Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: warspite1 (Entente) Vs Colberki (CP)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Commander - The Great War >> After Action Reports >> RE: warspite1 (Entente) Vs Colberki (CP) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: warspite1 (Entente) Vs Colberki (CP) - 12/23/2012 8:00:28 AM   
ulver

 

Posts: 519
Joined: 9/9/2001
From: Danmark, Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Britain

4th (Canadian) Army takes to the Transports in Quebec.



Hi. Sorry for butting in again and feel free to tell me to stop.

What you are doing here could be another Economy of force error. It may actually more cost effective to disband the Canadian garrison and build another corps where you need it. When you disband it you get half the construction cost back and don’t have to pay maintenance while they are crossing the Atlantic. If a corps is out of the game more than 3 turns it is always cheaper to disband and rebuild rather then paying for keeping it on the map. In this case you have to get the corps to a city, embark it and sail it cross the Atlantic – might not be cost effective.

Even as the Germans I frequently disband units if I don’t have the rail capacity to move them between fronts. It is rarely worth it to allow a unit to wait around for a train if you can re-build it where you need it. A good example is Bulgaria. If Serbia is defeated when Bulgaria enters you should immediately disbanded most of the Bulgarian army to save paying upkeep. They have a rail capacity of one so having more units on the map then they can rail is essentially a waste of money. Either bank it or build Bulgarian Research centers.

Since a corps takes a long time to build and you pay maintenance while it is building the calculus may work out to keep the Canadians but it is a close call. Here I would disband it and build another instead – will cost more but you get it to the front faster and speed is essential at this time.


< Message edited by ulver -- 12/23/2012 8:13:34 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 31
RE: warspite1 (Entente) Vs Colberki (CP) - 12/23/2012 8:13:05 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 16022
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ulver

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Britain

4th (Canadian) Army takes to the Transports in Quebec.



What you are doing here could be another Economy of force error. It may actually more cost effective to disband the Canadian garrison and build another corps where you need it. When you disband it you get half the construction cost back and don’t have to pay maintenance while they are crossing the Atlantic. If a corps is out of the game more than 3 turns it is always cheaper to disband and rebuild rather then paying for keeping it on the map. In this case you have to get the corps to a city, embark it and sail it cross the Atlantic – might not be cost effective.

warspite1

Yeah...I knew that

Thanks ulver - great tip!

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to ulver)
Post #: 32
RE: warspite1 (Entente) Vs Colberki (CP) - 12/23/2012 8:50:28 AM   
colberki

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 6/16/2007
Status: offline
Maybe for game balancing, maybe the costs to disband and rebuild should be tweaked so that such a move has a higher cost but we will choose in dire circumstances only.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 33
RE: warspite1 (Entente) Vs Colberki (CP) - 12/23/2012 9:23:41 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 16022
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: colberki

Maybe for game balancing, maybe the costs to disband and rebuild should be tweaked so that such a move has a higher cost but we will choose in dire circumstances only.
warspite1

Agreed - disbanding a whole Canadian Army at the outset of the war could be considered gamey

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to colberki)
Post #: 34
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Commander - The Great War >> After Action Reports >> RE: warspite1 (Entente) Vs Colberki (CP) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.068