Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Seriously, +20?
So, who the heck were these ANZAC Corps that made them so scary?
The same Gallipoli campaign that resulted in an Ottoman victory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_campaign
The Australian and New Zealand units are deemed to be typical and decent examples representative of their native countries - but nothing that really warrants a +20 De-Moralization value.
Especially when there is nothing in the game to represent the German Stormtroops of 1917.
So, it seems the way they chose to represent stormtroopers is simply higher leveled and experienced infantry. Not my ideal implementation, but not unreasonable either.
For the 1914 Scenario, I would have created a new "Stormtrooper" Infantry type for Germany, but not let it be available until either Russia is knocked out of the war or alternatively, 1917.
(i would have to think about the this in terms of play balance and what the editor allows...)
I get they are part of WWI mythology - thanks in part to the writings of guys like Charles Bean - but it does seem odd to have them singled out for that bonus in a corps & army scale wargame, unless it's supposed to reflect something else I'm not aware of.
From what I understand, there was an ANZAC Corps deployed at Gallipoli in WW1.
From what I gather, they made a good showing on 19th May 1915, but nothing really to indicate they were overly elite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_campaign
However, New Zealand and Australian troops in general have the reputation of being fairly decent.
But so far, nothing to indicate they had special equipment or training.
If you haven't watched the 1980s TV series ANZACs, I strongly recommend getting hold of a copy. Not that the research for this game was based on that, far from it, but it is one of the best series set in WWI. Not that it has a great deal of good quality competition, sadly. Wings is the only other one that comes close in my opinion.
As far as I can tell, German stormtroopers were never deployed in greater than battalion strength, so their addition to German forces does not really justify their deployment as separate Corps. Really it was just extra training with specialist tactics given to some troops to act as the lead units in their offensives, and German forces can already do well on the offensive if their operations are planned properly and the overall situation enables it.
Whereas German Stormtroops, even on a battalion level, have a substantial body of evidence to support their impact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtroopers_(Imperial_Germany)
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/stormtrooper.html
It is mildly amusing that tanks were not deployed as a Corp-sized cohesive combat units and functioned more as independent brigades or battalions in support of infantry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cambrai_(1917)
You can also check here and see if a corps-sized tank unit was ever deployed in WWI, yet tanks are fully represented in this title.
http://www.314th.org/Nafziger-Collection-of-Orders-of-Battle/Nafziger-Collection-World-War-One.html
Although, ANZAC troops not even mentioned.
By 1917, the German formations had become more specialized. Even though it can be argued that they only existed at the battalion level and thus, were not included, the evolution and development of "storm battalions" impacted the entire division in which they were deployed!
So much so that divisions were re-characterized either as mobile, attack or positional.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/leavenworth-papers-4-the-dynamics-of-doctrine.pdf
With those in hand I still believe the devs took the right decision in not making stormtroopers their own units, since the game is corps-based, and not battalions or divisions. Depicting them through higher-tech and elite/experienced corps is the more coherent approach, IMO.
That said, I'm with Dorian Gray in that the devs seemed to have drank too much into the ANZACs cool-aid, which feels a bit lopsided, specially when there were other national troops with great stories about them in the conflict: Canadians, Gurkas, Askaris, etc. So my ideal solution would be keeping ANZACs but stripping them of any distinct stats/make them the same as other corps.
Since the game doesn't do that, I must ask you gentlemen:
1) right now, is it possible to use the game editor to strip ANZACs of those buffs?
2) is there something giving Germany infantry an edge in tech or experience in the default campaigns of 1914 / 1917? I only tested the Ludendorff scenario and it seems to reflect stormtroopers well enough through the amount of elite corps and higher tech infantry that Germany has. But I didn't try the full campaigns. I imagine this could be achieved either by a starting edge in German infantry tech or - perhaps better - an event triggered in 1917 that give the player new corps to deploy with those buffs, and informing this represents the "recent innovations" in infiltration tactics by the Germans. EDIT: if this doesn't exist, can it be included through the editor?
Yes, it is quite easy to strip ANZACs of the terror-stats.