Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

I usually put 4 chits into trench warfare pretty quick for all nations. If you spread out your research into too many things you will lose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

Tanaka, I know your asking this because of our current game with you as Central Powers..its mid 1917...and your still struggling with some aspects of your research, particularly entrenchments.

For the Germans, get invest into S&I and trenches..even incrementally, as early as possible. The UK already has one chit in S&I, and I for one always invest more into that so I can impede the Germans. It hurts to do this early with all the disasters that befall the western Entente, but the long term ramifications can be a huge problem for Germany (and the rest of her allies consequently.

For Germany (and everyone else btw), max out your entrenchment chits if possible. While it may seem counter intuitive to do this for Germany, who has to be offensive minded always somewhere in Europe...you will need to have superior entrenchments than your enemies for two primary reasons:

1) Defensive; Germany cannot be on the offensive on all fronts. So the fronts where you wish to hold with a smaller number of troops defensively (while you pursue an offensive on another front) must have the strongest entrenchments possible, especially if coupled with favorable terrain.

2) Offensive; Where you are pushing an offensive, you will want to hold new ground as strongly as possible against counter attack. Since this is WW1, it may seem like a slow crawl...and it is! But, with good quality entrenchments, you can push and hold new ground sequentially. It may be a few months before another push is made on another sector of the front, but this is how entrenchment-maneuver operations can be successful by making salients and/or encroachments on key objectives.

Also, Chernobyl, in his post, spelled it out in a nutshell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bavre

Yes definitely!
Some techs (Arty, trenches) are so immensely powerful you need them asap at any cost.

However I am not really sure I fully grasp chit stacking:
It gives you (avg) 5% per chit and every tech advance consumes 1 chit, right?
This would make investing multiple chits extremely powerful. Chit 1 gives you 5% till techlvl 1, chit 2 gives you 5% all the way till techlvl 2, meaning chit 2 gives double the benefit. Investing a third would yield tripple the benefit etc ...
Am I overlooking something here? Do the additional chits get somehow penalized?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

To illustrate I am playing a game right now where it's early 1916. As Germany I have 4/5 Trench Warfare already researched and I still have 3 chits working on the last tech.

As far as I know there are no diminishing returns for investing multiple chits into one tech, even when it comes to the chance for a breakthrough (they all add equally to that chance).

Early research is worth way more than late research. And because mid game and later research is more constrained by the research limit than the lack of MPP, finishing off a single tech earlier means you get to dump more MPP into other techs earlier.

Also be aware that certain nations (Russia, Austria, Ottomans) all research higher level techs more slowly. They depend more on bonuses (sharing, opponent's tech level) than other nations to finish those last techs. Or to put it another way, getting that last trench warfare for Austria or Russia might take longer than you would expect for UK or Germany.

As Germany I generally go for this:
4x Trench Warfare (reinvest to 4 chits when you advance a level)
2x Artillery Weapons (reinvest to keep two chits to finish off level 2)
3x Industrial (probably reinvest to keep 3 chits at least once or twice)
3x Gas/Shell Production (probably reinvest once, I haven't found a slight delay to level 3 to be absolutely critical)
2x Spy/Intel (reinvest once, or possibly go 3x)
1x Infantry Weapons

Infantry Weapons is a special case because you can only invest one chit and it is very important but takes a long time to come online. I usually go Infantry Weapons sometime in the middle of getting all the above.

Only AFTER I get all that do I invest 2 German chits into C&C. This is despite C&C being an extremely useful and strong tech. Luxury techs are Production Tech and 3x Aerial Warfare preparing for de-entrenching bombers. Production Tech is okay late game cause it reduces your NM loss somewhat. And then maybe tanks? I'm not sure honestly what is the strongest of the late game stuff.

The above represents my current opinions but I'm by no means the sole authority. I have been known to be mistaken occasionally :)

Bonus Tip: If you are at 97-99% complete on a tech you have multiple research chits invested in, you can cancel all but one and immediately get half your money back on those, letting you research more right away. You'll still finish that tech at the end of your turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


Wow nice tips! Is that last one considered a cheat that should be fixed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

It seems a bit weird to me that players are investing 4 chits in Trench Warfare at the very beginning of the game when the armies are fighting a "war of movement" and are not expecting to entrench. I also find it odd that whole areas of Tech can be ignored and a player can still win. I would have expected the challenge in the game to be to generally advance your Tech on a broad front, and have 2-3 priorities for each particular nations (e.g. subs and airships for Germany, tanks for France etc). I think it would probably be better if a maximum purchase of investment chits was set at 2 for everything (except for those categories already restricted to 1 chit) and players could not buy excess chits beyond the maximum total achievable to speed along various Tech advances (so you could not have 2 chits to speed along the final level of research).

What I am picking up from a number of players now who play MP is that the way to win is to focus on a quite limited range of Techs and use them to win the war. What with completely OTT artillery fire, micro-landings and "weird diplomacy" as well, it is really putting me off playing MP at all (apart from the fact that once I start losing badly, and I will at first, I am not really going to want to carry on playing the same game for the next 6 weeks!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dazo

Hi everyone,

Chernobyl as indeed shown efficient research investments for Germany, there are some variations depending on your strategy of course but it's hard to go wrong with that.

I'd like to point out some things that needs to be considered about spreading reasearch chits a bit more:

If you have say 4 chits on the same tech, you can only have 1 breakthrough per turn.
If you have 4 chits on 4 techs (1 each), you have 4 chances to get a breakthrough each turn.

And you also need to balance the cost of techs with the number of chits invested, that's why trench tech is an early favorite (low cost, no upgrade cost, quick return).

Lastly you have to consider the seasons as it's more interesting to invest in tech during summer than during winter.
Less turns in winter so you have to buy units to have them ready for spring. More turns in summer means more chances to advance your tech each month.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


Wow nice tips! Is that last one considered a cheat that should be fixed?

No...not a cheat. You will get that minimum 3% progression with the one chit.

Side note: Once you have maxed out a research to its fullest level..it will show a red number on the research table. However, you want to double check to see if there are extra chits still on that que. You can redeem them at 50% just as you can if you needed money and redeemed one before the research was complete.

Chernobyl was illustrating his supra-optimal skills with this particular subject

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bavre

The breakthrough optimization is indeed a reason to spread out a bit. However certain techs give such a bonkers power spike that imho getting them asap outweights some net loss in overall research speed. Best examples are arty 1's deentrenchment and trenches 1, which is the first to enable instant entrenchment on normal fields.
And lets not forget the snowballing that some key techs trigger. For example: advanced Arty with good shell production quickly gives a lot of xp to the commanding HQ, both through to artys many shots and the easy follow ups of the inf, thereby considerably buffing the entire army group.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

What I am picking up from a number of players now who play MP is that the way to win is to focus on a quite limited range of Techs and use them to win the war. What with completely OTT artillery fire, micro-landings and "weird diplomacy" as well, it is really putting me off playing MP at all (apart from the fact that once I start losing badly, and I will at first, I am not really going to want to carry on playing the same game for the next 6 weeks!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Are you able to provide any examples of the weird diplomacy you've mentioned here?

Thanks

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

It seems a bit weird to me that players are investing 4 chits in Trench Warfare at the very beginning of the game when the armies are fighting a "war of movement" and are not expecting to entrench. I also find it odd that whole areas of Tech can be ignored and a player can still win. I would have expected the challenge in the game to be to generally advance your Tech on a broad front, and have 2-3 priorities for each particular nations (e.g. subs and airships for Germany, tanks for France etc). I think it would probably be better if a maximum purchase of investment chits was set at 2 for everything (except for those categories already restricted to 1 chit) and players could not buy excess chits beyond the maximum total achievable to speed along various Tech advances (so you could not have 2 chits to speed along the final level of research).

What I am picking up from a number of players now who play MP is that the way to win is to focus on a quite limited range of Techs and use them to win the war. What with completely OTT artillery fire, micro-landings and "weird diplomacy" as well, it is really putting me off playing MP at all (apart from the fact that once I start losing badly, and I will at first, I am not really going to want to carry on playing the same game for the next 6 weeks!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

Where do I begin to respond to statements like this, from someone who has never played a PVP match here with SC-WW1, but deigns to comment on how its being played in human to human matches currently.

Since I have been in 24 matches since Feb 2020, of which at least 20 were against what I would call intermediate to advanced opponents, I think I have a clearer idea of whats going on playing humans then you do. Also, some of us discuss game matters off the forums before we pop up here to opine. Also, I take screenshots..and have data to back up what I am saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

Where do I begin to respond to statements like this, from someone who has never played a PVP match here with SC-WW1, but deigns to comment on how its being played in human to human matches currently.

Since I have been in 24 matches since Feb 2020, of which at least 20 were against what I would call intermediate to advanced opponents, I think I have a clearer idea of whats going on playing humans then you do. Also, some of us discuss game matters off the forums before we pop up here to opine. Also, I take screenshots..and have data to back up what I am saying.

Oh dear. A bit "precious" about the game are we? How dare someone relatively new comment about how MP seems to them. Please read Tanaka's reply to my post. He also plays MP and he completely agreed with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor


I did read it

I also think you have excellent ideas. But your missing a dimension of this title that only could be experienced by actually doing a PvP...possibly you should consider doing a 'friendly' one in the future..house rules in particular if you prefer.

Also, I took your ideas and suggestions about the Trento deal and the Alta Adige and spent time running tests on it. You were definitely onto something there. If there is a change made by the dev's regarding that...you should get the credit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor


I did read it

I also think you have excellent ideas. But your missing a dimension of this title that only could be experienced by actually doing a PvP...possibly you should consider doing a 'friendly' one in the future..house rules in particular if you prefer.

Also, I took your ideas and suggestions about the Trento deal and the Alta Adige and spent time running tests on it. You were definitely onto something there. If there is a change made by the dev's regarding that...you should get the credit.

But your long post was very rude. And it is the second time that you have snapped at me. You need to stop doing it please.

I think most players who play any game, not just SC:WW1, only play SP. It is certainly true of the game I know the most about - Field of Glory 2 Ancients - where something like 80%+ only play SP. Despite this the most vocal people on the forum are overwhelmingly those who play MP and sometimes there is a danger that the SP experience is overlooked to a certain extent. So my post that you found so objectionable was just explaining how a player who so far has just played SP felt about making the transition to MP in SC:WW1. It may not be of interest to you, but I daresay Bill and Hubert might be able to match it up with what other players have said in the past about their games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Are you able to provide any examples of the weird diplomacy you've mentioned here?

Thanks

Bill

In one of my games against the AI I was able to buy 2 chits (300 MPP's) for Germany and this kept USA out of the war quite easily even though I had been doing unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917. I thought that was far too easy. Nearly every knows not to send the Zimmerman telegram too - maybe that shouldn't be a DE? Just make it so it happens 2 times out of 3 and USA belligerence rises correspondingly.

Really - "weird" means ahistorical diplomatic things like getting Switzerland into the war, or preventing Bulgaria from entering. Things that a new player to MP would not really cotton on to. I expect there are plenty of others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The manual makes it seem like your chance for a breakthrough depends on the # of chits invested. I assumed this means if I had 4 invested in one tech, I would get like a 20% chance per turn instead of like a 5% chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl
In any case even if that's not true (you only get a certain chance per tech type being researched) I wouldn't change my research strategy very much.

I don't really care very much about the seasons very much because usually there's a clear winner for a unit or a research you want to pick regardless of how fast it will come. I think I might try to sneak in buying an artillery piece or two in late 1914 (at the expense of some tech) just to get their shell supply increasing a little earlier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I agree that these are some of the most frustrating aspects of the WW1 game. These are big reasons why new MP players will get shredded...

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

(France's research is more robust but for security reasons I don't want to use her as an example)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Patrat

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

(France's research is more robust but for security reasons I don't want to use her as an example)

Interesting. Your research is not much different from mine when I play against the AI.

Biggest difference I see is no additional research in infantry warfare. When playing against the AI at the highest level, I find that infantry warfare is very useful against the highly experienced AI units that start the game with 2 bonus experience.

I assume that it's not so useful in PVP matches?