good point,also reinforcements should play a big role.Should I reinforce my slowly mobilized troops here or there?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
good point,also reinforcements should play a big role.Should I reinforce my slowly mobilized troops here or there?
Actually, the end of WWI wasn't by tanks, motorized infantry, or airplanes. It was by the collapse of the German morale after their final offensive and the ability of the allies to push immediatley back. (The Americans helped here. 
)
)
I don't really see it being a problem. I've played a number of HoI games where a front remains nearly static for 2 years. Balance the techs properly and it shouldn't be a problem.
The Crimea War was in parts very like WW1 iirc as well
The Crimea War was in parts very like WW1 iirc as well
I agree...in HOI I have been engaged in battles for XianYang that lasted for about six months, and finally I had to pull my troops back. Thre large breakthrough attempts in three years but still there is a stalmate.
However...given the time frime a country can gain significant advantages and break the fronts fairly easy...so I assume there will be lot of events needed for balancing.
I also think that getting a static frontline is not the problem. Give defenders at a certain tech ("Trench Warfare"?) a huge defence bonus and you're set.
The problem I see is that players will hardly try anything to make a breakthrough, or if so, he will do it in a way that assures victory (at least against AI), maybe attacking with a strength ratio of 10-1.
I would rather like to see some attrition warfare, but I'm not sure how to do that. Simulate that enemy troops in adjacent provinces, both dug in, engage in skirmishes and take losses?
The problem I see is that players will hardly try anything to make a breakthrough, or if so, he will do it in a way that assures victory (at least against AI), maybe attacking with a strength ratio of 10-1.
I would rather like to see some attrition warfare, but I'm not sure how to do that. Simulate that enemy troops in adjacent provinces, both dug in, engage in skirmishes and take losses?
I think WWI should be simulated in such a way that all sides will attack. If you give the defender a huge advantage (which would be historically correct) the French could just let the Germans attack for a year, after which no German soldier would be left. Even the "defenders" (french/British/Austrians), therefore, should choose the offensive like IRL. All parties should be bled white.
also, like some said, remember those doctrines that the generals used in that time... players could easilly avoid that, so we must "ensure" that those doctrines are used...
for example, i have read that in the first encounters between the BEF and the German army, because the germans were much more, they marched into the BEF lines to "demoralize" them... a lot of germans troops were killed, but, they knew they have plenty of them to replace them...
that's a stupid decision if you use hindsight and a player will surelly try to avoid that... so the question is, how to simulate that?
let's face it, using hindsight, a player against the AI will surelly won, not matter which side he choose...
for example, i have read that in the first encounters between the BEF and the German army, because the germans were much more, they marched into the BEF lines to "demoralize" them... a lot of germans troops were killed, but, they knew they have plenty of them to replace them...
that's a stupid decision if you use hindsight and a player will surelly try to avoid that... so the question is, how to simulate that?
let's face it, using hindsight, a player against the AI will surelly won, not matter which side he choose...
There will be a HoI style tech tree. There might even be brigade add-ons. I see no reason for not using the HoI combat system with org and strength. Given these refinements to the combat system I see no problems in simulating WWI.
"I wonder if they will include "doctrines" in the tech tree like in H
oI." They problably will since they will use the HOI-concept of "organisation". And since moral is in there too...organisation has to be improved by doctrines.
However...these doctrines could be given to the player by events instead of research.
oI." They problably will since they will use the HOI-concept of "organisation". And since moral is in there too...organisation has to be improved by doctrines.
However...these doctrines could be given to the player by events instead of research.
WWI wasn't too different from other wars in the time period, Crimea, US Civil War in the east, the Boer war, all were fairly static with well entrenched enemies. Its just that WWI was on a much, much larger scale than any other war.
I imagine when the machine gun is developed, there will be a huge boost for defense, and a similar boost for offense when the tank, poison gas, and rolling barrage is perfected. If it's like HOI, there'll be doctrines and tactics too that can be learned (like the German stormtroopers)
Well during the WW1 the large offensives were often as bloody for the defenders, some of the German offensives caused more allied casualties than German. And everyone should keep in mind that other fronts than the west front were more mobile.
I'm not sure how well the province system can simulate static warfare. After all, the opposing armies weren't in different provinces, but in the same "province", but just stuck there, each one slowly bleeding.
I can see the province system working as long as there are options for both sides.
At a very basic level - selecting an offensive or defensive posture.
Perhaps include an arrow/scale of sorts to indicate the strength of each sides defensive fortifications as well as the troop strength?
ie: Both sides defending => very low attrition rate in both manpower and fort strength, hence province is likely to remain "contended".
One side offensive => very heavy manpower losses for the offensive side unless they have a large manpower advantage and a lengthy pre-emptive artillery bombardment. Even then the defenders have the opportunity to reinforce during the bombardment. Defenders take losses primarily to their fort strength rather than their manpower.
Both sides offensive => I don't know if this happened in areas in which both sides had fortifications but it probably wouldn't have been pretty to say the least. Both sides lose a lot from both sliders.
At a very basic level - selecting an offensive or defensive posture.
Perhaps include an arrow/scale of sorts to indicate the strength of each sides defensive fortifications as well as the troop strength?
ie: Both sides defending => very low attrition rate in both manpower and fort strength, hence province is likely to remain "contended".
One side offensive => very heavy manpower losses for the offensive side unless they have a large manpower advantage and a lengthy pre-emptive artillery bombardment. Even then the defenders have the opportunity to reinforce during the bombardment. Defenders take losses primarily to their fort strength rather than their manpower.
Both sides offensive => I don't know if this happened in areas in which both sides had fortifications but it probably wouldn't have been pretty to say the least. Both sides lose a lot from both sliders.
Hmmm? Couldn't seem to post this all in one? Forum rules?
Combat in a newly contested province OTOH could be determined by the force composition (assuming a rough parity in numbers) whereby a cavalry advantage could give an incentive for an offense while a large proportion of infantry would probably result in yet another bout of digging in and trench warfare on both sides.
Combat in a newly contested province OTOH could be determined by the force composition (assuming a rough parity in numbers) whereby a cavalry advantage could give an incentive for an offense while a large proportion of infantry would probably result in yet another bout of digging in and trench warfare on both sides.
One german offensive caused more casualties for the defender in trench warfare, Verdun and even that was a close call.
But casualties were often near-equal iirc, so attacking (in a smart way) should be almost as good as defending.
Attacking stupidly was bad.
Yeah, the west front got static when it stretched from Swiss to coast and the only option remaining at both sides was full frontal assault,
One thing that seems to have been missed here in the talk of how the defensive was stronger is that all the nations involved in the war praised the offensive.
Also one thing is that the Germans could have won the war early if Moltke hadn't lost his nerve and ordered a retreat.
How to simulate the warfare however is similar to the mountain warfare in HoI. I think most people have seen some long battles or at least, i'm not sure why they become long but it seems that it mostly has to do with that all of them having poor stats or efficency.
Also one thing is that the Germans could have won the war early if Moltke hadn't lost his nerve and ordered a retreat.
How to simulate the warfare however is similar to the mountain warfare in HoI. I think most people have seen some long battles or at least, i'm not sure why they become long but it seems that it mostly has to do with that all of them having poor stats or efficency.
A point is that units should not attack or defend until they disappear, which is basically what occurs in HOI, and is one of the worst feautures of that game's combat system. IRL units were units were usualy rotated to calmer sectors and replaced by fresher ones once they were worn down. I think the Germans kept the same divisions in line in Verdun and fed them with reinforcements, but it was on the offensive. In any case division size units were never totally destroyed like happens all the time in HOI, except in rare occurences when they were surrounded and had to surrender.