France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 923
Joined: Jul 08 2008

France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by mrgenie »

I always kept wondering how easily Germany could beat Russia and France in every game.

I noticed when I made alliances with them they kept their units in reserve although Germany beating the cr** out of them.

So I thought:'login as multiplayer and look at the settings'

and behold:"Initiative on Medium and Low" for France and Russia.

This is great for non-war time of course but they don't level up even at war!

Things change dramatically for Germany when I manually edited them to full initiative BOTH
to fight Germany and suddenly Germany got its a** kicked.


So I can't report this as a bug, as it's not a bug really. It's a setting. A setting I don't like!

Could you maybe add something in the code that countries actively go on full initiative while at war and back
to low if no war is imminent or medium when war is looming but not just yet.
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by Zuikaku »

Unit initiative??
Please teach AI everything!
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 923
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by mrgenie »

Zuikaku wrote:Unit initiative??
Under: DEFENSE - PRODUCTION
then: Battle Zone Controls

Under there are at the bottom 3 settings for "INITIATIVE"

I suppose it means "Unit Initiative" but I didn't report it
as such as the GUI of the game reports it just as "Initiative"

But I can see the confusion as there's also an "Initiative" under the
GLOBAL RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.

BattleGoat might rename these 2 "Initiatives" into something
less confusing :) Having the same name for 2 different settings is
confusing sometimes I suppose.
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
SoB
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 734
Joined: Sep 19 2007
Location: south of the banna rebublic

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by SoB »

I mean Germany is supposed to beat them. France needs the UK to win.
You plastic soldiers i will turn you in to real soldiers


CPO Mzinyati
way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 687
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by way2co0l »

That may be true, but it's still true that the default settings for this scenario aren't very well balanced. Unit initiatives start out low for several countries which prevents them from deploying their units at all, and others have different settings which handicaps their behavior so they don't use their forces as effectively as they should. Germany was a powerhouse at this time and had a very real chance of winning on multiple occasions, but when the AI simply can't use the forces they have then there's definitely a problem. I'm working on that for my mod, but it's possible that not everyone will like all of my choices and it's going to be awhile before it's really ready for general gameplay so I'd definitely encourage the devs to make some of the changes necessary to make the base sandbox perform better. I'm more than happy to give specific suggestions.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by YoMomma »

By now hasnt there been enough resources put in 36 and SRGW? Time for AI improvements which gonna effect all sandboxes and is for all players. Imho if US gonna be involved in the world in 2020, it should do the same in 36 or whatever you wanna call that period where Germany always win, because AI is bad at crossing water and US is too far away for calculations. Unless UK or US is played by a player ofcourse.
Gameplay 1st
way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 687
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by way2co0l »

I mean, I'm not opposed to serious AI improvements, especially when it comes to navies, in addition to many other things. It's just that those are much harder to implement and seem less likely. These kinds of changes have a better chance of being done.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by YoMomma »

Personally i find US being involved in the world a must have.

Besides that, they could easily implement economy settings in /forums/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=27670&sid= ... d6eabb67f7 topic and there is way less issues for AI with inflation and employment. I mean it wouldnt be more effort then changing something random as initiative for 3-4 regions basicly cheating the rest of the world.

Another easy improvement is reworking minister priorities on techs, so regions actually research synth rubber production and well priority on self sufficiency for rubber is essential else AI is doomed on the long run.
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by Balthagor »

I'm often amused when people without software development experience toss around the word "easy".
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 923
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by mrgenie »

SoB wrote: Jul 23 2018 I mean Germany is supposed to beat them. France needs the UK to win.
Ehm, no..IF like in Supreme Ruler, Poland, France, UK fight together not by a long shot Germany could have came that far in WWII

The conditions for the weak and puny Wehrmacht to conquer almost everything of Europe are very strict and Hitler knew that
and if they are not exactly like that the Wehrmacht would be pretty much beaten already before they could have build up
strength to fight Russia backed by the USA.
Some of the many "if":
- If Germany first takes on Poland without military interaction with the rest.
- Followed by smart tactics of getting behind the lines of France and UK and virtually cutting off large armies from supplies after almost 1 more year of preparations
- followed by help from Bulgaria, Italy, etc..
- Followed by waiting another year and building up before attacking the USSR
Under these circumstances Germany would win without US involvement yes and most likely would have beaten USSR and UK in the long run if US didn't come to the rescue of
Russia and UK.

But the game isn't made for the smart tactics Hitler made in the beginning of WWII and which made him think as lunatic as he was that he's god just pointing a finger and done.
Also they weren't just smart from him, mostly dumb or traitorous by the French and British governments that for whatever reason wanted the Germans to win.

In the game, Germany is many runs at war simultaneously with France and Russia (I'm not playing scenario but box and Germany declares war on all of them at once practically)
Also in the game UK forces are not present in France to help them, Uk sends in Units really late in the game.

At the outbreak of WWII the german invaders had 60 divisions, 6 brigades, 2750 tanks and 2300 aircraft ( 2 million army size in total)
Poland had 39 divisions, 16 brigades, 210 tanks, 400 aircraft, 670 smaller tanks (1 million troops)
Netherlands had 9 divisions, 1 tanks, 145 aircraft (280.000 men)
Belgium had 220.000 men, not sure exact structure but say 8 divisions
France had 144 divisions, twice as much guns as Germans, 4000 tanks , around 3000 aircraft and 3.300.000 million troops

let's forget about USSR for now.

When Hitler invaded Poland with his weak and pathetic army, France declared war on Germany
and what many people don't know they actually ordered 40 divisions, one armored, 3 mechanized, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions to invade Germany.
France attacked and invaded the Germans in the Saarland with success.

The Germans couldn't hold the lines. If the French had pushed into Germany they would have quickly been able to hold key regions on the other side of the rhine
and bridges to expand into Germany rapidly. Poor decisions by the French to halt the attack and retreat. From the rhine valley and crossed the Rhine France
could have been in the Ruhr-area within few weeks tops and conquer the heart of the German war machine.

But they called the retreat. Command ordered all french division to retreat and allow the German to build up more divisions, re-equip their army with
weapons and tanks from Poland. Build up a new striking force in the west. Order the Luftwaffe which was almost completely engaged in Poland to
take positions in the west. Without anyone hindering them allow them to build up..

That's the scenario where Germany could have won the western front: with the allowance of the French and British governments who obviously wanted
Germany to have the time to build up the western front, Germany took MONTHS for that!!

All this time, the over 3,5 million troops on the western front with their over 4000 tanks, 3000 aircraft could just have invaded the few (less then 240.000 troops)
wehrmacht on the western front which had under 300 planes and under 250 tanks at the western front.

Why British and France governments told their armies to stand down and wait for the Germans to finish the Polish and build up their western front
to slaughter British and french soldiers.. Dunno. I guess we never find out why Chamberlain hated all British and loved them all getting slaughtered by the Germans.
The hate against his own people however must have been insane.

I'm damn sure, if Churchill would have been in power on day one of the outbreak of the war in 1939..

Rest assured Germany would have been beaten already by July 1939!

Game over for Hitler.

But unfortunately Chamberlain is now dead so we can never ask him why he hated all the people in the UK and France that much that he loved to watch them all to die
at the hands of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. Also unfortunately no one in the UK ever thought about putting him on trial and ask him why he wanted all British to get slaughtered.

I really would love to hear his motives.

Same to the French leadership that wanted all of France to break down and fall in the hands of the *****. Why didn't they gave the order to beat the Wehrmacht and occupy western
Germany? We will never know.

When the dutch surrendered, 99% of the Dutch army was still intact!!!! They had made losses, I never seen a country giving up that fast.
The losses were absolutely minimal. But Dutch have a history of giving up: Srebrenica one of the many times the Dutch said:"oh, why fight, let the Americans do it for us!"

The bombing of Rotterdam they say was the reason for giving up... Are you kidding me!
That was after the surrender and 2nd 884 people killed..

are you kidding me!!! That war MILLIONS of Americans, Russians and once Churchill took over British and Polish and people from all over the world died.
Hundred of millions of people worldwide stepped up: Chinese, Russians, Indians, AMericans..

and the dutch give up even before the first bombing and with most of the dutch army still intact???


Seriously.. if Churchill would have been in power in 1939, Germany would have lost already in 1939.

So in the game, that can't factor in the betrayal of chamberlain and the french government who ordered the British and the French forces to let the Germans win, you just
gotta take the facts as they are and in a game scenario you just have to use the actual numbers and assume Chamberlain and French government won't betray their own countries
and simply order their huge armies a lot stronger as the Wehrmacht to attack the Wehrmacht and take 'm out!
Last edited by mrgenie on Jul 27 2018, edited 1 time in total.
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 923
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by mrgenie »

Balthagor wrote: Jul 26 2018 I'm often amused when people without software development experience toss around the word "easy".
Everything in life is easy. You are born, you eat, you **** and you die :)

No but you're right, my own software development I'm sometimes so stuck.. I fix one problem and create 2 new ones because fixing an issue in cpp file code line 2678
influences 8 other code lines in 3 other files which you can't see on your screen since you're working in 1 file..

and until you actually compile a lot of these "connections" within the code aren't visible to the programmer ..
So unless you have 100% of the code in your head, I think a person with an IQ of 500 might be able to do that,
you're pretty much out of options besides: compile, debug, run tests and see how it works.

which takes more time then a lifetime.

I do use the word "easy" myself though.. kicks me in the butt to keep on improving the code :) that's the main reason to consider things easy..

If I had to look at problems the way they are: "usually daunting tasks" I'd get depressed.. So I rather prefer to look at things optimistic, thus easy :)
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 923
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by mrgenie »

YoMomma wrote: Jul 26 2018 Personally i find US being involved in the world a must have.
Indeed, playing a 1914 box game the USA seems to conquer all of the Americas..

but doesn't seem to mind me conquering all of Africa, Russia, India, China, Japan, etc...

pretty weird the AI just le me go my way..

as fighting in Europe the other powers, the USA would have been the only power to stop me..

Now I'm too big and just absorb them if I want to
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 687
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by way2co0l »

mrgenie wrote: Jul 27 2018
SoB wrote: Jul 23 2018 I mean Germany is supposed to beat them. France needs the UK to win.
Ehm, no..IF like in Supreme Ruler, Poland, France, UK fight together not by a long shot Germany could have came that far in WWII
I believe he was talking about WW1, not WW2.
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 923
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by mrgenie »

oh, WWI forces were a bit different and more in favor of Germany yes.

But, if they could win?

They could only (without US aid again) win over France, UK because they had the support from Austria, Turkey and some other allies & the fact they managed to stage a coup
in Russia to get all troops from the eastern front released to move to the western front.

That nearly broke the alliance in the west and caused a German victory, didn't the US help them.

But SR at least the AI never seen him doing staging a coup to force the government to fall and sign a peace treaty..

So it would still be Germany, Austria & Allies in a different scenario where winning for the central powers is doubtful especially
since UK controlled the trade..

Germany bypassed that initially by importing through Dutch harbors but the English, without declaring war on the Netherlands, did blockade the Netherlands and even a few shots
were fired against a neutral country by the British...

This power the British had to just attack and blockade any neutral country in the world to prevent neutral countries to stay neutral and force them to become
slaves of the British empire I think would, hadn't the Russians signed a peace treaty, eventually lead to the fall of the German empire in WWI even without the USA.


Again, if the Russians never signed a peace treaty.

But peace treaty isn't factored in the game. So Germany from my point of view shouldn't be able to win neither WWI nor WWII if you just look
at the military production and the manpower
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 687
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: France, Russia, etc bad warfare?

Post by way2co0l »

Well, interestingly enough, both sides actually had numerous opportunities to end the war in their favor that they squandered for numerous reasons. The Great War documentary is seriously an awesome watch. But I'd argue that Germany really didn't get much from its allies in the war and was the single most powerful fighting force in the world at the time, without even the slightest question. Austria kinda proved to be more of a handicap to them than a help, not just from the poor state of their activities, but in the fact their feud with Italy ensured that they had plenty of reason to ignore the alliance and potentially turn on them for the promise of Austrian held territory. Germany ultimately had to send large numbers of forces to save the Austrians butts on numerous occasions and got very little out of it.

But the early German advantage was an extremely large one. They simply had better equipment which was also far more plentiful, a MASSIVE advantage in terms of artillery, and an equally massive advantage in terms of armaments production. I'd argue that there was a very real chance that they could have succeeded in their goals to smash France, turn on Russia, and leave England alone to resist. Even at sea, the British advantage was the smallest it had been in a very long time. Modern German ships were superior in many ways to their British counterparts, and they even technically won the few engagements that were fought at sea. Ultimately those engagements are considered more of a tie, if not a British victory, because ultimately the British succeeded in their goal to contain the German fleet, but the German fleet had several genuine opportunities to win even at sea if a few things had gone slightly differently.

Germany's issues ultimately boiled down to having the short end of the stick when it came to the allies it was able to attract. France and Russia were natural enemies, but England and Germany were particularly close at this time and they had some very real opportunities to attract England into an alliance but that ultimately didn't work out. Had the Germans not invaded Belgium, it's debatable whether or not England would have gotten involved, though I'd argue that they probably would have eventually anyway, but with the sheer superiority of German arms, particularly in artillery which quickly proved itself to be the absolute king of the battlefield in this war, that they very well might have been able to knock France out of the war before England might have made that choice.

Basically my view is that WW1 was Germany's war to lose, and they did. They squandered the early opportunities they had, failed to adjust to certain modern realities quickly enough, and simply failed to capitalize on the early advantages that they had. There were points where the French were broken and the Germans could have simply taken the victory, but delays allowed for the French to plug the gaps which turned it into the slug fest that would ultimately lead to Germany's defeat through attrition. Even despite this, Germany had multiple opportunities to end the war several more times, and obviously failed to capitalize on those as well for numerous reasons.

We look back on history and recognize that they lost and it often feels like it was an inevitability considering the sheer number of forces aligned against them, but their superiority at arms was simply beyond debate and it really just boiled down to failing to take advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves which sealed their fate. I contend that Germany SHOULD have won. They lost it for themselves. The allies did not have the strength to defeat them if the Germans didn't give it to them.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRGW”