MULTIPLAYER

[operating]

MP has totally got my attention, as well as others, while talking back and forrth in PMs.

Like myself, many are new to MP and I think at first intiminated by it. Today lost my second match in MP, lost my second match first, then my first match lost second. Both opponents experienced top notch players.

I forget the expression, but it goes something like this; "Baptism while under fire"!
It's invalueable from those matches going forward, something I cannot emphasize enough.

[operating]

Have not gone MP since last November, when my PC died. The other day started a match, under the new 1.4.2 version, against a worthy opponent (with my fairly new PC). Forgot how tough it is playing MP, but at the same time so gratifying.

[operating]

See a lot of members signing up for MP matches, which I think is just awesome! If anybody wants to post about their experience, Please do! I'm sure others would love to hear what you have to say....

[operating]

Currently active in 4 matches (2 as CP, 2 as Entente). Without a doubt playing CP is hard, once CP looses momentum, it's all downhill, with few exceptions: if the opponent makes a mistake that can be capitalized on. As Entente, there is a bounty of wealth and resources available to wear down CP. A CP player would have to be very crafty to pull off a victory in MP. One CP opponent has made some headway into Serbia and France, pretty much ignoring Russia. MY problems with being CP could be my playing style and/or management, for once committed, it's hard to alter plans.

[Tomokatu]

I have enough problems against the AI anyway! (ver 1.4.2 with static SGs)

I will (eventually) give MP a run, but only after V1.5 is released - (poke Kirk)

[operating]

ORIGINAL: Tomokatu

I have enough problems against the AI anyway! (ver 1.4.2 with static SGs)

I will (eventually) give MP a run, but only after V1.5 is released - (poke Kirk)

If you are having trouble against the AI, it might not be best time to go MP.. Having confidence in yourself as to how to see a path to victory, says a lot about experience. In one of my matches against CP, we set a "ground rule": to not go any more than 1 hex from SG starting point, much like what seems to be Kirk's original plan. If a member goes MP using the 1.4.2 version, it really is practice for 1.50, then of course from there another patch. Even with prior experience I had to practice with 1.4.2 in SP 1914 before jumping back into MP.

[operating]

Currently involved in 8 MP matches, don't even have the urge for SP (except for a place to practice). One match is completely dead, waiting for the calendar to go 30 days to claim match, just to get it off the MP list. The funny thing about claiming a game that way, is there is no honor in it. If your opposing player for whatever reason cannot or will not finish a match, they should just surrender, then be on their way. Unless for mechanical or patch situations that prevent them from doing so.

[operating]

Another event happened today: Where a match suddenly ended. It turns out, my opponent accidently hit the "surrender button" , fortunately, it was turn 12 and not later in a match, also he was beating me bad in Serbia, so I did not feel real bad about the result, but was puzzled when it happened. So he posted another MP match, now we are at each other throats again.[:)]

[operating]

Currently have 10 matches in MP: 5 have been active, 3 stuck with CTD (waiting for staff to fix them), 2 in the dead zone (nonresponsive for awhile). By far, Entente dominates almost all games, with exception of 2 matches. Playing as CP is a real challenge, difficult to master, also depending on the opponent. Have a new CP opponent who has come up with a very interesting 1914 opening, waiting to see how it plays out before commenting here, he no doubt has my attention. I don't claim to be an excellent player, but would claim to be a competent player and realize I have my faults with skill and strategies, also see the advantages of playing out a match, even being on the losing end of it. IMO I don't feel that the Entente needs to be any more powerful than they are now, but as a matter of balance, it seems after 1914 CP has a problem with production as the game is now. Yes, the CP was scraping by historically as the war progressed, a very skilled player has a chance to manage this into a CP win, however rare for the average player. The art of the game is playing it and understanding what works best for you.

[suprass81]

I don't know how it work in this version but playing MP as a CP hard. It push you to be very creative in eny actions. It's not as easy to defend just standing still in trench becous Entente sooner or later will have adventage in number. The proble is (in my oppinion) to make a plan and strike where opponent doesn't expect you (I know- this is a good play for all strategy game but in this game it's tricky). you have to think out what units use. After last patch I think that moust emportant is the use of "modern" warfare- all kin of air units. And the moust emportant thing for all CP strategy- Serbia. This little piece of land can hold your army too long so a quick actions are needed in there.
I'm also testing if there is a different way than leaving west in trench and attacking Russia first (it was a best strategy before last patch IMO). Finding new "opening moves" will keep MP games fresh each time you start it .
And one more thing- for the first look this game looks simple in gameplay (other wargames are more complicated) but when you stop for a while and start to thinking about different tactics and strateges it became very interesting. You don't have to think about many little "things' to do just pure war and production/reserch planning. And this is moust biutiufull in this game for me
Sorry for may bad english

[operating]

Kirk, (where are you)[8D]

The password function for MP challenges, does not work. Twice have chosen to be a host, twice typed in a password (to be sent by pm or email) to be used by a future designated opponent to enter into a match, however it did not secure those challenges from others to take up the challenge. It's not a major problem, but might send a wrong signal to a unsuspecting challenger, who thinks they are selecting an open match.

(still here), Bob[:)]

[kirk23]

I'm here and I come with a gift to the forum,see my new thread.[:D]

[operating]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I'm here and I come with a gift to the forum,see my new thread.[:D]

Kirk, not going to spoil your new thread by writing over it. Usually I like gifts that are wrapped in a new patch, so I can see what I am getting....(hint-hint)....

Bob[:D]

[operating]

Have come to the conclusion in MP: That if your Entente opponent has bombers before or near the end of 1914; "CP is toast"! CP zeppelins, airships, fighters and artillery will get annihilated! The more bombers, the more destruction of these CP machine type units to the point where it is not even worth it to have artillery near the Eastern or Western Fronts. CP fighters are not even capable of interception or interdiction till much later in 1915, even then with class 2 fighters, they in turn will be targeted by a smart Entente Player for destruction, until moved out of enemy LOS. Occasionally CP air can fight back if it has a LOS, However, it does not take an ingenious Entente player long to neutralize these attacks, for production favors their side. CP will not even get a sniff of bombers well into 1916 to 1917, by which time they are broke or near broke and have more than likely dropped the air labs just to survive and replenish existing units. During this time period, it would be very difficult for CP to come up with the 50PP to buy 1 (ONE) bomber, never mind the cost of upkeep for such a unit. It' not impossible to do, but unlikely. Of course in the meantime, Entente has dominance of the battlefield with air power "for years", and will continue to have it's way for the remainder of the war.

Going to do research on the subject. Especially on who had bombers and when they were developed. In this post I focused on bombers, did not go into bombers working in conjunction with airships (6 hex LOS), a lethal combination, never mind adding fighters to the mix, puts CP at a severe disadvantage.

[operating]

Kirk,

In more than 1 MP match, my opponent appears, or is "more than 30 hexes" from their Capital City (typically in Russia). According to page 58 of the Game Manual about Supply, units more than 30 hexes from their Capital should be at half supply, which happens in SP regularly, but does not appear to be the case in MP. I'm pretty sure that the 30 hex requirement is not ; "As the crow flies". In other words: supply cannot be traced through enemy hexes or across bodies of water (since nobody owns water hexes), only connecting friendly land hexes. I cannot post a SS to show this without exposing unit positions at this time in ongoing match. You stated before, you do not use MP at this time, so if you could pass this inquiry onto someone who does, please do.

The question is: Is the 30 hex Supply rule in effect with MP?

Thanks, Bob

[operating]

ORIGINAL: operating

Have come to the conclusion in MP: That if your Entente opponent has bombers before or near the end of 1914; "CP is toast"! CP zeppelins, airships, fighters and artillery will get annihilated! The more bombers, the more destruction of these CP machine type units to the point where it is not even worth it to have artillery near the Eastern or Western Fronts. CP fighters are not even capable of interception or interdiction till much later in 1915, even then with class 2 fighters, they in turn will be targeted by a smart Entente Player for destruction, until moved out of enemy LOS. Occasionally CP air can fight back if it has a LOS, However, it does not take an ingenious Entente player long to neutralize these attacks, for production favors their side. CP will not even get a sniff of bombers well into 1916 to 1917, by which time they are broke or near broke and have more than likely dropped the air labs just to survive and replenish existing units. During this time period, it would be very difficult for CP to come up with the 50PP to buy 1 (ONE) bomber, never mind the cost of upkeep for such a unit. It' not impossible to do, but unlikely. Of course in the meantime, Entente has dominance of the battlefield with air power "for years", and will continue to have it's way for the remainder of the war.

Going to do research on the subject. Especially on who had bombers and when they were developed. In this post I focused on bombers, did not go into bombers working in conjunction with airships (6 hex LOS), a lethal combination, never mind adding fighters to the mix, puts CP at a severe disadvantage.

Open,

Did find this site http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/bombers_intro.htm that covers what countries had bombers and at what periods of the war did these countries use them. What I did find interesting: was the early development of bombers in Russia, also to some degree France and Italy, later in the war other countries. So there is truth to the game with the use of bombers in 1914 and 1915. Included in these articles are the size of bomb loads and a number of other stats. It should be pointed out, that anti aircraft defense played a role here too. One of the most numerous units in CTGW is garrisons, which throughout a campaign never attain anti aircraft capabilities for the length of the war (game). This I see as a problem, for they suffer the most from air to ground attacks, as well as other units without anti air defense. CTGW appear to have corps size units, I find it hard to believe that a corps size units would not have anti air defense. Also, combing through this air research was there any evidence of corps size air attacks on ground troops, Yes there were attacks, however, nothing on the scale that CTGW presents. When playing in MP, many times it is brought up as a point of discussion the strength of air units during matches. Give the above site a read and post an opinion if you feel up to it or perhaps a suggestion, we all play the game, so you might as well have some input.

Bob

[operating]

Found this page on Anti air craft guns.... http://www.bulgarianartillery.it/Bulgar ... TF_BaK.htm Keep in mind when reading this, that there is no mention of certain ground units, having or not having these anti air guns, except in some locations where the guns were not mobile or independent units, beginning prior and early into the war. CTGW techs do not develop anti air till later in 1915 or 1916, yet units are under air attack for a long period of time, before they can defend themselves. It's question of balance.... When I say a question of balance: I mean that airships, bombers can be built in a 4 to 8 turns, fighters 7 turns, however, techs may not produce anti air for no less than 24 turns to upwards of 48 turns or so (a guess) and that is solely for infantry, all other ground units have to learn is "Duck", or "Moon" the aircraft for the rest of the war.

Antiaircraft Artillery







Germany was the first country that examined the opportunity of having guns especially designed to combat balloon, dirigibles and planes. In 1906 at the Berlin automobile exhibition Rheinmetall showed a 5cm L/30 pivot gun mounted on a lightly armoured motor car, while Krupp choose a 6.5cm L/35 gun. The tactic suggested was to deploy these vehicles in likely places and, on the appearance of an aircraft, to drive them rapidly to some point of interception, and open fire there.

At that time the War Ministry believed that there were no need for special guns, and in 1907 the German Army tested as anti-aircraft guns the guns then adopted by field and foot artillery : 7.7cm field gun, 10.5cm light field howitzer and 10cm heavy gun. In spite of the lack of interest shown by the Army, studies went on. Between 1908 and 1910 a lot of new guns appeared. Krupp produced a 7.5cm L/35 gun on wheels and a 7.1cm L/30 gun on a motor car, while Rheinmetall a 6.5cm L/35 pivot gun. This time the War Ministry was more interested to, and laid down the rules for the Ballonabwehrkanone (Bak = anti-balloon gun). These demanded the calibre and the ammunition of the 7.7cm L/27 field gun, and devices for a rapid change in azimuth and elevation. The gun had to be transported by a field carriage or mounted on a motor car with a pivot. Between 1911 and 1914 both Krupp and Rheinmetall produced some different models of Bak.



It was only from 1910 to 1914 that the military leaders of the other major European countries began to examine the prospect of anti-aircraft weapons. In Great Britain Vickers produced a 3-pdr quick-firing gun mounted on a Daimler car chassis, while in France a high-angle mounting was developed to place the 75mm Mle 1897 field gun on the back of a De Dion Bouton car chassis. But at the beginning of the World War 1 only Germany could field a little number of anti-air guns.



In August 1914 Germany had available 6 motor Bak with a 77mm L/27, 2 wheeled 77mm L/27 with pivots, and 10 mixed older models of experimental guns dating back to 1910-1914. The horse drawn Bak were emplaced near bridges over the river Rhein at Dusseldorf and Mannheim, at the Zeppelin wharf at Friedrichshafen, and at the dirigible hangar at Metz. The six motorized Bak went to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th (two) and 8th Army. They were emplaced to protect areas and objects important for mobilization. The development of anti-aircraft artillery in German Army was very quick.



In October 1914 there were 9 motorized and 27 horse-drawn Bak.



In January 1915, thanks to a great use of captured guns, there were 97 Bak, mostly armed with Belgian, French and Russian field guns transformed into anti-aircraft gun.



When World War 1 ended German Army had 2576 Flak (Fliegerabwehrkanone = anti-aircraft gun, from 31th May 1916 the new name of Bak).

There were :

- 116 heavy motorised batteries

- 39 light motorised batteries

- 168 horse-drawn batteries,

- 166 fixed batteries,

- 3 railway batteries,

- 183 motorised sections;

- 49 horse-drawn sections;

- 173 fixed sections;

- 80 individual motorised veihicles.



In September 1918 the German Army had in Macedonia :

- bespannte FlakBt. 523 : horse-drawn Flak battery with 7,62cm RäderFlak L/30 (russ. 00);

- bespannte FlakBt. 549, 550, 556 : horse-drawn Flak batteries with 7,62cm RäderFlak L/30 (russ. 02) ;

- bespannte Flakzug 97 (Saxon) : horse-drawn Flak section with 7,62 Ortsfeste-Flak;

- bespannte Flakzug 165 : horse-drawn Flak section with 7,7cm l.F.K. L/35 (franz.);

- bespannte bayer. Flakzug 119 : horse-drawn Bavarian Flak section with 7,62 Ortsfeste-Flak;

- bespannte bayer. Flakzug 148 : horse-drawn Bavarian Flak section with 7,7cm L.F.K. L/35 (franz.);

- 9cm FlakBt. 338 (9cm improvised Flak Battery - Saxon);

- KraftwagenFlak 38, 85 (Flak on motor vehicles).

These units were assigned to the Flak Command of Army Group Scholtz (Kommandeur der Flak der Heeresgruppe Scholtz). There were also two Flak officers, one for German 11th Army and one for Bulgarian 1st and 2nd Army).

[operating]

It should not be ignored that ground troops used anti air machine guns, such as the Brittish one pictured below, thought to be the weapon that shot down the "Red Baron". Any corps size units, more than likely would of had weapons of this style.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: operating

It should not be ignored that ground troops used anti air machine guns, such as the Brittish one pictured below, thought to be the weapon that shot down the "Red Baron". Any corps size units, more than likely would of had weapons of this style.

World War 1 Maxim Pom Pom anti air craft gun.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: operating

It should not be ignored that ground troops used anti air machine guns, such as the Brittish one pictured below, thought to be the weapon that shot down the "Red Baron". Any corps size units, more than likely would of had weapons of this style.

World War 1 Maxim Pom Pom anti air craft gun.

German WW I Pom Pom, take note: these guns were in use prior to WW 1.