Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Trenches?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(14189)

unmerged(14189)

Sergeant
Jan 29, 2003
94
0
Visit site
I have not been nearly through all the threads yet so don't flame if this has already been answered:

How does the TGW crew plan on modelling trenches in the game. Fortresses and such would not count as trenches in the sense that for the most part they were already established in pre-war times, and trenches were dug soley on the parts of the armies in their current line of battle which fluctuated constantly with trench raids,advances, and all-out offenses. Just a question btw great work so far and I'm looking forward to BETAs coming.


P.S. some great books on this time period are 2 that I just got done reading:
World War 1 by John Keegan
First World War by Martin Gilbert.
 
Giving the infantry 1 attack value and 100 defense value or something should work. But maybe allow this research only to Germany, France, and Britain, and only as a result of an event. This event could be the Germans occupying one of the provinces next to Paris or maybe a couple weeks after the war starts.
 
Wouldn't it be possible to make an option for the army located in a province to "Entrench"? More than the already established dug-in bonus, maybe give the defenders a 10-15 boost in attack effectivity, and a bigger def bonus? Another possible idea is to replace the AA option in the province menu with something like "Build Trenches" which would take about a month to build the first level, then from there on, it would get less time to build, maybe -5 days of the build time.
 
Does anyone know the significance of the number attached to dug in? If you do not know what I am talking about, highlight a unit that is not entrenched (little shovel symbol) and watch the dug in number rise.

If the corresponding number represents an increase in defense bonus it maybe possible to increase the number to above 10 to better represent trenches.
 
Another possible idea is to replace the AA option in the province menu with something like "Build Trenches" which would take about a month to build the first level, then from there on, it would get less time to build, maybe -5 days of the build time.
Click to expand...

This is a good idea, it would also be good if they had a graphix that showed the unit as being dug in. Lol doing world war 1 is going to be a tough job for the modders because in this war advances were sometimes measured in meters, with only later in the war were offensives gaining enough momentum to break through and carry on for a mile or so before running out of momentum or getting stopped. But Elisson any imput would be appreciated TY.
 
I'll answer some of the ideas here, as johnscorndogs says, fortresses is out of the question. acetime's idea to give like 100 defense to units isn't really a serious idea, right? Adding "dug-in" bonuses, replacing AA, giving "entrench" options or anything else that means modifying something that is not in any modifyable files would be impossible if you aren't really, really, really good at programming.

As Allenby says, high defense (not 100 though), low attack gives the wanted effect. You'll all see for your selves when the mod is released. No worry! :)

/Johan
 
They had trenches in WW2 too, you know, and they were no different to those of WW1.

The difference is that by the Second World War, the power of the attack was so much stronger (tanks, aircraft, motor transport, more flexible command structures, better communications) that armies rarely stayed in one place long enough to build the elaborate trench networks we saw in WW1. When the front did settle into a stalemate, trenches were dug.

In other words, I don't think we need to mess about with the "dug-in" rating or anything else - simply lower the attack rating of most units. Exactly how low will be a subject for playtesting, I imagine.

As a final word: the elaborate trench networks like the German Hindenburg Line or the British positions around Arras, with concrete bunkers and dug-outs, multiple trench lines with firing bays and communication trenches, light railways bringing up ammunition to the gun positions, etc - these should certainly be represented by province fortifications. Such trench networks took months to build.
 
The higher defense weaker offense is fine with me. I was just wondering what that dug-in value really meant.

I wonder if there should be a tech that represents better trench fortifications and techniques that gives a bonus to land fortresses, much like the base defense doctrine in vanilla HOI gives a +25% coastal fort efficiency bonus.
 
Originally posted by Johan Elisson
I'll answer some of the ideas here, as johnscorndogs says, fortresses is out of the question. acetime's idea to give like 100 defense to units isn't really a serious idea, right? Adding "dug-in" bonuses, replacing AA, giving "entrench" options or anything else that means modifying something that is not in any modifyable files would be impossible if you aren't really, really, really good at programming.

As Allenby says, high defense (not 100 though), low attack gives the wanted effect. You'll all see for your selves when the mod is released. No worry! :)

/Johan
Click to expand...

I was just exaggerating the 100 defense value but what I wanted to elaborate on was a huge disproportionality between attack and defense values.

By the end of the war, new artillery doctrines could simulate a huge increase in attack values for the allies to simulate their historical breakthroughs. Although histrorically their breakthroughs didn't occur because of any doctrine changes, but because they just had a lot more artillery and ammunition to have sustained and effective bombardments of the enemy positions.
 
lowering the attack values and highering the defense doesn't seem like a great compromise,but I understand that the modders are capable of only so much. If possible, during the first 2 or 3 weeks of the war attack and defense values should stay like they are in HOI. After that an event could change the attack and defense values to simulate the stalemate that happened after the German blundered their chance to take Paris.
 
my suggestion would be extremely high org values, i'm not sure if there's a limit, but if there isnt, try for around 1000 min. (i.e. reg infantry w/out upgrades have org of 1000)

and for the breakthroughs... try "Obscenely large numbers of massive guns artillery doctrine"
 
Is it possible to increase the "dug-in" bonus 5 or 10 times? This would place the advantage in the defense, unlike normal HoI where it is on th offense and counter-attacks.

If that doesn't work, I guess giving high org values as well as lowering the attack values should suffice. Although too low and then it fails to simulate the thousands and thousands of lives lost in each engagement.
 
I think it is imperative that the modders try to find the most comfortable link between what is possible in the game and what really happened. Higher Organisation for all troop types (more for dug in units) should be added to the game. With more Org the longer the battles will last and the higher and faster the casualties will mount (ie RL). Although no matter what the end product is, I guess we have to remember that the modders are building a WWI static defence and defence in depth with a WWII Blitzkrieg type game system. We wish you good luck :)
 
Maybe it would be easier to enhance the benefits of the existing levels of "Dug In" rather than adding levels.


Also it would be cool if attackers could also get "Dug In" bonuses in protracted fights. Although that type of stuff might not be editable.


EnPeaSea
 
Remember that increasing the grounddefense rating will in effect lengthen battles. It will not substantially give the defender a bonus as grounddefense is used by both the defender and the attacker to ward of hits from soft/hard attack.
To some degree it will probably help, since effectivenes is generally greater for the defender.

Is it possible to change the terrain bonuses/penalties? If so then theres your answer. Give the attacker an extra 30% (or so) penalty in all terrain types.
 
I'm not sure about changing the effect of terrain bonuses and penalties, I'm sure someone else has the know-how to answer the question.

In any case, lengthening battles whilst not giving the defender substantial bonuses would probably be realistic. It should be remembered that on several occasions on the Western Front when the British and French attacked, they often inflicted more casualties than they sustained: for example, German casualties were higher than British casualties at the Somme, Cambrai and Third Ypres - arguably British 'victories'.

Having said that, these battles did not gain much territory, which is why the modification should aim at having battles that last more than a few days, preferably a month or so, resulting in attrition on the enemy, not territory captured.

Haig-minded like players should feel content after a battle, not at having captured territory, but causing great loss for the opposing side.
 
Originally posted by Allenby
Haig-minded like players should feel content after a battle, not at having captured territory, but causing great loss for the opposing side.
Click to expand...

Allenby,

I thought it was Falkenhayn who came up with that clever idea for Verdun. He wanted to bleed those Frenchies white. The only problem was the numbers of casualties were about equal by the end of the battle.

If only he had another 100,000 men, and another 120,000 after that and so on, and so on...
 
According to this site:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~wausie/Somme.html

Allied losses at Somme was around 620000 versus 450000 German.
While this one:
http://www.first-world-war.com/battle_of_the_somme.htm

Says 615000 vs. 500000. So I dont really agree with you on that one.

Cambrai was won primarily due to tanks, with losses being fairly equal 44-45000 allied vs. 45-50000 German casualties.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/cambrai.htm
http://www.1914-1918.net/bat21.htm

Third Ypres cost more allied than german losses as well (300-310000 vs. 250-260000)

http://207.36.165.81/battles/ypres3.htm
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/comment/ypres3.html

It seems to me that your three "victories" were victories mostly due to minimal landgain and not victories in the sense of disparate losses inflicted on th enemy.

In all cases losses were not very different so I will accept your argument that a high ground defense will be good.
 
The point regarding losses is that the combined population of Britain, France and Russia was over twice that of Germany and Austria, so as long as they kept losses to under that ratio, they'd win in the end. Even if it came down to the last German soldier fighting the last two Allies...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back