vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Historical concerns - All troops, of whatever country, seem to have the same values.

Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:29 pm

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.

If I am correct, this seems inaccurate. There was a great diversity in the effectiveness of various nationalities and nations during the war, which was comprehensively reflected in World War 1 Gold, and was one of the high points of that game for me.

To portray Russians as having the same firepower and rate of fire as Germans seems inaccurate, especially as Russian troops were often short of ammunition due to their lousy supply system, and even more so at the beginning of the war, when their was a serious shortage of even rifles. The Germans also had more machineguns and doctrinal advantages that increased their firepower.

It was established during the war that the Austrian German, and Hungarian troops, were much more effective in combat on many occasions than the other nationalities in the Austro Hungarian army, not because they were any less brave or capable, but because these subject peoples were often not interested in dying for the Empire that was not theirs. Again, this was faithfully recreated in World War one gold. Yet in this game, there is no difference I can see.

The British army, while tiny, probably had the best long range accuracy of any rifle armed force in history, with most of the men being able to shoot accurately at ranges exceeding a mile, and a very high rate of fire. This was due to the experience of the Boer War, and extensive marksmanship training, and applied only to the long term professional troops, yet it did give them a huge advantage over everyone else, and they inflicted horrible losses on the Germans before they were decimated. Yet, in the game, the BEF has the same range as everyone else, and there are several French corps which have rates of fire just as high.

I could give many other examples, but these will suffice.

I hope I am wrong about this, as one of the unique things about Ageod is that it used to get details like this correct, added greatly to the immersion factor, and this would be a great disappointment.

I would certainly be eager to hear an explanation that could justify such a change.

User avatar
Tamas
Posts: 1481
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:45 pm

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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Doctoxic
Private
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:58 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:50 pm

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.


so a Brit regular Inf is the same as a Russ regular Inf ??

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

Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:06 pm

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.


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.

User avatar
Tamas
Posts: 1481
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:20 pm

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.


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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:43 pm

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.


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.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:02 pm

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.


With respect, nothing you have said explains why all nationalities in the Austro Hungarian army have the same basic values, when history shows they performed very differently. Since they were within the same army, the factors you mention are the same for them, and that makes them the same as the German and Hungarian units, which is not historically valid.

Nor does anything you have cited address the issue of why the elite marksmen of the BEF have the same range as every other infantry unit in the game, when their effective range should be longer, as it was in real life. This is the equivalent of Morgans rifles in Wars in America having the same range as British regulars.

And the reason the Russian units were less effective than the Germans had not only to do with the factors you listed, they also had a great deal to do with factors you did not list, which should be reflected in the game, such as individuals running out of ammo even when and adequate supply was near, due to a lousy distribution system, poor training, horrible logistical support, and due to the great advantage the Germans had in doctrine, NCO and junior officer quality, and other factors that effect the quality of troops. As far as I can tell, the game only models officer quality at corps level or above.

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.

PJJ
Captain
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:52 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:16 pm

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.

jnpoint
Private
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:15 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:35 pm

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.


If this is true, I'm greatly disappointed. Then it's the first and only game I own with unit stats that are equal. I thought AGEOD games were accurate in any aspect :(

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:36 pm

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.


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!

User avatar
Tamas
Posts: 1481
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:51 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:38 pm

vaalen wrote:With respect, nothing you have said explains why all nationalities in the Austro Hungarian army have the same basic values


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. :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

PJJ
Captain
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:52 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:44 pm

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!


No problem. I think there must be a book or some other source somewhere containing such erroneous information regarding Finland's military role in the Russian Empire, because it keeps appearing in so many games. For example, in WW1 Gold there's a Finnish corps participating in the battle of Tannenberg! :)

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

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:51 pm

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.


The comparisons with WWI Gold are inevitable - especially now that some previously unknown developer released WWI CE that somehow managed to fix all the massive performance problems that AGEOD insisted for years were unfixable. And, sorry, but EAW is turning out to have several shortcuts - or just poor design decisions - that make the comparison more unfavorable.

No one can do diplomacy in July 1914 and Russia can't do it all. I can operate an Army outside the command radius of the GHQ (at a reasonable penalty) but I can't build an Army there - I have to engage in the busywork ritual of first sending my general to the GHQ. I can't control my reserves to any great extent - I have to just rely on a one-size-fits-all MTSG mechanic, which may result in my entire front collapsing.

Look, the game is good. Will it be the deep strategy/wargame they seem to aspire to? Not if they keep rationalizing shortcuts as design features.

User avatar
HerrDan
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:14 am
Location: Königsberg

Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:53 pm

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. :)


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.
"Das Glück hilft dem Kühnen."

German Empire PON 1880 AAR:http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?35152-German-Empire-not-quite-an-AAR

User avatar
Highlandcharge
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:44 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:22 pm

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...

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

Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:34 pm

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...


Never seen anything like that. Sorry to hear that.

EDIT: I definitely agree that the patches were handled poorly. But my game runs rock solid since the last one.

User avatar
Highlandcharge
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:44 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:46 pm

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...

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:02 pm

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.


This is very puzzling,Herrdan. I am looking at the recruiting interface for the historical campaign scenario, at the section which allows you to recruit the various nationalities of Austrian infantry divisions. You can recruit Austrian, Hungarian,Czech, Italian, Rumanian, and Slavonic. If you look at the combat stats for each of these recruitable divisions, they are identical. Each type of division has the same range, same rate of fire, same hitpoints, same cohesion, same discipline, same assault rating, same everything. If you could show me where they differ, I would appreciate it.

Unless maybe the interface does not show the real stats, I do not see how the example is bad at all.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:12 pm

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...



Highland charge, I believe that Ageod will listen to customers and change things if it makes sense to them, that is why I started this thread.

One of the wonderful things about AGEOD is the extensive unit differentiation, which addresses all the important factors. I do not always agree with the ratings they give, but that is not important, because they always have a plausible reason for the ratings they choose. No one else does this, and it really helps make the game come alive. This is the first Ageod game I have ever seen which uses standard values for everyone, relying on other factors to modify these values such as experience, leaders, etc. While this is standard on all other World War I games, I expect more from Ageod. I expect them to meet the historical accuracy standards I have grown to know and love.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:29 pm

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.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:53 pm

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, I agree that the BEF was destroyed as an effective fighting force in 1914, and the units that replaced them were in no way comparable. In fact no troops since them have been trained to that standard of long range marksmanship, and that training was not even attempted during the war for new British recruits. But the fact remains that the BEF did have those huge advantages before these units were decimated, and their superiority was crucial in some of the most important battles of 1914.

One way you could show that in the game is to make these veteran units a special type, give them the stats they deserve, and give them a very few replacements at the start of the war, and not allow for any other replacements for them to be built. This would be an accurate reflection of what happened.

As for the Russians, their regulars even at the beginning of the war were very ineffective against the Germans, though they did well against the Austrians. Brusilov also did very well against the Austrians. But the Russian regulars in the game seem too effective, it is very hard to destroy a russian army, like the Germans did, even with the Von Hoffman decision that locks them in place and removes most of their cohesion for one turn. The quality of Russian troops did deteriorate quickly during the war, which reflects the militia situation you describe. Yet the AI seems to do better with the Russians against the Germans than they should, from my limited experience of the game.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:15 pm

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.

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

Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:08 pm

Unit stats will always be a source of debate. I'm just surprised, though, to see no real variation, especially since other AGEOD games did that so well. And I'm skeptical that varying other factors - like supply, command, etc. - can achieve the same thing simply because all those other factors were themselves subject to differences among the countries.

This is more grog than I typically care to get, though, and I'm sure it will get sorted out to at least a consensus eventually.

User avatar
Gresbeck
Sergeant
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:17 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:36 pm

Well, I see (at least) very different cohesion values. IIRC, for example, BEF infantry elements have 84/85; German have 65; Austrian 60; other AH 55.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:39 pm

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.


That is very interesting about the playtesting results. I wonder why they were not outflanked and surrounded. In RL, the BEF stopped the German first army at Mons, but retreated to avoid encirclement. A book you might enjoy is "The Old Contemptibles", by Robin Neilands, which does justice to their remarkable exploits.

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.

User avatar
Highlandcharge
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:44 am

Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:07 pm

I had a look at the BEF and apart from having more cohesion than normal units, they have a higher attack and defense due to having more experience which I assume reflects the higher level of training...

I am all for historical accuracy but gameplay and balance are just as important, has anybody managed to finish a game? I would love to hear some feed back on how the game plays out in long run, that for me is of the biggest importance...

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

Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:11 pm

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.


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.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:18 pm

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.


And while the British and ANZACs were drinking tea, Mustapha Kemal seized the crucial heights, and the Turks never lost them.

mariandavid
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:05 am

Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:17 am

Not at all sure that some of these critiques are fair.

For example vaalen suggest that the game should show variations in performance between the various contingents of the A-H Empire. But there is, at least for the first two and a half years no serious evidence of this. And even at the end, when posted away form home areas which triggered desertion (such as the Italian Front for all but the Croats) there was cohesion in the army. Admittedly almost all the 'elites' were Austrian but that was a rare distinction.

Again on the BEF: Yes there are stories and even more myths about their superiority. But the facts are different - as recently reported by Zuber and others the actual loss differential at Mons was remarkably low while at Le Cateau German field work (especially that of the jaeger) was clearly superior.

Finally the Turks: Despite poor equipment and dismissal based on the 'sick man of Europe' perspective, dispassionately one has to admit that if not the most resilient fighters of the war, they were close to it, not just at Gallipoli but at a score of battlefields, notably at Gaza and Kut.

I suppose I am saying (with the caveat that I simply do not know all the variations in the game engine) that Tamas is right: The individual soldiers were pretty equal, but the difference really showed in weight of artillery at first, number of light and heavy machine-guns later and tanks at the end. It these materialistic features are shown, as is the command variations already, I suspect I will be satisfied.

User avatar
Taciturn Scot
Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:00 am

Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:41 am

Given that the game engine takes into account so many factors when computing combat strength, I don't really see a problem that the base stats are almost the same for all nations. It certainly dodges any racial controversy as well which doesn't hurt ;) I don't know if there would be that much difference between a fully supplied, highly motivated, elite Russian infantry unit and his British or German counterpart. Leadership, experience and level of supply will affect a lot of these stats and make these units fight differently.

Also, EAW has a rather unique recruiting system. Manpower for one side is the sum of all its constituent nations but we have a limited number of units that we can build from a force pool. Once all the Austrian units from the force pool have been built and we build the Slavs, etc, we will need a Leader who has the ability to lead these ethnic groups or they will underperform. Other AGEOD games have done this. I haven't spent enough time with EAW to see if its the same here but I'm sure it is.

Return to “To End All Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests