Rabelesius

I have another one of those graphic glitches when rotating trenches. There is a black box appearing sometimes, it's not harmful just annoying. By the way, I am using a normal Nvidia GTS250, so this should not be too uncommon for other users.

So, Zimmermann against the investment of hundreds of MPPs for the Entente. Seems like a no brainer to me: don't send the Telegram.

Hi Hubert, it was in windowed mode. I will send you my save file tonight. I forgot to add that after closing the research window and reopening, I could buy back the chit from Infantry Warfare for 50%. The display error still persists, but closing the window will help.

My question actually was around the benefits of attacking those NM hexes. If I understand correctly, after the newest patches, the US will only enter if the Germans are forcing the issue. Hence, if the Allied player does not heavily invest in diplomacy and the Germans are pacifying and not pressing with their subs, the US will not enter. What is the downside for the German player to go this route? In other words, are the benefits (NM plus) orf unrestricted warfare enough to warrant the risk to bring the US in earlier?

This is a question about strategy: Is it worth to attack the US NM hexes with subs/raiders compared to the NM gain the Germans get for using unrestricted warfare or not? In other words, do you guys attack them even though they cause the US level to gain or not? How much do the Germans gain for it? Generally, what are the preconditions for the US to enter? Is doing nothing an option for the German (doing nothing meaning, not attacking those NM hexes and no unrestricted warfare) or does the US always enter after a certain time? What are the calculations behind the US entry? Thanks

Hi Bill, Hubert, I found a small glitch in my current MP game. I had the UK research Infantry 2. The research was successful. But still there was a chit placed there. When I wanted to get rid of the chit and buy it back for 50%, it was not possible and the display of the costs for the chits was unreadable suddenly (by the way, that sometimes happened also in other circumstances. There seems to be a refresh error in the display for the tables of research as well as sometimes in the purchase units menu, so some fields become hard to read as they are overwritten and show two entries over each other). Question: Should the chit not be gone as 2 is the max that can be achieved in the WWI campaign? What about the display errors (they go away if you close the menu and reenter)?

I am struggling right now with one of my MP opponents. He is ruthlessly using his cavalry and even infantry to encircle the Russians. Coupled with the weak abilities of the Russian corps, all I can do right now is putting my corps into towns/fortresses/cities to delay him. That, of course, does not really work. I sense that this tactic is also due to some initial faults of mine while attacking, but I can see that he is using the style to the best advantage (and who would blame him). It is only the ahistorical effects that I see right now...no chance for the Russians to develop a coherent front line.

That's exactly my problem. But the other side of the coin is, that players can make gamey maneuvers, especially with cavalry on the Eastern Front, to cut off supply deep in the hinterland. The boardgame Great War in Europe had a wonderful solution for this: you cannot advance into hexes out of supply, so even if you did advance you had to capture a town by the movement. Otherwise, it was not possible. In SC game terms, this could be simulated by increasing the movement cost in enemy held terrain drastically.

This theatre still leaves my head scratching. As soon as the British detachment leaves Basra, the Ottomans sneak in or at least occupy the oilfields next to it. I think the Basra event should trigger two detachments to prevent this.

But Bill, that seems to be the issue. Once Aqaba conquered is a triggering condition for Lawrence, it is easy to move one Ottoman unit there and prevent him from arriving. The Arabs alone are too weak to conquer Aqaba.

Is is true that Lawrence only shows up once Aqaba is conquered? I see in the AAR that experienced players block the Arab uprising by putting a unit quickly there to make the Arab uprising toothless. Can this event be changed so that Lawrence shows up anyhow? What do others think about this?

I think what you mention is one of the biggest problems of the current engine: the ability of troops to hold out forever in an occupied town surrounded by enemies. I can understand such thing for fortresses but not for small towns. What I see is two strange things happening: 1) a corps which has advanced through enemy lines (maybe even by forced march) and occupying a town in the hinterland. This corps happily survives, has full movement to achieve this and is difficult to dislodge if at all (happens in Russia often) 2) a corps which was cut off in an offensive and needs to be dug out with a spoon...often needing artillery or 4 or more corps to dislodge/kill

Mmm...now, that is very fast. I guess that this could skew the game...so either disallow more than one chit or make research breakthroughs only possible after certain time.

Yes, don't change it...

Can you elaborate what the problem was and how it's fixed? Thanks!

I like your suggestions Glabro!

Interesting, playing against the AI seems to be a different beast altogether! Ok, here is my take on theater 2 Mesopotamia: It is sneaky to use the detachment to occupy all towns south of Bagdad but perfectly viable. I sometimes use a CP Turkish detachment to do the same and try to occupy the oilfields next to Basra, though competent Entente play might prevent that usually. This theater really leaves me scratching my head. As the CP against the AI, you can leave the corps in Bagdad and do nothing. As the Entente against the AI, I have no experience. I think this theatre only gets interesting once the British HQ comes. Sending a Turkish HQ there is maybe a waste as this HQ might serve better in the Balkans supporting the Bulgarians or the CP against Romania or Greece. Any thoughts?

I like Sharkman's comment about NM invisibility. Indeed, I think NM should be more generic if seen by the opponent (I like the red, yellow, green traffic light).

I am against a catastrophic setback. The way the game works, between splitting MPP between replacements and research, research tends to get waysided sometimes. Therefore, I suggest to leave it as it is or make only minor adjustments.

Ok, since nobody is biting, I will start with Theater 1: Serbia. The effect of the Austrians deploying their second army against Serbia is not big enough to cause Serbia to collapse in my opinion. However, they can take Belgrade and even penetrate a bit further given decent combat rolls. The lack of troops in Galicia due to this deployment is sorely felt and will lead to the loss of most Galician cities including Lemberg if Germany decides to press in the West. Therefore, I propose not to send the Austrians against Serbia and wait for a German HQ with artillery (or a decent HQ for the Austrians with heavy artillery) to start the offensive. The Bulgarians are nice to have, but by now means a must if Germany invests. If AH has to go alone, they should have the Bulgarians at their side and maybe even some Turkish corps. Then Serbia might fall in 1916. For the Entente, all depends on the commitment of the CP as above. An offensive into Austria is most surely a failure as the Serbs lack artillery to press against entrenched positions. All in all, the front is destined to become bogged down after the initial clashes in 1914 and stays quiet until the CP decides to act. Otherwise, it's a real sideshow which needs significant investment of both sides with no realistic hope of having an effect. Suggestion for the CP: Finish the Serbs in 1916 with some investment, otherwise treat it as a sideshow.

Ok, what do you guys out there do about the sideshows. 1a) Serbia as CP: Invest heavily as the CP and try to know them out with artillery, Germans and a German HQ? Will they ever fall against the AH only given that they have artillery there? 1b) Serbia as Entente: Do nothing? Beef up the Serbs to threaten Austria directly? Pull back after the fall of Belgrade? 2a) Mesopotamia as CP: do thing? Advance on Basra? 2b) Mesopotamia as Entente: Try to conquer the small cities? Sit and wait for the HQ and the attack Bagdad? 3a) Egypt as CP: Try to capture Cairo? Or beef up the defense and await the Entente? 3b) Egypt as Entente: Wait for the Indian corps and shift forces down, then attack in 1917? or do nothing? 4a) The Caucasus as CP: Dig in? 4b) The Caucasus as Entente: Launch an assault with artillery and corps onto Erzerum? Chances of that? 5a) Italy as CP: Defend or attack? Shift Germans there? 5b) Italy as Entente: Try to knockout Austria or keep quiet? These are the sideshows I consider worth thinking of...Gallipoli is such a hazard that I do not even consider it here, but of course, if somebody feels it's worthwhile, then let me know? Which of the sideshows really lends itself to a large investment? Or shall we ignore them altogether once the trenches are deep?

How about adding an artillery unit to the mix when the HQ comes? That would certainly help!

I also would like to explore a win by taking Paris...it's just very difficult (certainly even against the AI). Maybe by going only West and giving up East Prussia and Galicia, there is a chance.

I updated the game to 1.03 and I have the impression that it's really much faster now. I guess I am done by about 30% of the calculating time for the AI. Well done, Hubert!

Yes, that is a problematic issue for the AI. They tend to advance too often into enemy trenches. Maybe there should be an AI script/provision that makes advance possible only when there is a general breakthrough in the West (like in 1918) or not at all until the combined strength of Germany around the point of breakthrough is weak enough.