1914 ADF is rediculous

[Nitram Draw]

Is it difficult to change the range of units? Perhaps making the range 3 for field guns would help.

[cazart!]

A couple of points:

Maybe importing the ability to set AI Fire range (ACW, EAW have this, maybe others.)

Turning on MDF in conjunction with ADF does not increase the number of PBEM exchanges or the length of a PBEM game. There is simply phased play with the AI running ADF during the Defensive Fire Phase. (I assume this was known, but it kind of got skipped over in the discussion.)

Now you can argue that phased play does not accurately reflect Blitz warfare, but in 1914 maybe in makes more sense.

[Volcano Man]

Is it difficult to change the range of units? Perhaps making the range 3 for field guns would help.

Well, no it is not difficult, but it is not desired either. The field guns firing (even with opportunity fire) out to long range is desired (at least I am happy with the behavior here I mean), because there are many times where the enemy is not attacking but you are keeping him off balance with disruptions. I have had many of my own attacks foiled because long range field gun fire disrupted units that are assembling for the attack. Don't get me wrong though, the 4 or 5 km shots won't cause massive loss of men, but disruptions are a realistic and desired probability.

A couple of points:

Maybe importing the ability to set AI Fire range (ACW, EAW have this, maybe others.)

Turning on MDF in conjunction with ADF does not increase the number of PBEM exchanges or the length of a PBEM game. There is simply phased play with the AI running ADF during the Defensive Fire Phase. (I assume this was known, but it kind of got skipped over in the discussion.)

Now you can argue that phased play does not accurately reflect Blitz warfare, but in 1914 maybe in makes more sense.

Actually, I thought about this during development. The issue is that even by putting a range limiter on ADF, such as in the "AI" drop down menu, we will always have cases where the units fire on things you don't want them to, even at a range of 1, there is no way around it. However, that is not to say that such a limiter would not help. Also, the difference in ACW, EAW and Nappy (if I am not mistaken, correct me if I am wrong please) is that ADF is infinite, it never runs out by MP expense, although it is much weaker than normal fire. This actually might be the answer really: maybe ADF should be infinite but weaker. However, this too has its own problems: large scenarios would take even longer to play as there would be at least twice or three times the amount of ADF going on (maybe more) and those cases where something is adjacent would see very little in the way of effective fire against them (although it would be a higher volume of it).

But the question is, whether or not an ADF range limiter (with the current ADF behavior) would either be global to all units, or set specifically for each and every unit would be useful or a realistic level of control or not. I am not convinced that the user should be able to set fire control for each and every single unit on the map, to me this seems like too much control for this period. But then again, that minutia level of control (and then some) is available with MDF on, so there is no easy answer here. I am not a big fan of MDF myself, and I felt that ADF performs adequately enough because of the reasons I mentioned in great detail in the previous post so I don't see any big emergency here despite the fact that some people have a personal pet peeve with it. However, it would be "nice" if you could set individual fire control settings for each unit IF the unit is not detached from its parent HQ (if the unit was detached then it should be something you cannot control). I might be willing to live with something like that - perhaps I will suggest it in the next title.

[jonnymacbrown]

"Turning on MDF in conjunction with ADF does not increase the number of PBEM exchanges or the length of a PBEM game. "

Would you please explain to me how MDF does not increase the # of pbem exchanges? That would be very useful information to me. Thanks jonny :conf:

[Volcano Man]

"Turning on MDF in conjunction with ADF does not increase the number of PBEM exchanges or the length of a PBEM game. "

Would you please explain to me how MDF does not increase the # of pbem exchanges? That would be very useful information to me. Thanks jonny :conf:

He means to select *both* the MDF and ADF optional rules. Doing so will allow you to play phased play, but the difference is that the AI will conduct Defensive Fire in the Defensive Phase automatically, thus, making two less phases you have to play in PBEM (one for each side). The AI of course is still prone to firing on things you don't want them to if you do this as you won't have complete control over the Defensive Fire, but at least the AI will fire EVERY single unit in the Defensive Fire phase so that it shouldn't be so much of an issue to those who dislike AI controlled ADF.

[jonnymacbrown]

"He means to select *both* the MDF and ADF optional rules. Doing so will allow you to play phased play, but the difference is that the AI will conduct Defensive Fire in the Defensive Phase automatically, thus, making two less phases you have to play in PBEM (one for each side). The AI of course is still prone to firing on things you don't want them to if you do this as you won't have complete control over the Defensive Fire, but at least the AI will fire EVERY single unit in the Defensive Fire phase so that it shouldn't be so much of an issue to those who dislike AI controlled ADF."

This would probably help. For example, I had 3 batteries on high ground, supported by 2 MG section and they were destroyed by a cavalry charge. My fault for allowing that to happen, but the MG sections only fired once each, and the batteries didn't fire at all (all in good order, in command, with ammo). Are you saying that if MDF and ADF is selected this sort of thing is less likely to happen? jonny ;)

[Volcano Man]

Are you saying that if MDF and ADF is selected this sort of thing is less likely to happen? jonny ;)

No, I said you can try it and see what happens as in, see if suits your preferred style of play. The only way you can get the full control you desire is to play with MDF on and ADF off. You said you don't want to do that, so what is and is not likely to happen is anyone's guess any time the AI is controlling something.

Needless to say though, if you have two or three batteries of field guns only supported by MG sections without infantry support then you very much deserve to be overrun with cavalry. I don't mean that in a bad or spiteful way, I am only saying that these units alone cannot hope to hold any ground whatsoever. If you are looking at it from the point of view that you are trying to have it so they can hold ground reliably because you want total control of ADF so that you can crush anything that opposes the "death stack" of field guns and MGs, then you are absolutely going about it the wrong way; it sounds like your basic perception of how to hold ground in FWWC is flawed to begin with. Try stacking some infantry with those units and if that is not possible then get these units the heck out of there and send them to places where there are infantry units. If ADF keeps people from being able to hold ground with field guns and MG sections alone, then all the better I say, in fact this type of behavior is intentionally discouraged for reasons which should be obvious. Actually, it is starting to fall into perspective I think. If you have lost some 30 valuable field guns to a cavalry charge then I can see why you are frustrated, but it is more to do with your playing style than it is with the function of ADF itself.

Actually, the more I keep talking about it, the more I feel that the current behavior of ADF is perfect to maintain a proper balance between people wanting to hold the line or strategic hills and crossroads with field guns stacked with MGs alone, with infantry to the rear hiding out. ADF allows the attacker to draw fire and then assault these vulnerable and high value "death ray stacks" so, the current ADF behavior behaves perfectly to avoid gamey behavior in the opposite extreme by forcing a realistic necessity to stack infantry with these units in order to avoid an easy overrun so that you have to sit and take the worst the enemy can throw at you, then use your turn to do the real destructive fire. The forcing of infantry support to hold ground is both realistic and should be encouraged or else the whole system begins to fall apart since the guns and MGs would be encouraged to be the only units in the front line. Yes indeed, I think that it is better to leave it as a it is: that is to say something that is controlled controlled with the use of both the MDF and ADF optional rules, not with ranged fire restrictions and the like.

[jonnymacbrown]

"If you have lost some 30 valuable field guns to a cavalry charge then I can see why you are frustrated, but it is more to do with your playing style than it is with the function of ADF itself."

This was an oversight. I didn't think there was any cavalry or infantry around that could reach the hex and I was retreating. I'm usually pretty cautious and anybody can make a mistake. But my point it that there was no defensive fire. You play the game. You must see the 30 man MG sections firing left and right at maximum range, and both them and arty firing at command units when 2000 enemy infantry are in the next hex. My problem is not that I take some hits. My problem is that the ADF system that works very well for PzC where ranged weapons are of no account, (and if they do fire at a unit 2 hexes away you're happy they got off some shots before they are destroyed, or if they are 88s they can maybe get in some good shots too), but rather that in 1914 the ADF system that has evolved for PzC doesn't reflect the primacy of ranged weapons, and in fact makes them behave as if they were "death rays." I'm sorry I brought up the example I did. I should have brought up a myriad of others, like where my guns are stacked with infantry and MGs and still don't fire when assaulted, but do fire at command units or anything else that moves; and I'm sure other players can as well if they weren't afraid of being attacked. Ed, you ought to be happy that people are interested in your game enough to play and participate. I remember when I proposed at German strategic option for going after Verdun. There wasn't any discussion about that idea after you decreed me an idiot for suggesting it. Who wants to jump right into that discussion? At the very least, how many times can you play the game and attack Mons? After a few tries, maybe some players would like to investigate an attack on Verdun as primary objective. I still think that option is viable, and my Tornai proposal did get some blown and wired bridges in the latest update to slow it down. Like I said, you ought to be happy we care. jonny :bow:

[Volcano Man]

Ed, you ought to be happy that people are interested in your game enough to play and participate. I remember when I proposed at German strategic option for going after Verdun. There wasn't any discussion about that idea after you decreed me an idiot for suggesting it. Who wants to jump right into that discussion? At the very least, how many times can you play the game and attack Mons? After a few tries, maybe some players would like to investigate an attack on Verdun as primary objective. I still think that option is viable, and my Tornai proposal did get some blown and wired bridges in the latest update to slow it down. Like I said, you ought to be happy we care.

Wait a second, calm down.

Who said I wasn't happy that people are interested in F14? If you haven't noticed, there has been several discussions about F14 other than the ones you started. And where exactly did I call you an idiot for the Verdun frontal assault idea? I simply said that it wasn't the best thing to do (I figured that it is implied that it was my personal opinion) and I explained why. If that means I called you an idiot, well, I don't know what to say - it certainly wasn't my intent if I implied that, but I don't see how you took it that way either. Maybe it is just the nature of text based communication: it always comes out crude and harsh. Do you think that a Verdun attack is a great idea? Then by all means, attack Verdun, bypass Mons, and do anything else that you might think is a great tactic. If it is a PBEM game then you opponent will probably adapt accordingly. Your feedback about a Mons bypass did lead me to make a few subtle changes, but that was mainly to prevent a possible "rail blitz". I certainly did not destroy the possibility entirely and if you are posting something on this forum then you can expect a discussion about it both for and against it by the community and perhaps a possible change to a scenario coming from it. The only way to avoid it is to not post something if you don't want any comments on the matter that might go against your point of view. But speaking of scenario changes, everyone is encouraged to edit the stock scenarios and remake them into their own image of how the scenario really should be if they so desire, but the stock scenarios will always stay as my own person image of how it should be.

Having said all of that, pardon me, I don't really understand what you are wanting from me here. I told you how to get around your hatred for ADF by using MDF, and you did not like it for obvious reasons, because it is not practical in a PBEM game. I told you about using ADF and MDF and you probably have not tried it yet, or will still not be truly happy with that option. I said you could email HPS with suggestions on how to improve it for all three game series and I don't know if you did that yet. I suggested the best course of action is to bring these age old issues up at Tillercon for group discussion - as a plug to try to get more people to go to Tillercon and because it is in fact the best way to get changes. What else do you want me to do? I am sorry, but I have no answer for you on how to improve ADF because I don't feel that it is ridiculous as you do. I explained why I believe that because if there were more advanced AI routines here or range limiters it still does not address the main issue: that the AI does and always will fire at things you don't want them to, even if the range to target is 1 hex. If someone can think of a creative way to make it better then I am all ears. If I wasn't playing the game myself then I suppose I wouldn't feel so strongly about certain "issues", but if you are trying to suggest something that goes against the personal vision in which I have for the game and the series then, well, I may not always be receptive to it if I don't agree with it. Apparently that is not a characteristic that I am allowed to exercise?

If you are taking my comments the wrong way then perhaps I should just resign myself to not replying. After all it is the safest thing to do as a designer, however you seemed to have gotten angry when I did not comment to your previous post (I didn't reply because I was actually trying to see if a discussion would develop, but it didn't) so I guess I lose either way. Needless to say, I am a little confused. Anyway, you can consider me resigned from this thread at least as I have already said everything I can say about it, and I don't want to cause any more unintended hostility. :conf:

[Mr Grumpy]

Ok i can see this is going to run and run and run, at some point we have to be able "agree to disagree" when two people have a different POV on a given subject, i have been working with Ed for a few years now and i know he will look at any suggestion put to him about his scenarios or titles, he incorporates any he believes are justified and rejects those he does not (giving a full explanation of his reasons for rejecting it) and at no point have i found him not to be totally reasonable in this process.

So it is obvious to me that he has looked into this and feels there is not an issue, so please time to move on.....;)