The Italian problem. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Commander - The Great War



Message

ulver -> The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 10:14:30 AM)

The Italian problem.

Shouldn’t Italy get to move first when she enters the war? Currently the Central Powers gets to react first on the Italian front meaning they get to walk unopposed into Milan after smashing the Northernmost Italian army.

This seems counter intuitive, not to mention very a historical. In every single game where I play the Central Powers I have used the same opening move against Italy. If the Anglo-French doesn’t have 3-4 armies ready to come to Italy’s aid imminently she will be in a fight for her life. If they do the Central Powers establish a defensive line behind the river – Venice-Milan. It doesn’t even require any serious Central Powers commitment since you can just use the forces needed to hold the frontier anyway. If the Italians moved first they could defend themselves much better and historically they did.


[image]local://upfiles/4201/E741BEF558F84B3CB803882BA880B1F5.jpg[/image]
Standard opening move against Italy – The Central Powers walk into an undefended Milan.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 10:26:20 AM)

This is true - although a better title for the thread would have been the Italian and Romanian problem.

For Italy, read Romania. It makes perfect sense (assuming, as is the case 99% of the time) that Serbia has been finished off, for Bulgaria to attack Romania, which, with her fixed starting positions, means annihalation for the latter around Bucharest and then a mopping up job in the north thereafter.

As ulver says, countries that declare war should choose where they are going to fight before the declaration.



JJKettunen -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 10:27:03 AM)

Better initial deployment would solve the problem, and it is pretty easy to do.



ulver -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 10:33:02 AM)

Actually it sort of make sense for Rumania as they were historically deployed in pretty much the worst thinkable way and proceeded to launch a plan 17-style suicidal attack stripping their frontier against Bulgaria bare allowing the almost uncontested capture of their capital.

Arguable entering the war made the Entente's position much worse than if they had just stayed neutral.

Would be nice if there was a pup-up box. "Country X has offered to enter the war on your side. Do you want them to declare war now?" With a recurrent option to ask them to wait a turn.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 10:39:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

Actually it sort of make sense for Rumania as they were historically deployed in pretty much the worst thinkable way and proceeded to launch a plan 17-style suicidal attack stripping their frontier against Bulgaria bare allowing the almost uncontested capture of their capital.

Arguable entering the war made the Entente's position much worse than if they had just stayed neutral.

warspite1

How does it make sense?

So regardless of whether the Bulgarians are all in Turkey (or wherever) or all in Bulgaria, manning the borders about to attack; regardless of what the position is in Russia, the set up should be the same?



ulver -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 10:49:57 AM)

It kind of makes sense that the Rumanian are terribly deployed allowing the Central Powers to overrun them with ease because that is what happened historically. It makes no sense that the same is true for Italy. Mind you I would prefer an option to have them deploy before they enter the war. Ideally you should gain control over a country on the turn prior to it entering the war.



JMass -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 10:59:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

It kind of makes sense that the Rumanian are terribly deployed allowing the Central Powers to overrun them with ease because that is what happened historically. It makes no sense that the same is true for Italy. Mind you I would prefer an option to have them deploy before they enter the war. Ideally you should gain control over a country on the turn prior to it entering the war.


+1



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 10:59:54 AM)

But this comes back to the argument - do you want a historical simulation or a fun, challenging game (albeit one that is based on an historical framework)?

The more set-in-stone elements there are to a game, the less longevity it has. The challenge should be; right, I have Romania joining me, its units are not very clever, but I am going to do what I can with them given the circumstances of the game I'm in at present (and of course the opponent has the same challenge from the other direction).

Edit: Spelling



Ralzakark -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 1:16:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

Ideally you should gain control over a country on the turn prior to it entering the war.



This seems very sensible. To me a historical deployment only makes sense if a) the war has progressed exactly as happened up to that point and b) the player plans to do exactly what the military chiefs planned to do historically.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 1:24:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark


quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

Ideally you should gain control over a country on the turn prior to it entering the war.



This seems very sensible. To me a historical deployment only makes sense if a) the war has progressed exactly as happened up to that point and b) the player plans to do exactly what the military chiefs planned to do historically.
warspite1

Exactly - see post 8.



Amaranthus -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/5/2013 1:56:45 PM)

I agree about the trade-off between historical realism and game balance, but I think that can be maintained and more flexibility (and less predictability) given by allowing either the neutral country 1 turn to maneuver, or better still, to turn the neutral country over the player at some point with the option of declaring war when they are good and ready - no time period set.

They may even exercise their right NOT to enter the war, if it seems like it will be more trouble than it's worth (possible, e.g. by requiring troops from other nations to help defend a frontier). I really don't see a problem with this - so what if Italy never decides to enter? (because the Entente player doesn't want that front). It just creates a lot of interesting 'what ifs'.



pat.casey -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/6/2013 5:06:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark


quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

Ideally you should gain control over a country on the turn prior to it entering the war.



This seems very sensible. To me a historical deployment only makes sense if a) the war has progressed exactly as happened up to that point and b) the player plans to do exactly what the military chiefs planned to do historically.


Agree. This seems sensable.



Forwarn45 -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/7/2013 3:48:59 AM)

I like the suggestion that the side a country plans to join be allowed control over their troops one turn before they join the war. This allows limited redeployment of the country's troops to adapt to current circumstances.

I don't like the idea that you have the option of whether a country joins your side. Historically, I just don't think it makes sense. When the Italians were good and ready to join the Entente, they did. I can't imagine the Central Powers or Entente would (or even could) have said "no thanks" to any country prepared to join its side.



Aurelian -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/7/2013 6:20:43 AM)

Having just lost both Rumanian capitals before they even moved, a historical deployment makes no sense, since the CP can maneuver around it.



Amaranthus -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/7/2013 8:59:45 AM)

There are definitely reasons why you might not want to open a front.

The Italians can need French support to hold the line early (depending on the CP position) - what if the French forces are more valuable elsewhere? The Romanian example is another good one - if they could delay entry, then the CP could not afford to post troops indefinitely at their border (they could always have the option of declaring war anyway, of course).

What if the Germans, or Russians, wanted to bide their time to build up their forces/tech? It would lead to some interesting variants, I think, and give the game longevity. It is also simple for the other side to 'force their hand' at any time by simply declaring war. So it's a win-win situation to me.



FOARP -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/7/2013 2:58:12 PM)

Basically allied countries should only join the allies during the allied turn. Having them join the allies at the start of the Central Powers turn means that the Central Powers get to storm through against un-upgraded level-1 divisions with no effective opposition. It's possible to take both of Romania's capitals in the first turn - historically this took four months.



FOARP -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/7/2013 3:09:28 PM)

First off, it really doesn't make sense that a country declaring war on another doesn't get to move first - a declaration of war gives the attacker the chance to launch a surprise attack. Italy should only declare war during the allied turn, same with Romania. As it is, the Central Powers player gets to storm in against un-upgraded units. It's possible to capture both Romanian capitals within the first turn, meaning that Romania never really gets into the war - historically this took four months with almost everything going in the Central Power's favour.



Myrddraal -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/7/2013 3:20:54 PM)

Hey all, just to let you know that allowing Russia/Romania/Italy to take the first turn after DOW is on the patch list. Whether or not it makes the next patch isn't certain, but it's on the list.



Ralzakark -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/7/2013 4:11:29 PM)

Thanks!



FOARP -> RE: The Italian problem. (1/8/2013 5:28:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

Hey all, just to let you know that allowing Russia/Romania/Italy to take the first turn after DOW is on the patch list. Whether or not it makes the next patch isn't certain, but it's on the list.


Excellent. Over the years I've grown to appreciate the software houses that are dedicated to patching their games to address the concerns of their customers even after launch to create the (nearly) perfect product, and am quite happy to sustain them by buying DLC and expansions that give value for money. Paradox has a good reputation for doing this, and you guys seem to be of a similar type.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6582031