Tannenberg 1914

Tannenberg 1914

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tannenberg 1914

Quelques questions et réflexions sur le scénario :

- En tant que joueur russe j'ai fait une partie et l'IA allemande a concentrté ses troupes sur Tilsit avec Hindenburg et m'a laissé le champ libre pour le reste de la carte => victoire tour 5 aux points sans prendre Konigsberg.

- En tant que joueur allemand 

   - j'ai fait une partie où j'ai perdu aux points mais je ne m'xplique pas une chose : lors de son tour le russe IA a atteint 21 points, en tant qu'allemand je jouais après lui et je lui ai repris une ville-objectif (Loetzen) ce qui a fait baissé ses points de victoire à 17 à la fin du tour général et malgré ça le jeu lui a appliqué une victoire immédiate, ce que je n'ai pas compris (même si on peut continuer la partie c'est pas top :) ). Si vous puviez m'expliquer un peu :) .

   - une autre partie le joueur russe IA à groupé ses unités en 3 corps : presque toute la première armée, 2 divisions et un QG sur Loetzen et toute la deuxième armée => encerclement des 3 sans qu'ils ne réagissent et destruction par conséquent en 2 tours.

Pour cette deuxième partie en dehors du comportemnt ératique de l'IA, il me semble que les malus de non ravitaillement sont vachement forts (bie nsûr c'est pas la même chose si l'échelle du tour de jeu est 1 semaine ou 1 mois suivant les scénarios), ainsi il parait compliqué de simuler la résistance d'armées encerclées. Une baisse progressive des facteurs de combat serait peut-être plus réaliste (+ pts de mouvement pour les unités à pétrole). Il me semble avoir lu sur une autre discussion que vous travailliez dessus.


Bien à vous.


Some questions and thoughts on the scenario:

- As a Russian player I did a part and the German AI concentrated his troops on Tilsit with Hindenburg and left me the free field for the rest of the map => victory round 5 to the points without taking Konigsberg.

- As a German player - I did a game where I lost the points but I can not explain one thing: in his turn the Russian AI reached 21 points, as a German I played after him and I took him back a city-goal (Loetzen) which lowered his victory points to 17 at the end of the general round and despite that the game applied an immediate victory, which I did not understand (although we can continue the party is not great :)). If you can explain to me a little :).

- another part the Russian player AI grouped his units in 3 corps: almost all the first army, 2 divisions and a HQ on Loetzen and all the second army => encirclement of 3 without them react and destruction consequently in 2 turns. For this second part outside of the AI ​​practice, it seems to me that the penalties of non-refueling are really strong (well, it's not the same if the scale of the game turn is 1 week or 1 month according to the scenarios), so it seems complicated to simulate resistance or armies surrounded.

A gradual decline in combat factors may be more realistic (+ pts of movement for oil units). I seem to have read from another discussion that you were working on it.

Yours truly.

holon99's picture

I also noticed once that the game could award a victory to the side that reached a threshold during its turn though the final score was below that threshold.

With regard to the decrease of the capacity of the out of supply troops, it is violent but less radical than what used to be applied up to Nov2018. Units that started out of supply at T turn were dead if they were still unsupplied at T+1 in their supply phase. And this regardless of the duration of a turn. Whole stacks would disappear.This was the bane of the AI. Now the unsupplied units can still fight, attempt to break out, stand their ground and hope to be saved. According to the scale of the scenario, they take more or less time to die.


Strategiae's picture

I confirm that we have plans to improve the supply system. It will be done along more realistic lines, based on the already done works of last November


It sounds great.


I see I forgot to ask another question :

- with an army on a province with city or castle, what is the more efficient when there is an attack : stay outside of the city/castle and fight a classic battle in the landscape with no unit in city/castle or put the army in the city/castle and wait a siege ? (if i loose the army is destroyed but isn't it stronger ?)

- 2nd : Is it efficient to have unit as garrisons or is it a waste of time for them ?

- Shouldn't it worth to have a rule that obligate a player to stay some units in provinces with city/castle when he conquers it without conquering the city/castle because if there isn't units a garrison could attack supply lines and break it. I was wondering this because sometimes we take 1, 2 or 3 turns to succeed a siege without real units in the city/castle ans we are tempted to continue our way but its'nt very realistic to let enemy cities behind us without 1 unit mini to survey it.

I don't know if I'm very clear on this last point :D.

Strategiae's picture

Yes, many improvements need to be done on the AI behavior, especially on stacking and supply considerations. An improvement on the supply rules is underway too.

For the VP issue we shall check when the game actually does the processing (end of full turn or end of player turn)

Regarding sieges, we could probably switch some rules so that unblockaded fortress would cut supply, in that case the trick of just occupying the region to create a supply line would not work if the fortress was not left covered.

Keeping troops inside is a good move if some key conditions are met:

* the fortress defense level allows a good duration of siege (= low surrender chance)

* units inside would most certainly be crushed anyway by the enemy

In that case you would avoid losing VP in a field battle plus your force inside the fortress would remain a potential "nuisance" if sallying later in case the enemy is careless with the siege...




Thank you for answers.

"Regarding sieges, we could probably switch some rules so that unblockaded fortress would cut supply, in that case the trick of just occupying the region to create a supply line would not work if the fortress was not left covered." -> Great idea that sounds simple and efficient.