Trench warfare

[The Guru]

I’d like to echo a concern voiced by HHFD50 and ajarnlance on the TEAW wishlist thread:

Trench warfare (…) The game seems to lack this element-arguably the "face" of the whole war.
Ranged artillery LAND bombardment

Trench warfare on the western front really needs to be more realistic. Most battles in the trenches should have the outcome "stalemate" from the winter of 1914 until 1917. Also more options for artillery bombardments need to be added.

I believe Trench warfare is not given proper representation, and that’s kind of sad for a WWI game.
Now, to be honest, it is not an easy task. The problem is that the combat engine, which deals with the 1914 more fluid situation, and is probably built to be somewhat generic and cover earlier periods for other games as well, cannot be suited to model a kind of warfare that had never been practiced before WWI, and (hopefully) will never be after.

Warfare in the opening hours of the conflict had not departed from the Napoleonic frame of mind; battles would last hours, the longest ones a couple of days. Most of the time, one of the forces would emerge as victorious. Once the trenches settled in, it was no longer about outwitting the opponent in a skillful display of military expertise, it was about industrial slaughter. Battles lasted for months, and were no longer fought by two encountering forces, but were cauldrons that would absorb the reserves of entire fronts.
There is a drastic change of all parameters, and this is why the same battle resolution model equation cannot be applied indistinctively for 1914 and for 1915-1917.

A more realistic way of modeling the idiosyncrasies of trench warfare could, in my humble opinion, go along these lines:

First, as pointed out by ajarnlance, (bloody) stalemate was the quintessential outcome of trench warfare. Verdun was a stalemate, the Somme was a stalemate, Cambrai was a stalemate. Even the disastrous Nivelle offensive, when considering German losses, was a stalemate. Screens showing "X victory" or "Y "defeat" should be a rare sight on the Western front!

Regarding combat, initial assault against an entrenched position should face huge, quasi insurmountable, defensive bonuses.
Excluding extreme disparities in combat odds and/or in losses, result should be “stalemates”, with the slightly “winning side” gaining 1 or 2 % military control in the region ( a few blood-soaked yards of no-man's-land). But, more important there should be a slight decrease in the defensive bonus (unless the battle can be justly labelled an attacker's defeat, if the attacker's strength was really inadequate).

Attackers would therefore be encouraged to pound the same spot relentlessly, until their resources in the area are all but spent, hoping to erode the defensive bonus enough to manage a small localized breakthrough and claim victory to the face of the world. To do so, they would have to replenish the quickly dwindling attacking force with fresh blood from neighboring armies. Of course, the defender will do the same.
Outcome would be determined, as it should be, not by the relative expertise of opposing generals (general skills should have very very reduced impact on static Western Front battles, in my opinion, in fact, none at all) but by the quantity of reserves each side is willing -and able- to throw and sacrifice in the battle.

“Victories” against anything but the weakest defending force would then only be achieved by exhausting enemy potential and overcoming his defensive bonus through successive assaults. Generals at the time expected no better.
It would translate into something like 5 to 15 % military control of the region and would provide the winner with non-negligible Morale gains. No need to capture a city or anything,( although, obviously, doing so, adds to the Morale boon): In Trench battles, miserable little location with no significance whatsoever on the grand strategic scale, would suddenly become the centre of the world ( Douaumont fort, the Mort-Homme, etc.) whose possession, would determine who is believed to have the upper hand. When the British conquered the first few kilometers at Cambrai, it was enough for every church bell in the UK to ring – first time since 1914 - victory at last! (The Germans promptly sent the British back to their starting positions.)

Offensive postures would include long artillery bombardments (la Bataille de matériel as conceived by the Allies), forfeiting all element of surprise but hoping to bury the enemy under the storm of steel. guns by the thousands and lavish ammo are a prerequisite. Week-long massive bombardments are also a key feature of WWI and currently underrepresented, to say the least, in TEAW.

Assault postures could, one the other hand, reflect the lightning barrage + tank/stosstruppen assault of later days, capitalizing on the element of surprise and the infiltration/breakthrough capacity of the assault spearhead.

A proper WWI simulation should give the players this sense of murderous escalation, this temptation to scrap the bottom of the barrel for the last combat -ready brigade available, with stakes rising as the casualties mount week after week, and each side desperate to offset the material and morale damage of the slaughter by claiming final victory (grabbing some flattened hill or ruined town, or decrepit fort).

I'm afraid there is little of that in the current version of the game, yet I am confident the issue will soon be adressed.

[ajarnlance]

I’d like to echo a concern voiced by HHFD50 and ajarnlance on the TEAW wishlist thread:





I believe Trench warfare is not given proper representation, and that’s kind of sad for a WWI game.
Now, to be honest, it is not an easy task. The problem is that the combat engine, which deals with the 1914 more fluid situation, and is probably built to be somewhat generic and cover earlier periods for other games as well, cannot be suited to model a kind of warfare that had never been practiced before WWI, and (hopefully) will never be after.

Warfare in the opening hours of the conflict had not departed from the Napoleonic frame of mind; battles would last hours, the longest ones a couple of days. Most of the time, one of the forces would emerge as victorious. Once the trenches settled in, it was no longer about outwitting the opponent in a skillful display of military expertise, it was about industrial slaughter. Battles lasted for months, and were no longer fought by two encountering forces, but were cauldrons that would absorb the reserves of entire fronts.
There is a drastic change of all parameters, and this is why the same battle resolution model equation cannot be applied indistinctively for 1914 and for 1915-1917.

A more realistic way of modeling the idiosyncrasies of trench warfare could, in my humble opinion, go along these lines:

First, as pointed out by ajarnlance, (bloody) stalemate was the quintessential outcome of trench warfare. Verdun was a stalemate, the Somme was a stalemate, Cambrai was a stalemate. Even the disastrous Nivelle offensive, when considering German losses, was a stalemate. Screens showing "X victory" or "Y "defeat" should be a rare sight on the Western front!

Regarding combat, initial assault against an entrenched position should face huge, quasi insurmountable, defensive bonuses.
Excluding extreme disparities in combat odds and/or in losses, result should be “stalemates”, with the slightly “winning side” gaining 1 or 2 % military control in the region ( a few blood-soaked yards of no-man's-land). But, more important there should be a slight decrease in the defensive bonus (unless the battle can be justly labelled an attacker's defeat, if the attacker's strength was really inadequate).

Attackers would therefore be encouraged to pound the same spot relentlessly, until their resources in the area are all but spent, hoping to erode the defensive bonus enough to manage a small localized breakthrough and claim victory to the face of the world. To do so, they would have to replenish the quickly dwindling attacking force with fresh blood from neighboring armies. Of course, the defender will do the same.
Outcome would be determined, as it should be, not by the relative expertise of opposing generals (general skills should have very very reduced impact on static Western Front battles, in my opinion, in fact, none at all) but by the quantity of reserves each side is willing -and able- to throw and sacrifice in the battle.

“Victories” against anything but the weakest defending force would then only be achieved by exhausting enemy potential and overcoming his defensive bonus through successive assaults. Generals at the time expected no better.
It would translate into something like 5 to 15 % military control of the region and would provide the winner with non-negligible Morale gains. No need to capture a city or anything,( although, obviously, doing so, adds to the Morale boon): In Trench battles, miserable little location with no significance whatsoever on the grand strategic scale, would suddenly become the centre of the world ( Douaumont fort, the Mort-Homme, etc.) whose possession, would determine who is believed to have the upper hand. When the British conquered the first few kilometers at Cambrai, it was enough for every church bell in the UK to ring – first time since 1914 - victory at last! (The Germans promptly sent the British back to their starting positions.)

Offensive postures would include long artillery bombardments (la Bataille de matériel as conceived by the Allies), forfeiting all element of surprise but hoping to bury the enemy under the storm of steel. guns by the thousands and lavish ammo are a prerequisite. Week-long massive bombardments are also a key feature of WWI and currently underrepresented, to say the least, in TEAW.

Assault postures could, one the other hand, reflect the lightning barrage + tank/stosstruppen assault of later days, capitalizing on the element of surprise and the infiltration/breakthrough capacity of the assault spearhead.

A proper WWI simulation should give the players this sense of murderous escalation, this temptation to scrap the bottom of the barrel for the last combat -ready brigade available, with stakes rising as the casualties mount week after week, and each side desperate to offset the material and morale damage of the slaughter by claiming final victory (grabbing some flattened hill or ruined town, or decrepit fort).

I'm afraid there is little of that in the current version of the game, yet I am confident the issue will soon be adressed.

Very well said.. a thoughtful analysis. The problem facing the game designers is how to make a game engine that 'behaves' realistically on the western and eastern fronts where combat took on a different nature. this will probably involve introducing different event based rules specifically for the trench warfare on the western front. like you i have identified military control as one way to do this... make it MUCH harder to change military control from 1915 to 1917 in the trenches and ensure that stalemate is the most likely outcome of battles. this should shift the focus from tactical manouvers to the economic and war weariness issues on the home front... ensuring enough economic output and young men to feed into the western front meat grinder. this was a war of attrition for most of its duration. until this is accurately reflected the western front is a fun game to play that does not really represent the realities of trench warfare. given ageod's deserved reputation for historical realism i am actually surprised that these issues have not been debated at more length...

[The Guru]

The problem facing the game designers is how to make a game engine that 'behaves' realistically on the western and eastern fronts where combat took on a different nature.

Indeed. But it might be simpler than it looks. It all depends on the defensive bonus. If, on the Eastern front, defensive bonuses are manageable enough (for the attacker) to allow for victorious “one-shot” battles and to force the enemy out of a contested region, classical warfare, involving vast sweeping manoeuvres, pursuits of defeated enemies, outflanking and encirclement attempts, and capture of key cities, is still very much possible.
If, on the other hand, defensive bonuses require successive poundings in order to achieve any kind of breakthrough, and even then, victories only translate into conversion of a few% military control of the region, then you will get battles such as those that happened on the Western front:
The attacker will concentrate all his efforts on one spot, since weaker efforts, albeit still possible as diversionary probes, would not have any chance of overcoming the defender’s trench network. Since breakthrough on the first assault is close to impossible, the defender would then reinforce the attacked spot. The attacker, in turn, would replenish his offensive capacity by reinforcing his attacking army with fresh troops, and repeat the assault, lest the defender is given respite to “rebuild” his defensive bonus. The attacker would of course rely on artillery concentration as a key factor in succeeding to bring down the defender’s bonus. The amount of troops present on both sides would result in massive casualties due to artillery fire.

this should shift the focus from tactical manouvers to the economic and war weariness issues on the home front... ensuring enough economic output and young men to feed into the western front meat grinder.

The simple fact that defensive bonuses would forbid an attacker to score an instant victory would mean that the defender would always (if he doesn’t make any major mistakes) be able to reinforce. The contest thus shifts from a military science contest (intelligent application of a superior force against a detected weak spot in the enemy line, and unhinging the enemy’s line of defense by territorial conquest) to a mathematical, industrial contest that simply opposes the sheer volume of cannon fodder and artillery shells each side can throw at each other.

This is precisely the difference between the Eastern front and Western front. But I believe it can be accurately represented simply by modulating the defensive factors of the respective trenches ( minor impact in the East, huge impact in the West).

This of course, has an important corollary: differentiated Morale gains. Conquering 100 kms of wilderness in Russia meant nothing and lead nowhere, and could hardly be used as propaganda to boost national morale. In the West, once Trench warfare settles in, 5% of military control should already bring morale benefits (and penalties for the losing side). Of course, a major, war-winning victory would require more than that. Losses, of course, have also their price, and battles such as these could cause losses of such magnitude as to make it their primary strategic objective. (The Germans wanted the French “bled white” at Verdun. They succeeded, but the French returned the favour).

What you need, in fact, is a way to allow the steady flow of reinforcements (the “incessante noria des renforts”, to quote Pétain) to feed the battle without interruption. I don’t know if that can be handled using the current game mechanisms. Can it?

until this is accurately reflected the western front is a fun game to play that does not really represent the realities of trench warfare. given ageod's deserved reputation for historical realism i am actually surprised that these issues have not been debated at more length...

Honestly, I believe the issue is too central to a WW1 game to be left aside…

[ajarnlance]

Indeed. But it might be simpler than it looks. It all depends on the defensive bonus. If, on the Eastern front, defensive bonuses are manageable enough (for the attacker) to allow for victorious “one-shot” battles and to force the enemy out of a contested region, classical warfare, involving vast sweeping manoeuvres, pursuits of defeated enemies, outflanking and encirclement attempts, and capture of key cities, is still very much possible.
If, on the other hand, defensive bonuses require successive poundings in order to achieve any kind of breakthrough, and even then, victories only translate into conversion of a few% military control of the region, then you will get battles such as those that happened on the Western front:
The attacker will concentrate all his efforts on one spot, since weaker efforts, albeit still possible as diversionary probes, would not have any chance of overcoming the defender’s trench network. Since breakthrough on the first assault is close to impossible, the defender would then reinforce the attacked spot. The attacker, in turn, would replenish his offensive capacity by reinforcing his attacking army with fresh troops, and repeat the assault, lest the defender is given respite to “rebuild” his defensive bonus. The attacker would of course rely on artillery concentration as a key factor in succeeding to bring down the defender’s bonus. The amount of troops present on both sides would result in massive casualties due to artillery fire.


The simple fact that defensive bonuses would forbid an attacker to score an instant victory would mean that the defender would always (if he doesn’t make any major mistakes) be able to reinforce. The contest thus shifts from a military science contest (intelligent application of a superior force against a detected weak spot in the enemy line, and unhinging the enemy’s line of defense by territorial conquest) to a mathematical, industrial contest that simply opposes the sheer volume of cannon fodder and artillery shells each side can throw at each other.

This is precisely the difference between the Eastern front and Western front. But I believe it can be accurately represented simply by modulating the defensive factors of the respective trenches ( minor impact in the East, huge impact in the West).

This of course, has an important corollary: differentiated Morale gains. Conquering 100 kms of wilderness in Russia meant nothing and lead nowhere, and could hardly be used as propaganda to boost national morale. In the West, once Trench warfare settles in, 5% of military control should already bring morale benefits (and penalties for the losing side). Of course, a major, war-winning victory would require more than that. Losses, of course, have also their price, and battles such as these could cause losses of such magnitude as to make it their primary strategic objective. (The Germans wanted the French “bled white” at Verdun. They succeeded, but the French returned the favour).

What you need, in fact, is a way to allow the steady flow of reinforcements (the “incessante noria des renforts”, to quote Pétain) to feed the battle without interruption. I don’t know if that can be handled using the current game mechanisms. Can it?



Honestly, I believe the issue is too central to a WW1 game to be left aside…

The defensive bonuses in the west could be in the form of HUGE entrenchment bonuses. How to replicate a meat grinder like Verdun that went on for months is a challenge with the current engine. Lack of cohesion usually brings a rapid end to an army's ability to continue fighting. Maybe reinforcements could restore the cohesion of the existing troops, thereby prolonging the battle? You are correct that the morale bonuses would also have to be adjusted to reflect the elation over the very modest gains achieved in trench warfare. You have obviously given this a lot of thought. Hopefully some of the other players will comment...

[Ace]

This is very important subject, and it's not like it wasn't thought about it during game design. There have been various proposals how to handle trench warfare. First, there was a proposal to design Artillery bombardment RGD which would fire on adjacent regions. Similar proposal was to implement bombard special order to fire at neighboring regions. But the developers rejected them because they wanted more raw game, with as little rgds as possible, to avoid the chore of "I place bombardment rgd here, you place bombardment rgd there" turn process.

The thought process was to implement MC control of the region to change more slowly, so reserves can rail in and fill every eventual gap in the line before the enemy can consolidate eventual gain. When you think of it, that is exactly what happened in the war, both sides poured reinforcements into one spot on the front. That's why they tried to lower frontage so the battles are less decisive and would protract over period of time. But the problem was, the battles wouldn't be decisive in the East.


When I read your proposal, I can't shake the feeling you are thinking on the same wave length, but on a slightly increased scale. And I always try to think what could be an improvement without completely changing the battle engine.

And after I red your post, it occurred to me, frontage could be the key. If we want indecisive battles that last for turns, we need lower frontage. And how to achieve that, we make battles among entrenched opponents to use less frontage. I know it is possible to do that because some battleplans can lower terrain frontage. Than we can have indecisive battles that go on and on.

When you think of it, even under current frontage rules, there were cases where game would declare one opponent a winner, but because both still had enough power, they stayed in the region ready to fight for another turn.
The problem with this is after some time, if MC of the region doesn't go above 25%, the attacker will have to withdraw because supply can't flow to enemy controlled regions. So, the only tweak in the engine should be MC boost for the attacker if he has "won" a round, so he can box out his MC enough so he can pour supply into region without manual shuffling or another way to pull from adjacent depot.

About the proposal for huge defensive bonus that dwindles after first battle, I am not sure. Initial German attack on Verdun was a success, so I am not sure that the bonus should hold, and trench remembering feature would erase any trench reducing done by the battle engine after one turn.

Also, for NM bonuses, gaining NM bonuses for MC increase in few regions seems too drastic, and could lead to wild swings in NM if few regions are captured all over the map. If we want to tinker with NM, I would like more the possibility for setting temporary NM objective for several turns and NM penalty for not reaching them afterwards (someone mentioned like Grand Offensives).

Bottom line:

1) I would introduce lower frontage feature for assaulting trenches. The code exists, it could be implemented. It would work implicitly in lowering early overpower of the defender(fewer elements committed) and protracted battles that span over several turns.

2) Work out a way so attacker can receive supply even when in 100% mc region. This could be done by giving him some mc for won round of the battle, or even better to allow units to pull supplies from adjacent depots even if the are in 100% mc. Both would require some coding and I don't know which would be easier to implement. But when I think of it, Great War was all about building depots and accumulating supplies before an offensive. So, if great offensive would require depot building on home territory before advancing a region, I am all for it.

3) Introduce Grand Offensive event options - a way to gain NM in a static front situation

4) Enemies would share a region, and at the beginning of every battle artillery would inflict lot of damage - that's what we all want. Constant damage every turn done to the enemy from artillery fire.

5) Several features you propose seem (at least to me), to difficult to implement and would have unwanted effects. Those include NM shifts for few gained MC. Defensive bonuses are not needed because they would be implicitly achieved by lower frontages. Different battle resolution parameters based on posture (orange or red) seem far fetched and I wouldn't implement them.

Guru, you made an excellent post, I hope I contributed to the discussion as well.

[ajarnlance]

This is very important subject, and it's not like it wasn't thought about it during game design. There have been various proposals how to handle trench warfare. First, there was a proposal to design Artillery bombardment RGD which would fire on adjacent regions. Similar proposal was to implement bombard special order to fire at neighboring regions. But the developers rejected them because they wanted more raw game, with as little rgds as possible, to avoid the chore of "I place bombardment rgd here, you place bombardment rgd there" turn process.

The thought process was to implement MC control of the region to change more slowly, so reserves can rail in and fill every eventual gap in the line before the enemy can consolidate eventual gain. When you think of it, that is exactly what happened in the war, both sides poured reinforcements into one spot on the front. That's why they tried to lower frontage so the battles are less decisive and would protract over period of time. But the problem was, the battles wouldn't be decisive in the East.


When I read your proposal, I can't shake the feeling you are thinking on the same wave length, but on a slightly increased scale. And I always try to think what could be an improvement without completely changing the battle engine.

And after I red your post, it occurred to me, frontage could be the key. If we want indecisive battles that last for turns, we need lower frontage. And how to achieve that, we make battles among entrenched opponents to use less frontage. I know it is possible to do that because some battleplans can lower terrain frontage. Than we can have indecisive battles that go on and on.

When you think of it, even under current frontage rules, there were cases where game would declare one opponent a winner, but because both still had enough power, they stayed in the region ready to fight for another turn.
The problem with this is after some time, if MC of the region doesn't go above 25%, the attacker will have to withdraw because supply can't flow to enemy controlled regions. So, the only tweak in the engine should be MC boost for the attacker if he has "won" a round, so he can box out his MC enough so he can pour supply into region without manual shuffling or another way to pull from adjacent depot.

About the proposal for huge defensive bonus that dwindles after first battle, I am not sure. Initial German attack on Verdun was a success, so I am not sure that the bonus should hold, and trench remembering feature would erase any trench reducing done by the battle engine after one turn.

Also, for NM bonuses, gaining NM bonuses for MC increase in few regions seems too drastic, and could lead to wild swings in NM if few regions are captured all over the map. If we want to tinker with NM, I would like more the possibility for setting temporary NM objective for several turns and NM penalty for not reaching them afterwards (someone mentioned like Grand Offensives).

Bottom line:

1) I would introduce lower frontage feature for assaulting trenches. The code exists, it could be implemented. It would work implicitly in lowering early overpower of the defender(fewer elements committed) and protracted battles that span over several turns.

2) Work out a way so attacker can receive supply even when in 100% mc region. This could be done by giving him some mc for won round of the battle, or even better to allow units to pull supplies from adjacent depots even if the are in 100% mc. Both would require some coding and I don't know which would be easier to implement. But when I think of it, Great War was all about building depots and accumulating supplies before an offensive. So, if great offensive would require depot building on home territory before advancing a region, I am all for it.

3) Introduce Grand Offensive event options - a way to gain NM in a static front situation

4) Enemies would share a region, and at the beginning of every battle artillery would inflict lot of damage - that's what we all want. Constant damage every turn done to the enemy from artillery fire.

5) Several features you propose seem (at least to me), to difficult to implement and would have unwanted effects. Those include NM shifts for few gained MC. Defensive bonuses are not needed because they would be implicitly achieved by lower frontages. Different battle resolution parameters based on posture (orange or red) seem far fetched and I wouldn't implement them.

Guru, you made an excellent post, I hope I contributed to the discussion as well.

Frontage could be the answer Ace... good suggestions. I hope the design team take a look at these!

[The Guru]

Frontage could be the answer Ace... good suggestions. I hope the design team take a look at these!

Well... I confess I'm not too sure. Reducing frontage, if I understood the combat engine well (and I admit it is still somewhat opaque to me), would reduce the magnitude of the battle, by reducing the number of troops involved, and hence, the number of casualties and the amplitude of the combat outcome. Yet, the indecisiveness of trench warfare was not due the smaller scale of the engagements: actually it seems to me it was the very opposite. On the first day of the Somme the British lost 58.000 men, mainly mown down by machine gun fire! the opening hours of Verdun and the Nivelle offensive were no less gargantuan in their voracity for human lives. Frontage, if anything, was much wider than in "classical" warfare because the trench network ran continuously across the whole region and the enemies where in very close contact all along it.

The essential factor of the indecisiveness was the immense superiority of the defense, which made quick breakthroughs impossible and therefore reinforcement of attacked point inevitable. Huge volumes of cannon fodder were necessary to conquer a few kilometers, and huge volumes were thrown in such desperate gambles!
That is why I suggested taking the "defensive bonus" angle on the issue.

Also, for NM BONUSES, gaining NM bonuses for MC increase in few regions seems too drastic, and could lead to wild swings in NM if few regions are captured all over the map.

Remember, the front virtually did not move from 1915 to 1917! National newspapers would make their headlines with the conquest of some god-forsaken village blasted to bits, somewhere in the no-man's land. To capture a region, let alone a few regions on the Western front would be hailed as an immense, absolute, victory! Remember the church bells episode when the British managed to advance a dozen kilometers near Cambrai !

Enemies would share a region

I most certainly agree, opposing forces must be able to co-exist in the same region, both being adequately supplied and sheltered. Enemy trenches, in some places, were distant of 10-15m! That's fundamental. And the attrition due to artillery shelling, occasional firefights, patrol incursions, etc, should cause non-negligible erosion of total available manpower.

Introduce Grand Offensive event options -

definitely. It was, BTW,a prominent feature of the "La Grande Guerre" paper wargame. The Germans need an incentive to push their luck beyond 1914, lest they just revert to the defensive and turtle up as soon as they have reached their highwater mark in 1914.
I liked the mechanism in La Grande Guerre. Nations had to engage in annual displays of virile offensive spirit, or lose National Morale. Of course, Morale loss could end up being worse if the Offensive ended up in a unconclusive bloodbath ( Nivelle in 1917). Or could be compensated by the Morale benefits gained by frustrating an enemy Major Offensive.

[Ace]

Additional thing to consider. Is it possible that the enemy shares a region and the combat takes place even if both remain on the defensive, but the combat ends at range 4, so only long range artillery fires?
It would surely brimg the feeling of ww1 everyday combat.

[ajarnlance]

Additional thing to consider. Is it possible that the enemy shares a region and the combat takes place even if both remain on the defensive, but the combat ends at range 4, so only long range artillery fires?
It would surely brimg the feeling of ww1 everyday combat.

Yes, good suggestion. That would ensure more artillery bombardments and artillery duels. Surprised this thread isn't getting more attention...the ideas being expressed here address some fundamental changes that could really improve the game and make it more realistic. Currently the game almost feels like ACW moved to Europe The Grand offensives idea looks very exciting. Is anyone from the design team listening..??

PS shared regions needs to be thought through carefully. This could end up looking very messy graphically. I have trouble reorganising my own units as it is in a single region...

[Nico165]

Surprised this thread isn't getting more attention...the ideas being expressed here address some fundamental changes that could really improve the game and make it more realistic. Currently the game almost feels like ACW moved to Europe The Grand offensives idea looks very exciting. Is anyone from the design team listening..??

I think they just delivered the first patch to Matrix for official release, and the next focus seems to be on AACW2. So we might have to wait a few weeks before new ideas are being taken into consideration here !

[ajarnlance]

I think they just delivered the first patch to Matrix for official release, and the next focus seems to be on AACW2. So we might have to wait a few weeks before new ideas are being taken into consideration here !

Anyone ever heard of multi-tasking in France??

[Ace]

Don't be harsh on them. They are 2 man team. Everyone deserves few days off now and then. I am pretty sure TEAW will be supported adequately.

[ajarnlance]

Don't be harsh on them. They are 2 man team. Everyone deserves few days off now and then. I am pretty sure TEAW will be supported adequately.

Only two guys?? That is a small team...

[Nico165]

Yeah, so they can multitask in the sense that if one guy do one thing, the other guy can do another things. But they have 10 games to follow, so we might still have to be patient sometimes

[ajarnlance]

Yeah, so they can multitask in the sense that if one guy do one thing, the other guy can do another things. But they have 10 games to follow, so we might still have to be patient sometimes

It is very impressive that they have achieved so much. There really isn't any other company that makes beautiful war games like these guys...

[Altaris]

This is something Pocus is aware of and has been discussed. The latest betas are making it easier for two sides to reside in the same region without one being forced to retreat, which will go a long way towards the effects you guys are talking about. I think it's best to see how these effects play out first, and tweaking from there as needed. This can be a two-edged sword, making it too easy to "entrench" could very easily break the Eastern Front fluidity.

[Pocus]

Actually I invite everyone to check data on average European working hours or productivity and you'll see that the legend about French people is not well founded. Plus France don't have that many part time workers, UK and Germany have much more and it changes a whole lot of things about perceived productivity and who is considered employed or not.

But back to games, we have indeed to share time between patching recent games and advancing on the new one.

[ajarnlance]

Actually I invite everyone to check data on average European working hours or productivity and you'll see that the legend about French people is not well founded. Plus France don't have that many part time workers, UK and Germany have much more and it changes a whole lot of things about perceived productivity and who is considered employed or not.

But back to games, we have indeed to share time between patching recent games and advancing on the new one.

We are waiting breathless to learn the name of the 'new one'!! Is the Empereur returning from exile on Elba to make a glorious return....?? By the way, can you please answer one question: do non-activated generals march to the sound of the guns?? Thanks.