as the Entente) provides an opportunity to outflank Austria's Galician Front and spread the Austrian army out, thus reducing its offensive potential. Remember, the longer the war drags out the more it tends to favour the Entente and attacking is necessary in order to win. Even if you choose not to use the not inconsiderable Romanian Army in an offensive war, it holds the Russian southern flank relatively solidly.

-C

User avatar
Egg Bub
Major
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Scotland

Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:33 pm

Random wrote:Reaction movement does work for the Player but it would seem to be best used for an army that does not have move orders. I think that if you move an Army that has a Reaction order you stand the risk of moving it away from its trigger provinces before the enemy forces arrive to trigger the reaction movement. You also need to decide how big the reacting force is going to be and have only a limited time to make that decision. During August and September turns in the West, reaction movement for the French Fifth Army and the BEF can help block the German left wing if the AI is aggressively prosecuting the von Moltke Plan. On the other hand, any reaction movement can leave the reacting forces isolated and vulnerable and at the mercy of battles fought in nearby provinces and can also see you fighting outnumbered and at a disadvantage. Like most WW1G decisions, there is no absolute "right" response and everything is a trade-off. Setting Reaction Movement can be a powerful operational tool or the recipe for a disaster of significant proportions.

Thank you for your response. Just to clarify, are you talking about "reaction" or "interception"? The reason I find "reactions" difficult is because you have to pause the AI between its army activations, which requires quick reflex-clicking. Needless to say the AIs use of this feature is not reduced by its reflexes...

User avatar
Random
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:10 pm

Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:00 am

You're correct, my error as I was thinking interceptions. Sorry.

-C

User avatar
Egg Bub
Major
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Scotland

Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:35 am

Random wrote:You're correct, my error as I was thinking interceptions. Sorry.

-C

Since we two seem to be the only ones frequenting this board, any chance you could offer your opinions on the "reaction" rule?

User avatar
Random
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:10 pm

Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:19 pm

In my opinion...

Reactions are pretty rare, in my experience. Indeed apparently so rare that I confused them for Interceptions and to be honest I cannot recall my last successful reaction move opportunity. I reviewed the rules regarding reaction and it is potentially a powerful if capricious tool and I don't really have any issues if the AI can use it to advantage. That said, examining the leader characteristics in the stock GHQ leaders shows that the German (OHL/OST Heer) leadership is more likely to trigger a reaction than are most of the Entente leaders and there are some significant negative modifiers that can reduce the odds even further, particularly as it would seem that only one reaction test is allowed per front. I was unable to determine what (if any as it may be entirely random) criteria is used to determine which GHQ on a multi-national front is used for the Reaction Test.

So I guess if it is working as designed, reaction is probably a good thing even if most of the benefit falls to the AI.

It may be quiet here but no releases have occurred that have caused me to consider buying another strategic World War One game to replace WW1G. Until then I will keep checking the Forum, chime in with comments and help where I can, so it is certainly nice to have company here.

-C

User avatar
Egg Bub
Major
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:57 am
Location: Scotland

Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:39 pm

Random wrote:In my opinion...

Reactions are pretty rare, in my experience. Indeed apparently so rare that I confused them for Interceptions and to be honest I cannot recall my last successful reaction move opportunity. I reviewed the rules regarding reaction and it is potentially a powerful if capricious tool and I don't really have any issues if the AI can use it to advantage. That said, examining the leader characteristics in the stock GHQ leaders shows that the German (OHL/OST Heer) leadership is more likely to trigger a reaction than are most of the Entente leaders and there are some significant negative modifiers that can reduce the odds even further, particularly as it would seem that only one reaction test is allowed per front. I was unable to determine what (if any as it may be entirely random) criteria is used to determine which GHQ on a multi-national front is used for the Reaction Test.

So I guess if it is working as designed, reaction is probably a good thing even if most of the benefit falls to the AI.

It may be quiet here but no releases have occurred that have caused me to consider buying another strategic World War One game to replace WW1G. Until then I will keep checking the Forum, chime in with comments and help where I can, so it is certainly nice to have company here.

-C

Thanks for this. I shall be leaving this option turned on in future, even if I do not use it.

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 am

Random wrote:
The chances of Romania eventually joining the war are considerable and if it joins on the side of the Central Powers, Russia's problems increase if only because the defendable front becomes about eight or nine provinces longer with the existing force levels to take up the slack. Getting Romania on your side (as the Entente) provides an opportunity to outflank Austria's Galician Front and spread the Austrian army out, thus reducing its offensive potential. Remember, the longer the war drags out the more it tends to favour the Entente and attacking is necessary in order to win. Even if you choose not to use the not inconsiderable Romanian Army in an offensive war, it holds the Russian southern flank relatively solidly.

-C


Good analysis. As in real life, the value of Romania isn't so much what it can do on its own but more what requires its neighbors to do in response.

User avatar
Random
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:10 pm

Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:11 am

If you look at the game files you will see that the AI has getting Romania into the war is pretty high on the diplomatic list of things to do at least in WW1G. Don't know about WW1CE but suspect that it is similar.

-C

Return to “WW1 : La Grande Guerre 14-18”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests