Secondly, Austria can afford to take some risks, it can even afford to lose a few army corps. They get plenty of reinforcements that will make up for the losses. As long as you can keep casualties rates close, every battle is an Austrian victory.
Sounds bloodthirsty - I know, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing if you play the Austrains.:blush:
It's a tradition, so it must be good, eh?
Another solid turn - in my mind, as long as you're not being beaten to a pulp by Narwhal, you're basically winning (at least compared to the historical thrashing that Austria received).
I look forward to more news on the eagerly awaited Cossacks. Perhaps all these Russian pay issues will encourage them to, what's the quaint phrase again, oh yes, "Live off the land" with extra vigor.
Great update!
I have to disagree with this statement, though. While it is true for the Prussians, the opposite applies to the Austrian side (at least in my humble opinion). The fastest way to beat Prussia is to make the war as bloody as possible. The higher casualties get the more difficult will it become for them to replenish their troops. At first his light cavalry will become a useless carcass, then his elite infantry brigades, then the heavy cavalry, ...
Secondly, Austria can afford to take some risks, it can even afford to lose a few army corps. They get plenty of reinforcements that will make up for the losses. As long as you can keep casualties rates close, every battle is an Austrian victory.
Sounds bloodthirsty - I know, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing if you play the Austrains.:blush:
Having failed To think up anything good to say I'm simply going to say good luck.
I'll defer your much greater experience, but it seems to me that since the Austrians can build up overwhelming forces given time then it's a pretty sensible move to play cautiously at the outset. Bringing the Prussians to battle on terms that allow Austria to do at least equal damage sounds like a recipe for disaster in the case of a less-than-competent AGEOD player (which is to say, me).
Anyhow - great update loki. Just one question, when you say that sappers add +1 to the chances of a breach, how does this compare to siege guns?
Bizarre That mass of stuck HRE units did better than the Better Led Swedish force. Is there a reason for this?
Why didn't you send any of the Austrian corps commanders to help the Swedes?? At this point all of them have better stats and them being corps commanders in Dauns army would help with CP (at least untill you can make them part of the russian army) - which IIRC is a problem.
Actually, it was a display bug. The troops I slaughtered were the HRE troops that retreated to Stralsund. For some reason they were colored blue - but should not have.
In effect at the moment, 12,000 fairly useless Swedes are pinning down 25,000 useful Prussians so I'm happy to hide in Stalsrund.
Equally, I often find it hard to make good use of the HRE army at Nuremberg as with Hohenzollern and the loony with big staring eyes I can usually only make partial use of about 2/3 of them (the rest I end up using as garrisons etc). This time with both Rutowski and Serbollini over there I was able to fold them all into useable corps with a small group of 6-8 battalions in the HQ stack. For the moment, at least, that seems a better use of Serbollini than sending him off to Stalsrund (as long as Narwhal sits on them in the siege, I can't break out in any case).
The conventional view is the Austrian side wants early battles to wear the Prussians down. I now am starting to think its the other way around. Early battles lead to lost Austrian elements (so VP gains) and potentially leave Daun's main army small enough to be finished off later. I think I'm starting to see the benefits of the lucky start with the Saxon break out and no major battles in 1756.
But although, I believe this is a good cautious strategy, I don't think it is necessary. By 1757, the Austrian side is already strong enough to apply pressure (probably more tentatively with Austria itself, but less restrained with Russia and France). For example, it is possible to stage a successful expedition against Kolberg in 1757 after a quick capture of Koenigsberg. And in the West, Minden and even Bremen are achievable objectives for 1757. Especially the capture of Bremen can pay off big since the British reinforcements will then spawn at Emden. It is beautifully far off and lacks a depot. It will even give you the opportunity to crush the British reinforcements before they can join with Prussia's other forces.
I agree this was a major mistake. Yet again.While trying to destroy the Swedes is legitimate (esp. since they are not useless anymore since our "mod"),committing that many troops was a mistake. What determines the chances to take down the city is the number of guns (or rather, the "power of guns") involved, not the number of men. With those 25 000 (or say 15 000 I would have scrapped), I could have had a significant advantage on other fronts.
You can actually get ~2400 power from the HRE troops if you get all your HRE commanders there(Serbeloni, Zweibrücken). Hohenzollern can get his skills up in a brigade command and jump back to corp command when Saxe-Hildeburgshausen retires. You get two more HRE brigade commanders in '79 so you get their survivability up. Just be careful with the army and have Zweibrücken in command.
Correction: This is actually correct only if you send the Württemberger and Bavarian troops to Bohemia under the command of Rutowski. The Saxons usually have to sacrifice some brigades to get out from Pirna. So you can have a powerful Saxon-Württemberg-Bavarian corps who can actually fight Prussian armies with some succes.
You make a convincing argument. With time not really being an issue in this campaign, you can sit 1757 out without getting too much behind in VP. In the meantime your armies will steadily get stronger. This blueprint for a campaign will work.
But it has some risks. You can't sit back too much, otherwise your opponent will start concentrating his forces against one front and try to crush it. Usually this will be Sweden or Austria).
But although, I believe this is a good cautious strategy, I don't think it is necessary. By 1757, the Austrian side is already strong enough to apply pressure (probably more tentatively with Austria itself, but less restrained with Russia and France). For example, it is possible to stage a successful expedition against Kolberg in 1757 after a quick capture of Koenigsberg. And in the West, Minden and even Bremen are achievable objectives for 1757. Especially the capture of Bremen can pay off big since the British reinforcements will then spawn at Emden. It is beautifully far off and lacks a depot. It will even give you the opportunity to crush the British reinforcements before they can join with Prussia's other forces.
In the end, this comes down to different playing styles. My strategy is certainly more risky but it doesn't require stupid risks, just some smart maneuvering. I have implemented it multiple times and it has always worked well for me. Besides, I have this reckless urge to take Berlin as quickly as possible. :blush:
Wow, you really must have a good luck with activation rolls or you just risk single corps'. Do you like to make your enemy to spread it's forces so you can exploit this to maneuver to a better position?
Still it baffles me how you can get Königsberg and Kolberg in the same year. Do you leave a small sieging party in Königsberg and just bypass it trough the swamps or something?
Btw if you're finishing any games soon or just have too much time, I'd love to play against you in either RUS or ROP. I only have 3 PBEM's going on and I want a few more.
From your footnoted comment, loki, it sounds like you're about to fall prey to a good old-fashioned cavalry charge. The Oder might just run red with Austrian blood, it seems.
Other than that bit of foreboding, you are steadily increasing the size of the forces at your disposal. The future looks bright. And not just because of the East Prussian bonfires lit by the Cossacks.
Wow, you really must have a good luck with activation rolls or you just risk single corps'. Do you like to make your enemy to spread it's forces so you can exploit this to maneuver to a better position?
Still it baffles me how you can get Königsberg and Kolberg in the same year. Do you leave a small sieging party in Königsberg and just bypass it trough the swamps or something?
The one drawback from this AAR format (told purely from loki's perspective), is that the Prussians seem very passive - which I know can't be the case, with Narwhal in control. It reads as if Austria is pretty much in the driver's seat, slowly tightening the noose around Prussia's neck.
On the bright side, this means that whenever Narwhal starts to throws his weight around, it'll be as unexpected to us (or rather, given the general level of AGEOD competency in this thread versus my own, to me) as it was to loki while he was playing through the turns.
Can't fault your methodical approach, think that the '8 Guards Army' is cute and enjoy the (baseless) accusation that somehow the Prussians were conducting biological warfare and infected your troops with typhus.
Great comment Stuyvesant! Wisdom, humour and insight all rolled in one!
Another excellent update, loki!
That was a very interesting gamble not bribing Danzig. I have always spend the money in multiplayer games and it has never paid off since the Prussian players tend to pay as well (they can afford the money).
That French army looks very nice. Time to go on the offensive! Charge! Chargez! Attack! Angriff! Ouch, I am sounding bloodthirsty again.:blush:
No, I started for Kolberg only after Koenigsberg had fallen (I had gotten lucky and the siege hadn't lasted long). The march to Kolberg was relatively fast since I always used multiple corps commanders (if you have two or three, chances are at least one of them is active) and seperated the slow siege artillery from the main stack.
I have to admit that trick was a bit insane. I tried it because I was sure my opponent would think it crazy as well and therefore ignore it in the hope that winter would take care of those Russians.
Nevertheless such a strategy is valid since it establishes a viable third front a year sooner than usual. This will overload Prussia's defenses. Prussia is able to lock Austria and France into a stalemate but it can't contain all three major enemies simultaniously and thus will start losing ground quickly.
However, it should be obvious that loki's strategy presents a much safer road to victory.
But I think we starting to get a bit off topic. Sorry loki!