Fredcaillou Registered Member
Posts: 151
(2/10/06 4:33 pm) Reply
Serbia intial start up
Imp, well for the third time, I lost Serbia on turn one. Boromir confirmed it happened to him twice lately. I think it has to do with loosing the 2 ftrs. In all my lost battles, this was the case. I suggests you remove the Serbian ftr and also remove 1 Austrian ftr so it hasn't have to much an advantage over the Russians later on.
What do you think?
boromir Field Marshall
Posts: 342
(2/11/06 7:31 pm) Reply
Re: Serbia intial start up
I confirm that I lost both AH ftrs, but in my cases, I still won the battle with reasonable success.... losing those FTRs is very annoying and even debilitating, but doesn't happen that often, does it?
there is something like an 85% chance of at least one AH ftr surviving the battle, 10% the Serbian FTR living, and 5% of all three destroyed
jwlbigdog Field Marshall
Posts: 335
(2/13/06 9:40 pm) Reply
Re: Serbia intial start up
It's not necessarily imperative that Serbia falls on round 1. If it doesn't go well, you always have round 2 to finish the job. You should be able to at least weaken the Serbs to prevent any singificant counter-attack. Russia can't do major damage to you if the attack fails, even though you're set back a round or two. An all-infantry purchase should give you enough fodder to decimate the Serbians on AH2, provided you didn't wipe yourself out on the road to Belgrade.
Historically, despite the fact that AH crushed the Serbian army initially, Belgrade did not fall until 1915.
boromir Field Marshall
Posts: 344
(2/13/06 10:07 pm) Reply
Re: Serbia intial start up
the specific example that has lead to this thread includes $12 spent on AH1 on techs, and losing the Serbia battle fairly badly.
I expect Denis should have pulled out sooner... anyway.. having no new units to fill out the lines sure makes it appear worse.
in my occasionally humble opinion AH should not try more than 1 tech roll on turn 1.. they need more bodies on the ground. I usually roll air tech - a '1' there would sure alter the Serbian dogfight, eh?
Imp's Right Hand
Posts: 1080
(2/14/06 3:20 pm) Reply
Re: Serbia intial start up
I concur with Pete. In fact, I would go one step further and suggest that Austria attempt no techs on turn 1. There is plenty of time to tech for Austria later.
Also, as a side note, the game was really flawed when Austria obliterated Serbia (prior to Serbia's new unit deployment). This led immediately to Austria becoming THE dominant power in the game very easily and very quickly. Serbian defensive forces where bolstered to provide attrition on Austrian forces. Which, at times, doesn't even work now. On top of that some Austrian forces were removed as well.
Let us also not forget that Austria quite often will succeed in a generic diplomacy attempt. This easily adds to their forces and can make the Serbian battle even more lopsided. This situation must be taken into account when dealing with the Serbian attack.
All in all though, the entire Austrian front is rather stable. Russia and/or Austria can still manage to sway the balance to their side quickly, but not as easily anymore. Russia used to not stand a snowballs chance in Hades, now that has changed. Either Russia or Austria/Germany can now excel based on combat choices and rolls of the dice. Making for a much more enjoyable game.
Stimp
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The more is given, the less people will work for themselves, and the less they work, the more their poverty will increase."
- Leo Tolstoi (1892)
Fredcaillou Registered Member
Posts: 152
(2/14/06 9:26 pm) Reply
Agree but...
Ok, so it was a mistake to try so much tech dev. But then again, what happened next also hurt AUstria, Russia got generic dip. win so Romania joined the frey.
So even if I did not try as much tech rolls and had pulled out sooner, I still would be facing more than 20 Russian units in Serbia after Russia's round 1. I agree, i did take a risk, an unpleasant risk. But then again, I never thought I would get that much bad rolls against Serbia. So, even if I do take much of the blame, I don't think Austria can afford to be beaten in the Dogfight. This is the flaw.
And yes Stimp, I remembre initial rounds when Serbia was flatened. This is why i would remove 1 Austrian ftr (and of course the one to Serbia).
Denis
boromir Field Marshall
Posts: 344
(2/15/06 3:05 am) Reply
Re: Agree but...
lots of conditions in this particular game adding up to a huge AH problem.... many of which had nothing to do with the dogfight (such as tech rolls, not pulling out of battle, Russian dip rolls)
however, the fact remains that losing the dogfight should not normally cripple AH - yet can occasionally do so.
Imp's Right Hand
Posts: 1082
(2/15/06 5:26 am) Reply
Re: Agree but...
I think you guys are both overlooking something here.
First, it is possible that AH never loses that dogfight. AH can attack with 2 ftrs vs. 1 ftr. If they lose 1 ftr and the Serbs lose none, then AH can retreat their fighter and thus, never lose both of them in the dogfight.
Secondly, AH can win that battle with a 75% chance of victory even if you never bring a fighter. The typical battle would then be: 7 inf 3 car 2 rtl vs. 7 inf (ent) 2 car 1 rtl 1 ftr. This results in success for AH roughly 65-75% of the time with 4 or more units surviving depending on when the defender wants to lose their fighter.
Lastly, if you remove the defending fighter, you automatically give AH aerial spotting. By doing this you jump AH's ability to take Serbia to around 85% with 6 or more units. Which is a HUGE advantage to the CP forces and is more detrimental to game play than the more reserved chance of the battle going awry for the Austrians.
As it stands now, even if you didn't even want to risk losing an AH fighter, the battle is still highly in favor of AH winning and keeping almost all of their offensive units.
Stimp
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The more is given, the less people will work for themselves, and the less they work, the more their poverty will increase."
- Leo Tolstoi (1892)
Fredcaillou Registered Member
Posts: 153
(2/15/06 6:01 pm) Reply
This is the point
Exactly Stimp!, 75 % without the ftrs. So this is why I boldly went for the Tech dev (all 4) and sent in my 2 ftrs. Not only did I loose my 2 ftrs, got no tech gains, but on top of that I managed to loose the battle which incidently inclueded 2 inf from Bosnia to be safe. So, your argument of probability is in fact a reason why I think this should be changed! It has happened to me 3 times that I've lost the initial dog fights and this was the prelude to me loosing Serbia.
Listen, I do agree that AH must not become to strong after Serbia, but being on the loosing end at turn 1 doesn't make any more sens to me. I feel strongly about the removall so to give the spoting advantage for AH.
BTW, since it would have been a sneak attack, the Serbian air force would probably be sitting on the ground at the time of agression.
boromir Field Marshall
Posts: 345
(2/15/06 6:18 pm) Reply
Re: This is the point
point to ponder:
the probabilities do not change simply because one (or more) of us has had a string of bad luck in that battle. The probabilities suggest things are just fine as is.
A few bad games mean only that we've had a few bad games.
poop happens - in this case a lot all at once, it seems.
Imp's Right Hand
Posts: 1083
(2/15/06 8:43 pm) Reply
Re: This is the point
Quote:the probabilities do not change simply because one (or more) of us has had a string of bad luck in that battle. The probabilities suggest things are just fine as is.
A few bad games mean only that we've had a few bad games.
poop happens - in this case a lot all at once, it seems.
Exactly my point.
Furthermore, adding more to the attacker, or subtracting from the defender has the effect of greatly skewing the battle in AH's favor...which it is already in.
As for Denis' comments regarding why he went for 4 techs, and the resultant outcome. Since 3 battles in 10 will have less than desired results, it makes all the more sense to NOT go for techs on AH1 and instead spend all that cash on land forces...8 inf, 1 rtl. Its called hedging ones bets
The bottom line is that one would really have a hard time setting the battle up to damage AH enough, but not hurt them too badly every single time. The game is about odds and playing them in your favor as often as possible. The battle is set up so that if AH uses all available forces they can beat up on Serbia way more than naught. At the same time, this doesn't allow them to expand in other directions, which is where the game used to be. Austria is forced into fighting Serbia by game design and historical context. The dice provide alternate history, both good and bad.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The more is given, the less people will work for themselves, and the less they work, the more their poverty will increase."
- Leo Tolstoi (1892)
boromir Field Marshall
Posts: 346
(2/15/06 8:47 pm) Reply
Re: This is the point
Stimpy does raise a good point that AH doesn't benefit much from any of the techs (excapt maybe interupters) on turn 1 anyway.
I guess it's all a big question of risk vs. reward.
I like to plan my tech spending on something i can use now, or something my ally can pig-back on to the greater benefit of all.
(why am I turning this into a discussion about selective teching?)
Boromir
Fredcaillou Registered Member
Posts: 154
(2/16/06 2:40 pm) Reply
Serbia's ftr
OK guys, I'm not going to let this down so easy. Both of you have much comment to make on my decision of Tech dev. Fair enough. It was a risk, I lost, I assume it. No problems, it was part of my game plan anyway. So let this part of the discussion out of this topic.
My point is not on how well or badly I played AH1, it is about game balance. Stimp is correct, I prefer the way Serbia is defending itself now. But I still think the Serbs initial ftr is a probability flaw. Nobody commented on my surprise attack comment, which stated that a surprise AH attack would have given no chance historicaly to the Serbian Ftr in any war (remember Pearl harbor, etc.). What I want is for the Serbian ftr to be dropped, not a discussion on tactics or dice rolling.... And for the game balance I did propose to remove 1 AH ftr. Could we stay on line with this point. .
Both of you haven't convinced me on this point. If need be, you could argument that, in such a case we should add 1 or 2 inf to Serbia, No problem man. My objective is not to make AH a supreme superpower. But to have an almost 90 to 95 % probability of taking out Serbia (with much damage in some cases). To me, it is Historically and tacticaly wrong to have the Russian gaining Serbia after turn 1 for the same reason as AH used to win so easily prior to augmenting Serbia's initial defence capability. In my gaming experience, yes I did get bad rolls, but I did experience loosing both ftr to many times.
Denis Edited by: Fredcaillou at: 2/16/06 2:46 pm
boromir Field Marshall
Posts: 345
(2/16/06 3:44 pm) Reply
Re: Serbia's ftr
Denis:
Well, we may harp about tech rolls, but you keep brining up the point that you keep losing your FTRs (a rare thing statistically). We need also to remove that anacdotal comment from this discussion if the point is to determine if the Serbian setup is balanced.
YOu do raise interesting points about adding more INF, and removing the FTR. Interestingly, adding 1Inf(t) and removing the FTR would, in most cases, add to the Serbian defence (an extra defending 2 instead of a 1)
Perhaps we should revisit the root reasoning (by IMp) as to why the setup is as it is.
Imp's Right Hand
Posts: 1084
(2/16/06 5:48 pm) Reply
Re: Serbia's ftr
Quote:Perhaps we should revisit the root reasoning (by IMp) as to why the setup is as it is.
The root reasoning to having a Serbian fighter is because without it, the Austrians are guaranteed to have aerial spotting for no risk. So you are not just removing a defending unit, but you are also converting all attacking AH infantry units to attack in round 1 at a '2' instead of the normal '1'. This was an inherent flaw in the early game and had much greater effect to the early game than seems to be assumed thus far.
As it stands, Austria can attack with 2 ftrs vs. 1 ftr to achieve aerial dominance. Austria has no chance of losing their entire airforce unless the Austrian player chooses to take that chance because after losing 1 ftr, the Austrian player can elect to retreat only air units from combat. Thus Austria is left with only a ground battle against Serbia, which as mentioned is a highly successful proposition by itself.
The comment Denis makes regarding the surprise attack on Serbia eleminating their air defense is a misleading argument. Denis, you use the argument of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but that isn't an equitable point:
You are comparing with a single battle (Pearl) vs. the conquest of a large country/region (Serbia). Japan did not conquer the entire US and the battle in Japan would have no effect on air units in say California. Serbia did not capitulate in one climactic battle as your point (Pearl) insinuates.
The battle of Pearl could just as easily be illustrated as saying that the attack by Japan was decisively so because the US rolled bad dice. Sneak attacks are not illustrated any better in such a game other than as the results of what the dice offered. The defending American units were not as severely outmatched as the real-life results illustrated. Therefore had the US knew of the impending attack, they could have been more prepared which could result in good dice in game terms
When Germany blind-sided Russia in WWII was the Russian airforce as equally rendered useless as you describe for the US?...no
The results of the battle you are suggesting in Serbia could simply infer that Serbia was not as blindsided by Austria as which was historically occurred. Again, the results of the battle (dice rolls) can describe what occurred in hindsight.
In TGW, the German navy demolishes the British navy almost every time. This did not happen in real life, shall we then script this battle as well by reducing the number of German naval vessels?
The short of it Denis is that TGW starts prior to the actual invasion of Serbia in WWI. As such, the results of that battle in game time can and should vary. The only scriptedness of this battle is that it is forced to occur by Austria on Turn 1. Perhaps Serbia is not as unprepared this time around? What about next game?
As far as game balance is concerned. Then we are out of the realm of "historical accuracy." Game balance insinuates an enjoyable and competitive balance between the sides. The epitome of which is Chess or Stratego. With dice, you enevitably have chance. The status quo of the Austrian/Serbian battle was altered to achieve this balance and I believe it is as close as you are going to get and still get the flavor of the game. While Serbia historically lost the battle, the war between Austria and Serbia was very bloody and indeed in TGW it can be.
I hope this helps to clarify the situation a bit more.
Stimp
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The more is given, the less people will work for themselves, and the less they work, the more their poverty will increase."
- Leo Tolstoi (1892)
jwlbigdog Field Marshall
Posts: 337
(2/20/06 4:44 am) Reply
Re: Serbia's ftr
Stimpy again makes the point that I made in my last post on this thread: Serbia put up one heck of a fight. They were rolled over in the initial battle, but ran a successful campaign for another two years before the country fell completely. The Austrians were hampered significantly by this, enough that Galicia fell to the Russians in the same time frame.
I just don't get the argument for getting rid of the Serbian fighter. All you're saying, in effect, is that one fighter has beaten my two fighters two or three straight times. We know from simple mathematics that this is a statistical aberration. Why are you using this (obviously) skewed result as a basis for changing the setup once again?
We ran the results when the changes were first proposed. I personally simulated over 100 battles. The Austrians won the dogfight about as the probability would suggest, about 2 or 3 to 1. The land battle went to the Austrians about 3 or 4 to 1, if I remember correctly. There's room for error, but you can still win even if the fighters fail. You have to plan for that. You also need to have enough infantry ready for a second wave. Yes, I've seen games over in 3 rounds because Austria didn't plan for a Serbian hold on AH1. If Russia gets a diplomatic success, then Austria is going to fall behind early. That is only logical. Austria was not strong enough to have fought Serbia, a minor neutral, and Russia on their own hook. If this happens, Germany has to focus eastward at the start.
Bottom line: What you describe doesn't happen much. When it does, it's still within historical context (actually moreso) of the war. Serbia should keep Austria busy for a couple of rounds before she turns northward to deal with the Russian bear.
Edited by: jwlbigdog at: 2/20/06 4:48 am
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies