Tamas wrote:Ammunition, supplies, number of artillery, command and control efficiency, generals/officers abilities experience, troop types (conscripts, regulars, etc) are the things which influenced the things you listed, and all of these are simulated in the game, hence the same basic values.
Tamas wrote:Ammunition, supplies, number of artillery, command and control efficiency, generals/officers abilities experience, troop types (conscripts, regulars, etc) are the things which influenced the things you listed, and all of these are simulated in the game, hence the same basic values.
fred zeppelin wrote:But each of those factors also varied by country. So, for example, when you model different command and control efficiencies between Germany and Russia, how do you account for the portion of the difference that relates to the historical differences in their command and control efficiency and the portion that relates to their historical differences in infantry quality? Short answer is you can't; the unit quality differences get lost of the shuffle. You can't accurately simulate differences in one thing by modeling differences in a second thing that was itself subject to historical differences.
Sorry, but this sounds like just another shortcut in a game that seems increasingly full of them.
fred zeppelin wrote:But each of those factors also varied by country. So, for example, when you model different command and control efficiencies between Germany and Russia, how do you account for the portion of the difference that relates to the historical differences in their command and control efficiency and the portion that relates to their historical differences in infantry quality? Short answer is you can't; the unit quality differences get lost of the shuffle. You can't accurately simulate differences in one thing by modeling differences in a second thing that was itself subject to historical differences.
Sorry, but this sounds like just another shortcut in a game that seems increasingly full of them.
Tamas wrote:Yes those factors varied by country and they do so in the game, and the variance of these factors are which resulted in the different performance of the armies in history and in the game. The average Russian soldier did not perform worse than the average German soldier because the average Russian person was inferior to the average German person. He performed worse because of all those factors I listed.
vaalen wrote:I have been looking at the various troops on the map at start, and those that can be recruited, and it seems to me that they all have the same firepower, rate of fire, range, etc.
Now some troops are different from others, but they have experience. It appears that French, German, Russian, British, and Austrian troops with the same number of experience starts have the same combat values, with no differences for nationality.
I also looked at the units that can be recruited. While the Austrians can recruit troops of Austrian, Czech, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, etc, nationality, they all have the same values.
I paid special attention to the British expeditionary force, which had the same range as all other infantry. While it had a higher rate of fire than most, there were several French corps with the same number of experience stars who had identical rate of fire value.
PJJ wrote:Good points, vaalen. I was wondering the same thing myself. Unit values are different in other Ageod games - why not here?
And there were also great differences in quality among the Russians themselves due to nationality, with Siberians being more effective, and the fact that large numbers of the Russian armies were drafted from subject peoples like Ukrainians, Baltic peoples, Poles, Finns, and others who did not want to die for the nation that oppressed them. I cannot tell how the game simulates this, and it does not seem to. This important factor was also clearly simulated in World War I Gold.
The Finns were not actually required to serve in the Russian army. There were volunteers serving in the Russian army and navy, though, some in very high ranks, like General Mannerheim.
For some reason most WW1 wargames have fictional Finnish formations in the Russian OOB. In real life, there were no divisions or corps recruited in Finland. Even the defense of Finland itself was in the hands of Russian divisions stationed there.
vaalen wrote:With respect, nothing you have said explains why all nationalities in the Austro Hungarian army have the same basic values
vaalen wrote:Thank you PJJ, I did not know the Finns were not required to serve. I thought they were, since you have Finnish divisions and corps in so many WW! wargames, as you pointed out. Sorry for the error, and I appreciate the education!
vaalen wrote:Well said, Fred. The unit quality differences that were so apparent in World War I Gold are lost in the shuffle here. I have also noticed what seem to be a number of shortcuts, which I have never seen before in an Ageod game.
Tamas wrote:Actually, the overall combat strength of the "non-cooperative" national units in A-H are a bit lower than the Austrian and Hungarian counterparts'. Is it lower enough to simulate their lesser value to the A-H war effort? It is fine to debate that if you do not agree (and as always, we do listen to player feedback), but they do not have the same values.
Highlandcharge wrote:Hi Fred...
I bought WWICE and it promised way more than it delivered, it still ran like crap on my system after half an hour of play, A-H units appeared magically in France in the 1914 deployment phase, the developer had zero customer support...patches just appeared with no announcement or change log... I will explain more if needed but I don't have the time at the moment...
HerrDan wrote:True Tamas, the Austrian-Hungarian empire example you people cited is very bad, because there's a clear difference between their units values, I for instance, try to avoid recruiting slavonic or italians troops when I play the CP.
Highlandcharge wrote:Maybe it was just my system then
I believe ageod will listen to customer and tinker with EAW if the suggestions make sense to them, they changed a lot of stuff in CW2...
Ace wrote:Regarding the British, starting BEF force is modeled stronger than other units of the same type. As you put it, they 've done it by increasing its experience, not by generally giving Brits better stats. But didn't BEF suffered so much losses in 1914 British couldn't adequately replace since recruits were not nearly as trained and experienced as starting professional troops. I was also advocating lower stats for the Russians, but when you play with them, you are so low on WS that you cannot recruit Russian regulars, you have to recruit loads of militas that are cheap and numerous. You get the effect of Russian military. Large force, but little firepower.
Ace wrote:Nice discussion
BEF stats were changed back and forth a lot during testing. When they were modeled with higher and accurate range with high rate of fire, in game situation appeared where BEF alone stopped German 1st and 2nd Army at Mons in multiplayer. I am not saying stats are perfect, they never are. What is important that combination of factors brings desired outcome - that is the BEF without the French can only stall the Germans, not stop them.
Troops performance is difficult to evaluate, Gallipolli is a fine example where British retreated with a bloody nose against a side we would all say had inferiorly equipped soldiers. So, while I wouldn't mind if troops had some differentiation in stats, the overall feel and outcome is the most important.
vaalen wrote:Good point about Gallipolli. I will note though, that the Turkish troops who fought in that battle had been German trained, and were led by Mustapha Kemal, a military genius who became Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, and who led the Turks to victory against a Greek invasion in a large war that took place in 1920.
fred zeppelin wrote:It certainly didn't help that after landing virtually unopposed at Suvla Bay, the British commanders spent the first day drinking tea on the beach instead of securing the high ground. Hard to blame that on troop quality.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests