Page 1 of 1
Impressesd by the air recon feature...
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:34 pm
by Highlandcharge
I Don't know if its in the manual (I don't tend to read them) I am playing a pbem as the WE and because I have an air recon modified detection value of 5 in the region, I can see where Kluck's 1 Armee is headed, it says he is "coming from Arras and moving towards Amiens" cool
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:44 pm
by Merlin
The single best reason to have a decent fighter force.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:33 am
by Shri
Merlin wrote:The single best reason to have a decent fighter force.
One more reason for having FIGHTERS (early Recon are not fighters, they appear separately and have to be built using WSU) is they kill enemy RECON and thus stop enemy from having Recon!!!
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:35 am
by Shri
Highlandcharge wrote:I Don't know if its in the manual (I don't tend to read them) I am playing a pbem as the WE and because I have an air recon modified detection value of 5 in the region, I can see where Kluck's 1 Armee is headed, it says he is "coming from Arras and moving towards Amiens" cool
Old Joe Gallieni will be proud to hear that from his grave!. Although he was a luddite in terms of technology as most French Senior Leaders before the War, he used the Air Recon to great effect to fight the successful 1st Marne when his Recon reported the flank of Kluck's Army being ripe for attack.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:22 am
by Pocus
Indeed, if your detection margin is 3 or better, you get to know where the enemy is heading and even the overall command penalty of the troops, as you can appraise how well organized/commanded they are.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:32 am
by Templer
I noticed this too - great feature!
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:12 am
by RGA
Does air recon improve artillery effectiveness ?
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:19 am
by Merlin
Shri wrote:One more reason for having FIGHTERS (early Recon are not fighters, they appear separately and have to be built using WSU) is they kill enemy RECON and thus stop enemy from having Recon!!!
Precisely. They slaughter recon squadrons. Better to have it happen to the enemy, I say.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:48 am
by Kensai
I love this game cause after 1914 there are several ways of technological advancement that each alliance can pursue. One might go for artillery, the other submarines, the third fighters. I wish the R&D decisions cost 2x the amount of engagement points cause right now it seems that a player can select them all and still handle them.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:02 pm
by Merlin
I have yet to carry a full game to 1918, so such a severe increase may skew the general technological development, but the decisions all seem to be affordable right now. I have found that trying to keep up with generals, concessions, funds, gas, politics, etc. generally keeps EPs around 0-2 per end of turn though, and one must be careful as well as plan ahead to optimize EP usage, at least through 1916.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:45 pm
by Pocus
If you have a critical success (+2 recon bonus), then yes you'll also get a boost in artilleries if there is a battle.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:13 pm
by Arne
Is there a way to "set recon detection"?
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:49 pm
by RGA
Pocus wrote:If you have a critical success (+2 recon bonus), then yes you'll also get a boost in artilleries if there is a battle.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:40 am
by Merlin
Arne wrote:Is there a way to "set recon detection"?
Just make sure your squadrons aren't set to G/G, which keeps them from flying. The rest is automated.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:53 am
by caranorn
Kensai wrote:I love this game cause after 1914 there are several ways of technological advancement that each alliance can pursue. One might go for artillery, the other submarines, the third fighters. I wish the R&D decisions cost 2x the amount of engagement points cause right now it seems that a player can select them all and still handle them.
But most major powers stayed more or less on par as to technology and doctrine during the war. So in most cases they should be able to do so in the game (for eample one could say that Germany was historically slightly lagging behind in tank tech but had an advantage in sub tech, but all others were at most a few months difference between Germany and France/GB).
What is much more problematic to me is that tech upgrades are instantaneous and don't cost money and/or WS. In reality even once new equipment was discovered, new doctrine developed, it took months if not years for all existing units to get their full allotment of said equipment respectively for their cadres to go through schools to learn the new doctrines.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:11 am
by Kensai
Well, yeah, but these small differences in few months of tech edge could be the difference. Imagine if Germany had in 1918 for its Spring Offensives instead of just 20 A7V tanks 200...
Regarding the tech upgrades, I think some elements may take some time before having the newest equipment/abilities. I liked the system in PON, but I guess it is too complicated to have it here. Anyway, many things are abstracted to avoid confusing the players. This is mainly a war game, let's not forget them. The greatest success of EAW in my humble opinion has been its ability to simulate the differences between the static Western front and the more mobile Eastern.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:10 am
by Shri
Germany by some accounts had just 8-9 operation A7V and had to make do with captured "Renaults" to arm their Stormtruppen.
On the other hand, the Luftwaffe till early 1918 always held the edge as did the U-Boat Arm of the Kreigsmarine;
Also German Artillery, Defense in Depth, Trenching was superior till 1918.. Only in 1918 with British Armaments peaking (finally!) and USA men pouring in (They had been in since 1917 April but only by Jan-Feb 1918 they had a proper trained force) did the Allies have the edge over Germany. Ofcourse the French Tanks helped a lot. France alone outnumbered Germany in Tanks and Aircraft by early-mid 1918 (though this was possible due to Capital from UK/USA and also Food from USA etc)
still that shows, Germany by early 1918 had reached the end of their strength, the 1918 offensive was just a case of - LAMP burning strongest just before it switched off.
There was no way post - USA entry that Germany could have won on the Battle-Field, just a Political Victory was maybe possible.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:17 pm
by ERISS
Shri wrote:, Germany by early 1918 had reached the end of their strength,
There was no way post-USA entry that Germany could have won on the BattleField, just a Political Victory was maybe possible.
That's why I think that bolsheviks had not to really fear the German army:
as general Hoffmann answered to Don Cossaks in early Mai 18: "Sorry, we won't help you, our advance has to be halted somewhere."
so german did not want to have go as far, as to invade Moscow.
The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a german political victory.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:38 pm
by Kensai
If the Spring Offensive of 1918 had somehow broken the Entente's defenses, a political victory might have been in order. Probably it would have meant a status quo ante war, minus the colonies that had been already lost (for Germany). Still better than having to give Alsace-Lorraine and the entire fleet to the enemy...
With that in mind, perhaps we would have had a totally different Soviet Union as well as Brest-Litovsk could have been enforced and not cancelled.
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:50 pm
by ERISS
Kensai wrote:If the Spring Offensive of 1918 had somehow broken the Entente's defenses, Brest-Litovsk could have been enforced and not cancelled.
Yes, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk becomes no longer so separate
if France becomes at peace too, so it is enforcing it.
The what-if is likely if France is still at war, to handle mainly against the german army...
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:09 am
by Shri
ERISS wrote:That's why I think that bolsheviks had not to really fear the German army:
as general Hoffmann answered to Don Cossaks in early Mai 18: "Sorry, we won't help you, our advance has to be halted somewhere."
so german did not want to have go as far, as to invade Moscow.
The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a german political victory.
Look at Gen. Hoffman's late 1917 campaign, the first Treaty proposed wasn't so harsh; the Bolsheviks played for time; Trotsky who was in exile in Vienna and earlier known as Bronstein, spoke excellent German and understood some of the German Problems but he underestimated the willpower of Gen. Hoffman (who was practically plenipotentiary of the east, Crown Prince Leopold was a nominal commander; Gen. Ludendorff was busy with the war in west).
Hoffman decided despite Austrian pleas to accept whatever crumbs were thrown at them, that he will renew the attack, the Bolshevik army collapsed and most of Ukraine and Belarus was overrun in a lighting campaign (1941 style), this alarmed them and they were forced to sign Brest-Litovsk.
Basically, WW1 was 2 separate wars- East & West; Colonial was the 3rd angle. These operations and theaters were uncoordinated. This is unlike WW2, think of this as a repeat of Late Medieval Wars, each man for himself was the rule here.
P.S: MOSCOW was not the Capital, St. Petersberg was and the Germans could have reached it, the Baltic Sea would have enabled transfer of supplies (German Fleet was quite strong to control the Baltic); later even Lenin realised this. The Bolsheviks were greedy opportunists but were mostly pragmatic. They accepted ground reality.