I too have noticed this, Germany rarely makes a single move on the Western Front after forts get built. I can find no solution in the AI as of yet........
-
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.
ptan54 said:
Maybe the odious thought of reducing forts at points to encourage combat will have to be considered, if the AI cannot be persuaded to attack....
Correct me if I'm wrong here...
The AI was being too aggressive and launching sweeping multi-province invasions, so we introduced the trench warfare events to slow it down.
Now people are complaining that the AI isn't aggressive enough?
The AI was being too aggressive and launching sweeping multi-province invasions, so we introduced the trench warfare events to slow it down.
Now people are complaining that the AI isn't aggressive enough?
StephenT said:Now people are complaining that the AI isn't aggressive enough?
Yes.
Germany can also decide to leave some Divisions at her western border and start an all-out attack against Russia right at the start of the war. Thereby she avoids the trensh-war-event as long as she doesn't move into Frensh territory and she can redeploy her forces after russia is defeated (which is somewhat inevitable since UK and Frensh AI don't seem willing to help the Russians much.
Surely it shouldnt be easy to smash right up to the Urals to defeat Russia? Some of the cities in the Russian defeat event are in the Caucasus.....
Not until mid-end 1916, at least I didn't manage to do it until then. But then again, the AH ally leaves most of the work to me, so assuming military control (if possible) wouldn't be that bad and may as well result in an earlier Russian defeat.
OK, guys, good news, I am probably going away to Karlskrona tomorrow, perhaps I can find some all-feared swedish naval commanders in the maritime museum there...
Since thanks to you we now have almost as many Swedish air commanders as the Swedes had aeroplanes, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
StephenT said:Since thanks to you we now have almost as many Swedish air commanders as the Swedes had aeroplanes, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
That's a very decent point. Why did the Swedish government tolerate so many air bound parasites earning wages without doing any work? I suspect that the origins of Sweden's burgeoning welfare state can be traced to this inauspicious moment...
StephenT said:Since thanks to you we now have almost as many Swedish air commanders as the Swedes had aeroplanes, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Actually we have more... at the outbreak of war, Sweden could mobilize a grand total of FOUR aircraft...
I don't know what's wrong, but I've played a few games as Germany, and I've never gotten any France defeat events to fire even after occupying all of France. What do I need to do to get France defeated events?
Also: When Germany sends Lenin over, there is no russian civil war, only it all turns red all of a sudden. Then, if I save and reload, all the little states declare independence.
I don't mind there not being a russian civil war, the biggest inconvenience is definately the war in France never ending. Any ideas?
Also: When Germany sends Lenin over, there is no russian civil war, only it all turns red all of a sudden. Then, if I save and reload, all the little states declare independence.
I don't mind there not being a russian civil war, the biggest inconvenience is definately the war in France never ending. Any ideas?
The defeat event occurs sometime in 1917 if you occupy all of France. Same with the defeat of Russia.
Er.. but Russia already turned into the soviet union and collapsed into a bunch of different states.
Attention!
I think the desicion to build Stosstrooper divisions as an upgrade of guards is wrong.There was not any such concept as Stosstroopers divisions during the war.Instead after 1916-17 Germany made an "authorised" assault battalion in every division they had and units by themselfs build "unauthorised" assault companies.These were the stosstroopers so as it is now you can either build them from the start or upgrade the guards.This way however will leave all the line infantry divisions without the bonus.so instead of the current cituation i suggest the the stosstropen tech will add bonus to infantry and guards as well as to Eng. attachment(since most of the stosstroopers were made form eng. units).
Also in the greek leader files there are 2 Hajianestis leaders with slightly different spelling.Well get rid one of them and keep the other with the "Old Guard" status.
I think the desicion to build Stosstrooper divisions as an upgrade of guards is wrong.There was not any such concept as Stosstroopers divisions during the war.Instead after 1916-17 Germany made an "authorised" assault battalion in every division they had and units by themselfs build "unauthorised" assault companies.These were the stosstroopers so as it is now you can either build them from the start or upgrade the guards.This way however will leave all the line infantry divisions without the bonus.so instead of the current cituation i suggest the the stosstropen tech will add bonus to infantry and guards as well as to Eng. attachment(since most of the stosstroopers were made form eng. units).
Also in the greek leader files there are 2 Hajianestis leaders with slightly different spelling.Well get rid one of them and keep the other with the "Old Guard" status.
Please don't focus too narrowly on what one country did. The assault division tech accounts for German Stosstruppen, Italian arditi, Austro-Hungarian Sturmtruppen, the ANZACs and Canadian Corps, and many other troop formations. Most countries clearly distinguished between regular line formations and the elite divisions who would be used to spearhead attacks - including the Germans.The ancient mar said:
Infiltration tactics, IIRC, do indeed give a small bonus to all INF divisions (representing Sturmabteilungen and general training in the new techniques); the advanced Guards model represents concentrating such trained troops into your spearhead units.
Well i think i have to answer that.1st i whould like to start by saying that the whole point is who i beliave player choise is pressed by assigning only Guard units the eligibility to build stosstroopers.Therefore my suggestion to expand it or alter it.The concept of stosstroopers was a GERMAN idea.It is not only the fact that they actually fielded them 1st. but also the doctrines or the change of them in order to make commanders and men be able to use the new tactics and weapons(more or less).Yes there were elite units throught the war capable of a more offencive approach and beefed up with more and better men-weapons.These however were not by any way a concentreated mass of divisions.Instead they were small formations that spearheaded the assault for the rest of the unit.About AH equivelant i am not to say more than that AH army after a certain point was more or less under direction from Berlin and that they copied the more succesfull German examples in order to improve their bad performance.As about Canadians and the Anzac which you mentioned as Antante examples of the Stosstrooper concept in what kind they were different than rest of GB army so that they can qualify for that?
Maybe a better fighting spirit therefore more capable for shoch action?Ok i agree with that BUT stosstroopers were more than simply troops with better spirit.They were in fact the most important attempt during the war to allow low level leadership to take the initiative during the assault instead of the older strict regime,plus of cource the weapons and tactics to make this happen.
Ok you might have your opinion and i have a different one so let my ask you that?Why not allow the line infantry divisions a assault model?As far as i am concerned the difference between Guards and Infantry in the field during the war wasnt at all significant as to allow as to think of the guard uber-soldat.Infact no matter the more and better weapons and personnel they had,results were as good as ordinary infantry and some times as bad as well.
Maybe a better fighting spirit therefore more capable for shoch action?Ok i agree with that BUT stosstroopers were more than simply troops with better spirit.They were in fact the most important attempt during the war to allow low level leadership to take the initiative during the assault instead of the older strict regime,plus of cource the weapons and tactics to make this happen.
Ok you might have your opinion and i have a different one so let my ask you that?Why not allow the line infantry divisions a assault model?As far as i am concerned the difference between Guards and Infantry in the field during the war wasnt at all significant as to allow as to think of the guard uber-soldat.Infact no matter the more and better weapons and personnel they had,results were as good as ordinary infantry and some times as bad as well.
ancient mar, I know English is not your primary language, but please I beg of you to put in paragraph breaks. It makes following your posts very difficult without them.
But all infantry units can build stormtrooper detachments. That's why the Infiltration Tactics and Stormtrooper Units techs give them a soft attack bonus. Building assault divisions represents concentrating a much higher proportion of your assault-trained assets in one formation - more or less how the Germans did it.The ancient mar said:
Remember that HoI is a division-based game. Any treatment of smaller-scale formations has to be abstract. For example, an artillery brigade would normally be attached to Army HQ and assigned to individual battles as need arose - but in HoI, you have to attach it permanently to a division. In the same way, an Assault Division might represent an entire division of stormtroopers - but it could equally well represent eight battalions of stormtroopers spread out amongst the other divisions in its province.
One of the deciding characteristics of the German Kaiserschlacht offensive of 1918 is that they only had a limited number of Stoßtruppen, and they rapidly became casualties - so each successive attack was less and less effective. You can represent this easily if the assault divisions are separate units - but not if you've simply upgraded all your infantry divisions to a new model.
I wouldn't object in theory to a 'stormtrooper' brigade attachment, raher than using the assault division model as a way of representing infiltration tactics. Unfortunately, we tried that solution and it didn't work: you can't activate a brigade type by tech, they're always present.
The concept of Stoßtruppen was the German VERSION of infiltration tactics, which were also being developed by the British (including Empire) and French. They weren't the first to use them, either. They just gave them a cool name and wrote down every element of their doctrine in a very systematic and formal way, so making things much easier for later historians.
The British Army, by contrast, approached things in a much more casual way, relying on individual experience, innovation and word of mouth. To represent this more accurately, the British player should really close his eyes when building a new division so he can't see whether it's Assault, Regular or Reserve quality until it's actually deployed. No argument here. The better British Army units, including the Canadians and ANZACs but also a dozen or so British units, didn't only rely on fighting spirit. After 1916 they were being reorganised into smaller, self-sufficient manouevre units with heavy organic firepower (especially Lewis guns, but also rifle grenades, etc). They were trained to infiltrate around enemy strongpoints and take them in the flank, or leave them for follow-up units while they pressed on into the enemy rear area. Close coordination with the artillery, which was itself developing specialised techniques of fire support, was also an essential part of the doctrine.
The only problems were (1) as I said before, the new tactics weren't adopted in a uniform way, but left up to individual commanding officers to interpret how they wished (2) The German defensive positions and tactics they faced were extremely effective, even against infiltration tactics. Allied defensive technique was extremely poor by comparison.