A Catalogue of Questions from a New Player

[omnipotentantagonist]

So, I’ve recently finished my second small random game of ATG, and I’ve been having a blast!

Perhaps this is an obsolete observation now, as I didn’t start playing until the New Dawn update, but I condemn the criticisms that the game is too tedious and micro-intensive. I find the data management very stimulating. The absolute transparency of the unit spreadsheets, and the accessible game Editor Function makes investigating certain concepts and information fantastic. Although ninety percent of my initial confusions have been solved by information found in the aforementioned locations, I still have a few inquiries about specific aspects of the game.

I’ve done a fair amount of forum searching already, and some questions have been knocked off this list as a result, but still some remain. If these questions have been answered elsewhere, or a million times before, I apologize. I gladly accept references to other discussions as suitable responses.

To put my experiences and situations into context, here is a brief table on a few factors that might be relevant:

===========================Conditions===========================
- I’ve only actually played two games seriously to completion.
- Both games were played with AI- (to accommodate my learning)
- Both games were played with Stone Age, Costly Research & No Roads (again, for my convenience)
- Both games were on a small map, with 30% ocean, where all participants had land access to one another, and were very close neighbors at the very beginning.
- The first game was played with two AI, and the other three.
- I intentionally regenerated the maps, and chose the location with the most defensive terrain, and protectable borders. I was actually overly cautious, and took very special care to never extend myself without superiority.
- In both games, I let the AI duke it out, and only participated when opportune for me.
===========================Conditions===========================

1. Regarding AI behavior.
___a. Alliances with the AI appear to be disabled. Is there a way to enable this? Would the AI ever offer or accept an alliance? Is there a way to offer peace? Does the AI ever attempt to accept peace offers? Is there an enforced limit to how long peace lasts after being declared? Will the AI avoid war with others if they’re already at war with someone else?
___b. In both games, all the AI seemed to choose an identical research progression and unit composition strategy. Does this vary, or is it always the same?
___c. Is the AI aware of terrain modifiers when attacking and traversing? They seemed apprehensive to deal with me in several situations.
___d. If I enable certain structures to be buildable by the AI that otherwise isn’t (such as research centers), will they actually construct them?
___e. Is the AI limited to Fog of War visual rules as the player is? If they are bombarded with bombers or artillery, even when they can’t theoretically see them, do they acknowledge these elements when considering attacks?

2. Regarding logistics
___a. Is distance a factor when auto-transferring units or supplies? Is it better to maintain a hierarchy of HQ’s, or have everybody subordinate to the Supreme HQ?
___b. Do HQ’s who are assigned production structures only send units and supplies to their superiors as surplus, or do they pay sort of a “tax”?
___c. How do you beach a naval force and maintain their supply? I’m sort of stumped. Do need a new HQ at the land zone, or can you keep one at the launch port? Can oceanic supply lines be disrupted? How are they maintained?
___d. What factors actually influence manual transfers? I’ve had tactical HQ’s who suffered attacks and desperately needed expedient staff replacements, but they were so expensive. Why?

3. Regarding Strategy
___a. Both games I incidentally played as Anglo Regimes. I took a look that the Ranger, and to me they just seemed like an expensive version of Rifles, with only a minor bonus to experience and morale. I was too cowardly to take a risk on them, what’s their secret? Are they supposed to be a Special Forces Unit, or an outright replacement for Line Infantry?
___b. Are Anti-Tank guns a viable means of dealing with heavy armor? I’ve noticed that tanks can actually destroy AT’s rather effectively, of course rendering them useless. How are they implemented most adequately?
___c. How do Paratroopers work? Are they better for short cross naval voyages? Or can you actually drop them behind a main line and see results? (I never attempted to test the unit, this is a blind curiosity).

As I said, I’ve been having a ball with the game. I think it provides a perfect synergy of freedom and choice, without overwhelming the player with ambiguously convolutions, or a contrived array of options. It certainly does seem directionless at first, but I think the formula of gameplay naturally imbues the player with an intuitive understanding of when needs to happen. The main learning curve is memorizing data, which contrary to opinions I’ve noticed, actually compliments strategic play, rather than diluting it.

I love the game, and look forward to learning more about it.

[Major.Pain]

2a.
Distance does indeed matter though auto transfers use only a fraction of the cost that a manual transfer would. Units recieveing supplies recieve more for example the closer they are to the HQ providing supply or a rail line ect.
The more HQ's in the supply chain which reinforcements or supply have to pass through to reach said unit adds a turn per HQ to the time it takes.
I usually set up for example a "supply base HQ" per front i am fighting on and direct that fronts production to that and have the fighting HQ's of that front subordinate to the supply HQ which in turn is subordinate to the Supreme HQ.

[Major.Pain]

2d.
Distance.
Distance from rail network and type of land traversed.
If an enemy has combat power around the route reinforcement and supply take, zone of control.
Interdiction.
Type of transfer capacity you are using, land, sea, air.
Weight of unit being transfered.

[omnipotentantagonist]

@Major.Pain

So, what you're suggesting with the "Supply HQ" is a three tier chain? How do judge when it's appropriate to make a Supply HQ for a particular battle front, rather than just sending them directly to the tactical HQ's? Is it quantity of necessary HQ's, or is it always just good practice to delegate?

It seems that if it takes a new turn for every transfer, that this system wouldn't be advantageous in the beginning when divisions are still growing.

[Major.Pain]

Yes in the begining when your just sparring with your opponent and only have one HQ involved in the combat on a particular front or continent i dont usually build add a supply HQ to the chain.
As things heat up and i create more HQ's in that area i will add in a supply HQ so my combat HQ's can remain mobile and move with the units they command so as they can provide there highest bonus out of a total of 100% to the units under it which are fighting.
The supply HQ in this case would be closer to the combat HQ's engaged in combat than a typical Supreme HQ would be and can build up a reserve of equipment and supply if need be as they dont need to be as mobile and can just sit in a city or on a rail line.
Not saying its the right way to do things it just makes sense to me lol :)

Sorry yes i should point out that i would try and direct the needed production for the particular front or most if it to these supply HQ's.

[omnipotentantagonist]

I understand. So the way I kind of look at it is the combat HQ's are like Brigadier Generals, who are in charge of series of battalions (that being your units, or "divisions" as ATG by default confusing refers to them), who are subordinate to a Lieutenant General (Supply HQ) who serves as an administrator. While all the Lieutenant Generals would be subordinate to the General of the Army (Supreme HQ) back home.

I guess this makes sense. If I thought of this earlier, I could have saved myself a lot of fuss. All my HQ's were subordinate to the Supreme HQ, and it made balancing who got what very confusing. For example, I had a front at one point that was dealing with a much larger enemy than my other front, but they were both resupplying at the same rate, despite disproportionate losses. I could have set different replenishment rates for Supply HQ's, and it might not have been so micro intensive. Good show.

[Major.Pain]

No worries. If your playing on a small map with only one continent for example i dont really think you need to add in a supply HQ to be honest niether would i bother with one if some of the fighting is reasonably close to my supreme HQ.
You know you can set a "supply/reinforcment priority" for each division or HQ right???
So setting one combat HQ, supply HQ ect at less than 100% would favour others in the chain to it/them ect and allow your more needy front/units to get the lions share???
Its on the unit card itself in the lower right of the UI where you set a percent of 100 ect.

I am trying to get in the habit also of storing a "reserve" of supply(accessed on the unit card) for my supply HQ's especially if they are on a seperate continent from my supreme HQ.
Kind of gives me a little breathing room in winter when more supplies are needed and if my supply is being interdicted by sea or air.

I find using these supply HQ's for the creation of any extra combat HQ's i need in the area is a good practice also as they are closer to the frontlines that if i created them all the way back at my supreme HQ and had to spend a few turns transpoting them up.
Just takes a little more planning and stockpiling the nessasary troops and equipment at my supply HQ's in advance but you get a feel for what you need.

[Major.Pain]

2c/3c
Ocean supply lines can indeed be interdicted by sea or air so you need to have your fighters and submarines patrolling your supply lines and you can also set on the unit card to perform interdiction of there own.
Also as soon as you attempt your sea invasion you need to capture an enemy city in a turn or two and have it produce supply and dircect that supply to the invading HQ.
Or failing any chance of a quick enemy city capture you NEED to have a engineer division create a port upon landing with your invasion force so supplies can travel to this new continent from your mainland and supply your troops, building roads as you push our from your port to help with supply also.
There is also another option but it will burn through your fuel reserves pretty quick and that is air drop supplies in using your transport planes. This is what you would need to do for example if you dropped off some paratroopers behind enemy lines too cause bother as a couple of turns after parashooting in they would otherwise run out of supply and starve :(
Just a few of the many reasons why this game is so f ing awesome.

[Major.Pain]

3b.
Antitank guns are for entrenched defense only never for attack.
They can be killed by Tanks but they will be more cost effective, researching ATII if your struggling.
Mix in infantry with your AT guns so the infantry act as a meat shield.
I have had a few games against the AI where bazookas have been pretty effective also.
Be carefull of overstacking to much too as this reduces thier and all units effectivness.
You can just let the enemy armour roll on through your lines and then close the gap cutting them off from supply and making them ineffective which is the best tactic across the board to be honest.

[omnipotentantagonist]

Originally posted by Major.Pain:

2c/3c
Also as soon as you attempt your sea invasion you need to capture an enemy city in a turn or two and have it produce supply and dircect that supply to the invading HQ.
Or failing any chance of a quick enemy city capture you NEED to have a engineer division create a port upon landing with your invasion force so supplies can travel to this new continent from your mainland and supply your troops, building roads as you push our from your port to help with supply also.

PORTS! Of Course.

In a game I just finished a few hours ago I had decided to experiment with beaching an invasion. I dropped them off using planes in an attempt to snatch a cluster of Raw and Oil locations one of the enemy was in possession off. I didn't however, take into account the limited amount of EP Engineers get, I assumed it grew every turn. Well, those 250 or so brave Special Force units held out for about five turns before being starved, then bombarded to death...

[Major.Pain]

Its a good tactic if you can pull it off to drop paratroopers behind enemy lines to capture bridges (Operation Market Garden) to cut off your enemys supply routes and try and keep them in the fight a little longer by air dropping supply to them.
Great when you can pull it off not so great when its done to you though lol.

[Major.Pain]

2b.
Not sure if i understand you right but HQ's/divisions will return units back up the supply chain if they are set(option on the units card) to do so i believe, provided that units TOE is maxed with the particular unit, otherwise they will just keep hold of them, stockpiling them untill a subordinate request them.
Dont know what you mean reguarding tax??

[omnipotentantagonist]

I wasn't sure if subordinated HQ's were required to send SOMETHING back every turn, or if it was just surplus. That's what I meant by "tax". An obligatory payment. I've realized that's obviously wrong.

Is there a way to have an HQ reserve troops for replenishment without including them in your HQ's TOE? I know there's a reserve supply option, but I don't see one for formations. Any ideas?

[Major.Pain]

As far as i am aware what they send back is the surplus from subordinates and its own surplus that is not needed for its own TOE, thats another reason i like to have the supply HQ as a literal supply dump so reinforcments are not sent all the way back to the supreme HQ which is often on another continent altogether.
Setting your important divisions/HQ's as a priority for reinforcment is the best you can do i think to maximise there TOE chance i believe.
If your refering to your combat HQ's which are the ones leading the divisions into battle not that i am aware of, i might be wrong.
To be honest you want your combat HQ's mobile and not getting bogged down with TOE.
I even have gone so far a create a Armor HQ complete with trucks/halftracks so it can push up and keep in contact with its armored divisions though i am not sure if this is a little overkill to be honest.

Maybe ask the question over on Matrix Games Forums you usaully get the Dev over there a lot and there are certainly players over there who are active that know more than me, Webzien for example is around a lot.

EDIT/
Thinking about what you asked again about having a HQ reserve troops for example, you want one of your combat HQ's to have a stock of machineguns & rifles for example.
You could manually transfer them to it and set that HQ to NOT send its surplus back up the supply chain, the option to do this is in the TOE designer though and is applied to the unit as it is created. The only way to change this is to change your unit on the map to that TOE design with the option set to "return=no".
Would be good if this option was on the unit card on the map so you could change it on the fly instead of having to change it in the TOE design.
All i would do is just create a identical TOE of a HQ, the same as the one on the map and just switch it to this new HQ with "return=no" as required so not too much hassel.

https://copy.com/Szz3NteWfcj4dnIO

[omnipotentantagonist]

I completely agree. It certainly would be more convenient to have the return options located on the unit card. I've been playing this game almost non-stop for the last week, and going back and forth to the TOE Designer has become a standard step in my turns.

I never gave any attention to this Return feature. This will save me some hassle managing some larger HQ's, especially the ones that are in charge of production structure.

[Major.Pain]

Some more info here on the Devs wiki about TOE though it sounds like you know most of it.

http://www.vrdesigns.nl/atwiki/doku.php?id=tables_of_organisation_and_equipment