Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Furchtlosundtrew

  • Rank


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Bill, thanks. I have been in Rome for some days so I couldn't react sooner. I will try to get the Password of my Opponent and will send you a save-file then. Kind regards Furchtlosundtrew
  2. Hi Bill, no shelling of the City by the Battleship. The Shipp is shelling ground units one or two tiles away from Saloniki...
  3. Hi Bill, thanks for your attention. Saloniki stays at 5. The town between Saloniki and the turkish border (ist it named Kavala? Don't know) is at Supply 8. Turkey is in the war on my side. Nothing happened in Jugoslavia. No partisan activity, it has been completely under my control since i conquered it in April '41 and it's ressources/towns are all at least at Level 6. Saloniki had no enemy troops adjacent for several turns. There have been no bombing raids. The only possibility in my eyes is an British Battleship which is adjacent to Saloniki Harbour for several turns, but it would be new for me, that this can influence the supply Level of the City itself (I know, this can be true for the Harbour...). So it stays an enigma for me. Do you wanna have some save files?
  4. Hi Bob again ;o) To your question regarding generals (HQs): It depends from situation to situation. HQs are useful for your units as they are pushing the readiness value of an attached unit. Try the following: Put the modus of an HQ on auto-assist or manual mode. Chose a unit and change between attaching and deattaching an nearby HQ (you can change it as often, as you like). You will notice, that the unit's readiness will be much higher with an HQ attached, than without. By changing between different HQs you will notice, that the command rating (the higher, the better) and the HQ experience (dito) will also influence the readiness of the attached unit. You should have in mind, that the readiness is probably the most important value of a unit. The higher the readiness the better the combat results of the unit. To keep HQs close to your Units ist for the supply reason. HQs are "producing" supply and the closer a unit, the better ist it's supply Level (generally spoken). The better the supply of a unit, the better the morale. And the better the morale, the better the readiness... So normally (!) it is right, to attach HQs to all your units, even the air forces... ...but (!)... ...this is not true for all situations. As shown above, the experience of an HQ plays an important role for the readiness of the attached units, so it is important, to gain experience for your HQs and keep it high. Your HQs will lose experience, if the units - attached to this HQ - will lose fights. For the attacking unit a draw (for example losses of 1 point for attacker and defender each) is a lost fight, so in all cases, an attacking unit fights with a draw or a worser result, the attached HQ will lose some experience. If you have this in midn, it can be good in some cases, to deattach a unit from an HQ before combat. For example: Your artillery-units will in the most cases have a combat-prediction of 0 losses for the attacked unit (the real value of these attack is in the deentrenchment and demoralisation effect). So in the most cases the artillery will "lose" the battles. If you have your artillery units attached to HQs while attacking, this will suck much experience out of your HQs. And this can be the same for air Units in some cases, but it depends from situation to situation...
  5. Hi Bob, I normally try to give the French troops a hard hammering in the first weeks of the scenario. I try not to be completely passive at the british/belgian part of the front, but i lay a clear focus on France. You can try to lay the focus at the Britis troops instead, but you should try to bild a focal point instead of spread your attacks all over the front (my opinion). I deploy my artilleries in the following way: 2 of them in the nearest vicinity of Verdun. These have the Job to deentrench two of the forts in the first turn and I try to conquer them. The other one I normally depoly near to the town southwest of Verdun (don't know the name). There is a French Artillery behind the lines and you will be able to brake the French lines here an damage the artillery in the first turn. An important step to avoid counter attacks. In the following turns, you can try to capture this town there and cut some supply for Verdun (i belive the only railroad to the fortress goes trough this town, so the supply for Verdun should fall after capturing ist). I also try to move other artilleries (even by forced marching) close to verdun, to be able, to continue the assault in the next turns. I have to admit, that I never noticed the AI in attacking my recon Bombers consequently, maybe you should move them in less vulnerable positions. If you like, i could sent you the first turn as I would play it by email. Maybe you can see something you can use for your own games. Just let me know your email (by PM), if you are interested in... Good luck Furchtlosundtrew
  6. Hi there, one question to the supply situation in Saloniki in the SoE-scenario: In my current Pbem I play the Axis. I didn't attack greece, but my opponent did in 1941, conquered Athens and Greece surrendered to him. I brought some troops there and managed to drive back the British troops a little bit. I was able to conquer the City of Saloniki back. This citiy is linked by a railroad to Jugoslavia, which is under my control. For this reason, the supply of Saloniki should rise turn for turn up to a value of 8, (or maybe 10, because it is a Country which is allied with me). But I realised after some turns, that it stops at a supply level of 5. Do I miss a rule or is there a mistake in the Scenario design?
  7. Hi there, My opinion to this Scenario: Germany has a clear starting advantage not only because of it's artillery units, you can place free with 10 Shells each, but also because of it's gas/Shell level which is higher and makes each of it's gun much more valuable. Germans have a higher trench tech level too. If you use these benefits in the right way, you can bring the Entente into serious troubles! Of course, the entente gets stronger and stronger, the longer you play and they will close the tech gap at some date. But you have a chance, to cause so heavy damage before, that you will be able to win this scenario. Normally you will not reach Paris, but you can reach a major victory by conquering some key cities (Verdun, Reims etc.). Germany has one really big problem in this scenario and this is Verdun. As long, as I don't have conquered it, it's fortress guns will decimate my corpses round for round. This is in the long term very expensive in MPP, it lowers the fighting abilities of these units (because of their lower morale and lower experience) and it lowers german NM. In my opinion it is not a possibility to pull the German units away from Verdun to hinder the fortress guns to hit the units. The front makes a curve here and therefore it will become much longer, if I pull back. This would take more units to cover and Germany ist not very rich in units. So you have to take Verdun and you should do it as early, as possible. Therefore I place at least two of my starting guns here and you can take two of the Verdun fortresses with these in the starting turn. By using the other guns, which are already placed in the verdun area, you can take the other fortresses and the City itself within the first three or four of your turns. Despite of the unit losses France will lose much NM (Fortresses and City of Verdun are NM-objectives) and you gain a stronghold in this area which allows you, to use a lot of troops and the most of the guns in other Areas... One word to the superior airpower of the Entente: I would not say it is worth nothing, but it will not have the big influence in the battle, you could think. Against entrenched units (and so are the most in the scenario) they will not be able to cause some damage and even if they find some units, which are not entrenched (artillery or HQs), they will not be able, to eliminate them. Their Attack value is to low. The biggest use of the airplanes is, to scout the Tiles behind the enemy lines. If you use them therefore, you can avoid nasty surprise contacts, while pushing forward in an attack. And remember: You need just one fighter, to escort your recon bomber, so the air superiority of the Entente in numbers will not hinder you, to use your recon planes in the described way. I often put my fghters in the "ground modus" in the end of my turns, to keep them up for escort missions in my own turn...
  8. Hi Kirk, not shure, wether I understand your plans in the right way (my poor english...). Modelling Pre-Dreadnoughts, Battlecruisers and Dreadnoughts as Battleships with different tech-level is not a bad idea, but the Problem (in my eyes) doing so is, that without problems the battleships can be upgraded later in the game. So for some MPP it is possible, to bring the whole german fleet into fully armed Dreadnoughts and this is shurely not, what you intend to have, do you...?
  9. Hi Sapare, thanks, i did know, that a Port with an enemy ship adjacent gives no supply to land Units. But I didn't know, that this is the same for ships in the port. That menas, that there are different rules for restrengthening ships and lnad Units. Land Units Need supply and for Ships supply doesn't Play a role for restrengthening. But in my eyes, there is almost not more a sense in bombing down ports. For the most valuable supply it is enough, to block the ports and even if i bomb down a port to 0, i will not be able, to hit a ship within the port directly (except with submarines, but they can hit directly without any damage at the port). And I think the losses by the bombing ships are not worth the effect, that the enemy will not be able to restrength his ships for 1 round...
  10. yeah, i noticed something similar in my actual game. I had the ports of St. Petersburg completely surrounded by my Subs and Cruisers. The last Russian Cruiser in one of the two ports started with suppy 10 and lost a Point for every attack by my Subs (which should be normal) but didn't recover his Supply in the next own turn. I have to add, that i didn't attack the ports themselves, but only the cruiser within the ports by Sub attacks. Is there a rule for that?
  11. But Russians don't have to invest any MPP in their Navy. Their Ships are already in the prduction Queue and are for free Not quite shure at the Moment, but i think they get one ore maybe two Dreadnoughts and three or four Subs until 1916. Especially the Subs are vessels, the Ottomans can't handle in my opinion.
  12. Hi Sapare, thanks for your comments to this older thread of mine ;o) Some Points: I had a very short but instructive game against strategiclayabout (as you can read above) since i made my statemenats. It changed my mind in some Points. Germany has possibilities in the beginning, i didn't know, as i opened this thread in March '15. If they avoid a greater number of losses against France/Great Britain in '14 in the West (which is possible with a forced march opening), they will keep initiative and can go all in against russia in 1915. But still i belive, that it is to easy for russia, to gain high trench tech early and make it hard and slow for Germany to advance into russia. In my actual game against another good Opponent, we had a broad no mans land in the west in 1915, he was not able to manage to get art-tech early with France or great britain (i think he had no luck with researching in our game), so i could start my run for warcshau with a great nummber of german corpses. I had three Art Units at this Point and gas Shell Level 1, later level two. But the huge number of russian corpses and the trench Level made it very hard (too hard in my opinion) to advance. At the end of 1915 i had Warschau, Brest and Kovno. If (and this was the mistake of my Opponent in my eyes) he had managed, to step into the no man's land at the western front in winter 1914/15, he would have been a permanent threat and i would have been not able to invest in the east the same way i did in this game. The consequnece would have probably been, that it wouldn't have come further than Warschau (max.) The greatest Advantage of Germany is his great industrial potential. With investing in the tech, Germany gets the number of Mpps needed for a victory. Unfortunately russia's Industrie can grow to strength aswell. Summarizing: I still belive, russia shouldn't be able to tech trenches to fast and to far, this makes them relatively to strong. But Germany is not as weak, as i thought before and they have their possibilites too, at least, if western Entente doesn't hinder Germany... Regarding the Osman Dreadnought sitiation i didn't change my mind. Maybe it are just 5 turns more dardanelles trade (never counted them), but they make the difference. The additional 150 MPP means three steps trench tech (or an early additional industrial chit) and this will sale back to the russians in the Long term with compound interest. And i still have the opinion, that the ship is worthless for the osmans. They have a starting NM of 18.000 Points, so the loss of the ship would mean almost 3 Points of NM-loss! So the risk to lose it is very high. Even in Addition with the other ships the Ottoman fleet is not strong enough to rival the russian black sea fleet in the Long term. Russians have to many naval Units in their production Queue (and unfortunately and unhistorically they are free to place them in the Baltic sea or the black sea as they like). Russians will at least get 2 U-Boats which can't be defeated by 1 Ottoman destroyer. And even worser, the other Ottoman ships have to be restrengthed, before they are able to fight and this is much to costy for the weak Ottoman Industrie ;o( Not to talk about the fleet of the western Entente in the mediterranean, which is much to strong for an Ottoman adventure there. On a final note, it is pure Nonsense, that in this game russians show no reaction at all when britains give this ship to the Ottomans. I read the book "The russian origins of the first world war" by sean mcmeekin in my summer Holidays and after reading it is shure for me, that this ship (and another one, which would have been ready for delivery a little later) would have been the end of all russian imperial dreams in the black sea area for the next ten years! A truly possible reaction of russian leaders in this Situation would have been, to make a seperate peace treaty with Germany in 1914 or early 1915. In the game it has completely no consequences... ;o(
  13. Hi there, thanks for your comments. Id like to test march on Paris against you, Steel32. Unfortunately I have three hard Pbems at the Moment and a hard time at work. Maybe in two weeks the situation will be a bit better an we could start. If this is OK, I will send you my email-adress per PM.
  14. Hi Steel32, thanks for your comment, but i belive we are not talking (or writing) about the same Scenario. I belive you are writing about the call to arms Scenario, as you write about winning the war in the east and defeating belgium in 2 turns. I agree (if you are really talking about CtA). But i was writing about the Scenario "march on Paris" which covers only the western Front in '14...
  15. Some comment regarding the March on Paris Scenario, you named, Bill I tried this one in a pbem with each side some weeks before. On the first sight i liked it really. But with the time I am convinced, that Germany is unable to win this Scenario, if the Entente Player doesn't make serious mistakes. The biggest Problem is the supply in western Belgium, which slows down every german advance effectively. Every rail line leads at some Point through a belgium fortress. These are very strong here (Counter fire by the fortresses to enemy Units nearby at the end of the turns). Germany has just 1 Artillery Piece in the beginning and this one is far away. So the fortresses take time to be taken. Even if it succeeds very fast (and than surely with high losses), the supply in the fortress goes to 0 and therefore the supply of towns/cities behind These fortresses will be max. 5 (and therefore HQs at max 8, which is not enough for further fights) as long, as the fortresses grows up to 5. This will take the time of 5 (!) own turns and as the first (lets say 10 turns) are crucial before it becomes a static warfare, you are hindered to reach decisive positions. There is (i belive) no alternative to go through belgium, as the French are able to move their eastern mobilizing Units within the lines and trenches to the Luxemburg/Maubeuge area very fast. Is anyone here, who has a working winning strategy for this Scenario with Germany? Otherwise it would be advisable (in my eyes) to make it a bit easier for Germans. Some suggestions: - Adding another artillery-Piece for germany or at least make the only one deployable in the Deployment-Turn, so it can be placed at the Belgium Border. - Gas/Shell Tech Level 1 for Germany or at least give the starting artillery 10 Shots in the beginning. - remove the artillery fire by fortress guns at nearby units from all or maybe some of the fortresses or (if it's possible) imit it down to max. 2 Shots/Turn. It can be frustrating to encircle a fortress with 4 or more corpses and every one gets a hit after and before my turn... ;o( - Leave the fortress of liege (maybe not the nearby fort) empty in the beginning to model the coup de main by Ludendorffs 14th Infanterie Brigade on the citadelle and the City of Liege itself on the 7th August '14. What du you think?
  • Create New...