Ash N will "WWI Revisited" Post game discussion thread

[AshesFall]

Strategy and reflections

As always, there are so many “what ifs”, both in actual war, and a great strategy game like this. I’ve noticed a few bugs and have some thoughts overall.

This particular AAR from my side really demonstrated the absolute necessity of a solid grand strategy from turn one in the SC games. The temptation to test out all those elite steps and the subsequent delay of an invasion in the west, the following passive stance and lack of action against the Brits were what really lost me the game. That, and Will doing a solid job of keeping the pressure up and not letting me recover from those mistakes. We both have lacking knowledge of events and mechanics, and those often threw me curve balls in the game. That’s war though! Unexpected things happen.

There were a lot of bad breaks as well. Infantry tech just did not agree with me this game, the one early hit I had was on the ottomans, rendered useless by an equally early hit by the Brits. Aside from that, it took ages despite consistent investments, and even the Russians quickly matched the Germans despite investing in their chit half a year later.

The whole Gallipoli debacle threw my course off, made possible by a British landing in Sedd al Bahr the turn before my full garrison arrived there. This led to the prolonged survival of the Russians, the Romanians causing lots of trouble, and so on.

In hindsight, I would have been well served to cede Trento and Trieste to Italy. I easily lost that much morale in the continuing slaughter of Austrian units and captured cities. Their strength just completely surprised me, and I was stuck in historic thinking of them being near useless. Aside from that, ceding those cities deny the Entente another front, and most importantly three diplomatic chits.

I'm curious about what you guys think of the Ceding to italy strategy, in terms of diplomatic and military consequences. Also, is the strength of the Italians at start accurate? I know this was wildly skewed by lucky inf hits and lacking commitment on my part, but the basic strength was still there...

Still, the west held beyond all expectation, and I slowly clawed my way to a small shot at victory.

At the very end, I think a lot of people would have thrown everything at the western front and let the other fronts crumble. I made a different choice, partly based on erroneous assumptions, but I think I would make the same choice again nonetheless. As was immediately clear once the real fighting started, german Nm dropped like a stone and the gap between French and german nm quickly grew despite more than twice the casualties on their part. I needed NM somehow, to allow me to reach Paris.

If I had been slightly luckier with US diplomacy (30% chance during some five or six turns yielded only one hit), that would have bought me anywhere between two and five more turns. Given the final situation, my goal of capturing Cairo was within reach. With 1000 more nm from that, Germany might have been able to reach Paris.

Another issue is that I never found a good way to deal with tanks, tanks in fortresses are beastly. Artillery is extremely random, perhaps a massed and upgraded airforce?

I’m also a bit concerned about the viability of just sitting around with the Russians, withdrawing and skirmishing and “keeping them alive” passive aggressively that feels extremely wrong in the context of the historical period and imperatives that drove the warring nations. Sure, the Galician nm spots look nice, but keeping the Russian an annoyance and a threat in being until 1918 and beyond by playing an “army in being” doctrine could well be much more effective.

Nevertheless, it was an awesome game, and close to the finish!

On to bugs and oddities.

I’ll summarize some of the things from the entire thread here;

1. Fixed treaty of Bucharest “earliest” date regardless of Russian surrender

2. The “spend MPP to raise morale” option did not appear for either Russia or Germany at 25%

3. Railway gun bug, when bombarding a resource/city with a unit on it, it suddenly “drove over” the unit and the unit vanished.

4. German commanders often bug out with their command, meaning that they can only command four units. If you remove all assignments, they can often command 5 again, but that is not good in terms of combat power

5. Romanian occupied Varna not returned to Bulgaria after treaty of Bucharest

6. Us entry (see separate post).

[AshesFall]

Each of these turns were tested ten times for readiness increase variation

The Us entry is a point I’m thinking about and debating, and am not quite sure what to think about myself.

The picture shows testing done for the entry scripts, showing an actual increase of between 4- 10% possible each cycle, and a large jump inherent to the "support the movement" event.

With these kinds of automatic leaning scripts, I would think it to be extremely hard if not to say completely impossible to stop the US from joining the entente. It also invalidates any strategy where the CP player takes a non historical route and completely avoids antagonizing the US.

I'm nowhere near as read up on the Great War as I am regarding WW2, but what I have read is pretty one sidedly clear that the Us would have been unlikely to join without the extensive merchant raiding, the PR heist of the Lusitania, and the outright idiocy of the Zimmerman telegram.

The germans pay a heavy price to avoid any hostile action already, embodied in the continuing enforcement of an absolute blockade, and a strong british economy, along with the loss of the unrestricted warfare Nm boost.

What do you guys think about this all? Curious about different perspectives.

[AshesFall]

Unfortunately, this is an instance where the NM model failed and the "winner" is going to lose. Civilian morale should be soaring from the news from France but there is no game mechanism to reflect it.

So we're nearing the end of this great AAR with german NM down to 1...

Great effort for you final offensive Ash it's a clear morale victory at least huhu ^^ .

Entente is retreating everywhere !

*

- I disagree with you lettowvorbeck as I believe CP would have won by invading Belgium on turn 1 .

- I think not having french NM locations worth around 100 NM/turn for 2-3 years and more ground to defend in the West made the difference.

- Furthermore, german population would be eager for peace after four years of butchery when USA are 100% fresh. And CP couldn't have many more available men to enlist: the NM break also reflects that exhaustion of manpower.

First, thank you SL! I was pretty proud of that offensive, and given some luck with the random numbers generator I might have had time to just barely reach cairo and paris before my NM broke.

Right, so. Regarding the NM issue. I actually dont think there is a problem with the Nm mechanic per se, I like it a lot, and think it adequately reflects many things. In history, Germanys military was far from beaten, but exhaustion, manpower shortage, and starvation forced them to negotiate.

Looking at events and the whole picture however, there are some indirect consequences. The mechanics of US entry pretty much force an active war with Britain, they're pretty much always going to join anyway so might as well make the Brits pay for it.

After the fall of Russia germany loses a lot of NM income. I looked through the events in the editor, and france has nm gain events for Strasbourg, Metz, and undocumented for Mulhausen in the patch notes. Germany doesnt gain direct morale boosts by event for any conquest in france.

Any thoughts on how this is weighted, in relation to everything else? I assume that the ottomans are meant to go down pretty much, denying possibility of Nm gain from cairo.

Also, lastly, how do you guys percieve balance between the two sides?

Enough rambling from me for a bit!

[Altaris]

First off, great AAR, was a lot of fun following you guys!

Secondly, I don't think it's ahistorical to leave Russia as an army in being, this is pretty much what happened. In 1915, the Centrals stomped Russia, dropped its morale, then just let it crumble from the inside while they refocused on the Western Front.

Lastly, I really think the Centrals can easily win this game by simply not invading Belgium at all. Britain starts at 80% mobilization, and will need coaxing to come into the war (though don't send subs or other ships into the North Sea, or it will trigger them). Instead, focus on the Eastern Front from the onset. Russian troops suck vs German ones (they have 1 less attack and defense), so if you concentrate against them, you'll push them back whenever and wherever you want. Personally, I'd take out Serbia first, then focus on Russia proper, this protects a potential back-door attack from the Entente landing in Montenegro or Albania. Additionally, you're likely to get Bulgaria into the war early on this way too, which helps when you turn back against Russia.

Another, kinda hidden, advantage of this strategy is making it far easier to cycle troops from the fronts to upgrade them, a very important consideration. I really don't like the infantry tech upgrades in this game, as infantry didn't suddenly vastly improve over the enemy like it does here, and leads to ahistorical breakthroughs, especially on the Western Front. But it is what it is, and historical strategy severely hurts the Germans as its very tough to cycle troops from their entrenchments on the West to upgrade without leaving severe holes in the line. A shorter front really helps a lot with this (and in the East it's not that big a deal as you'll have plenty of real estate to cycle and upgrade).

This route does open a lot of possibilities for the Western Powers to launch offensives elsewhere, but it also vastly reduces the Western Front for the Germans, so it's a fair trade-off. With luck, you'll drive the Russians out of the war in 1916 and can focus on taking out the Western Powers before the USA can arrive in force.

[Will95]

A hell of a game, and extremely well played by Ash to have made it so far despite the Belgian elite units fiasco

I shall summarize my thoughts thusly;

- The guide needs a serious update!! Stuff like Romania coming into the war as a result of Gallipoli was a complete surprise to both Ash and myself (although it was less of a good surprise for one of us ), ditto the lack of a morale boosting event at the 25% mark. Also, the fact that troops tend to stay 'alive' after a country's official surrender if they are outside the borders isn't well publicized.

- The commander bug that Ash mentioned happened to me all the time! Very annoying.

- I don't think the US entry would have been such a blow if the Germans had taken more NM objectives. As it is, the only big objective they took was Belfort, and it was way too late (having lost Metz 2 years ago).

- I found the transporting of troops as British to the Middle East to be quite tedious (at first having to send transports all the way through the Atlantic, then to the Med, later having to operate through Italy then transport). Is there any chance of getting a loop from Britain (like in the WW2 scenarios)?

I don't have as much to say though, interested in hearing other's thoughts!

[Furchtlosundtrew]

Hi Will and Ash,

first of all: Great AAR from you! After the beginning and after starting of the great entente Offensive in Belgium in 1915/1916 i thouht it would be a fast end for the central powers. But Ash striked back and and did a great job in making the game very close and thrilling in the end. Congratulations Will for a deserved victory and congratulations Ash for nearly making the impossible possible!

Some comments:

- The command-bug happened to me many times. Indead it is a little annoying. Sometimes a Commander looses his command over a unit after moving/swapping this unit. Sometimes without any action. And then - like you described - it is impossible to add this unit or another unit again to the commander. My sollution is to put the settings on auto again, than the commander has (after the next turn) five units again, than settings back on manual and i can chose five units again. But I loose the fighting bonus for at least two turns, so it would be good, to find another sollution...

- To The USA-War-Entry-Problem: The question is, wether the USA would have gone to War without an unrestricted U-Boat War by Germany (and the sinking of several ships with US-Passengers) or wether they would not. It can't realy be answered. The game mechanics as described by ash say: They would have declared war on germany too, maybe a bit later. In my opinion it would have depended on the course of the war on other fronts. When (hypothetically) the Central Powers would have been faster in defeating Russia (let's say end 1916/ beginning 1917) and would have started the great offense in the west one year earlier and with a little more effect, the USA would not have entered the war because no one joins the clearly inferior side or the side that seems to be clearly inferior and seems already loosing the war.

Maybe the defeat of Russia ist not the perfect trigger for the preparedness movement event (but i don't know a better one).

In the end I would as CP (as long as the mechanics are like they are in the moment) never give up the advantages of the unrestrictetd u-boat war for the benefit of an US War entry few months later than in reality. The possible great MPP and NM losses for England and the great NM-Gains for Germany are worth even an earlier US War entry. I think you have won or lost the war before the US Troops can be decisive and in the AAR of will and ash it was just the NM that lost the war for the CP (and the NM was probably lost in Belgium/northern France).

- This leads to the next point: The end of the AAR. Ash (and especially germaný) lost the war because of the NM. In the field he mastered it to turn the tide and defeat the entente. Some more turns and the whole western front would have gone on to Paris. So in the AAR there happend realy a stab in the back. In reality the German army was not yet finally beaten in autumn 1918 but ist was clear that germany will loose the war at the latest in 1919 or 1920. There was no longer a hope for winning the war. This was one of the main reasons for the armistace and the end of the war. There where no serious riots in Germany (that ended the war too), as long, as it looked like Germany would win the war by the offense in spring 1918. Just after the great defeats and retreats in late summer 1918 it started. So the End of the AAR is quite unrealistic. But I think the NM-Modell in the game is a great idea and i have not realy an idea how you could avoid such results. When you describe it as lack of Manpower (for every casuality you get a nm hit) and of food (represented through the hits because of the blockade) the outcomuing of the war is right even if the occurence is odd.

So far my thoughts, hoping on another great AAR by Will and Ash (or other ones).

Furchtlosundtrew

[Will95]

I wouldn't be too quick to judge by saying that it would have been certain death for the Entente had the game continued and German NM been higher; I had, by mid June 1918, gotten to a point where I had bought back every lost corps (due to arrive throughout September, something like 10 of them) and started to buy fresh corps as well. Even if I had ceded a great deal of territory, I could likely have stalled the advance well before Paris by the time snow arrived, at which point the Americans would have started crossing. By May 1919 I could have had a significant American infantry force in France.

Also, the British line in the ME crumbled because I knew that German morale was falling so fast that the game would be over before the Ottomans could reach Cairo, so I just stopped sending reinforcements. Had German morale been higher I would've ceded more territory in France so as to reinforce the Egypt position, and in a worse case scenario, could have probably held more or less indefinitely at the Suez canal crossings.

[patrat618]

Also as allied, you knew you were ahead on NM and that you were going to probably win because of it.

If there was no NM mechanism and you had to rely on battlefield victory, I would think you would of played that last year quite differently. Such as adopting a more defensive stance and simply wait for the Yanks to bail you out.

[Bill101]

Thanks very much for the great AAR!

I am reading this thread and making notes, as always.

With regards to US mobilization later in the war, do the events described in post 46 in this thread explain it?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107356&page=5

I recommend unrestricted naval warfare as the solution to falling German National Morale, and I don't really worry too much about the USA. They are slow to mobilize and a weakened Britain helps in the meantime.

Normally US entrance into the war isn't anything like as decisive as it was here, because German NM was at crisis point when it happened.

In a situation like this where Germany only really starts advancing in 1918 things are rather different to those games where Germany strikes west in 1914-15. If we were to add some substantial one-off NM gains for conquests in France, then we'd have to counterbalance this in some way for those games where Germany takes and then holds these locations in 1914-15.

As to Italy, in my experience they are fairly easy to beat up if some German units go and help their Austro-Hungarian allies. Especially when I am commanding the Italians it seems!

The non-appearance of the Decisions to spend MPPs for NM when Germany and Russia is at 25% NM is strange, though note that these Decisions only appear if you said no to the earlier Decisions when NM had fallen to 50%, as a second chance to slow the decline. Could it be that?

Bill

[Will95]

The non-appearance of the Decisions to spend MPPs for NM when Germany and Russia is at 25% NM is strange, though note that these Decisions only appear if you said no to the earlier Decisions when NM had fallen to 50%, as a second chance to slow the decline. Could it be that?

Bill

Ah, that would be it. We both assumed it was a second event that stacked with the first one. Thanks for clearing that up, although it could be a little clearer in the manual

[Bill101]

Yes, I've just been looking at the Guide and it isn't clearly explained there as being dependent on a "no" to the first decision.

Seeing that even has me thinking of making it a second, and separate event just as you thought it was, so that the events are cumulative.

I wonder if that would be better?

[Will95]

I think it would be an interesting decision. I mean, the penalty is pretty clear cut and not-insubstantial; 50mpps is like 2 whole mines lost. What kind of NM boost would 2 of those events give when stacked on top of each other? It'd have to be fairly significant to justify the cost.

[Strategiclayabout]

Strategy and reflections

In hindsight, I would have been well served to cede Trento and Trieste to Italy. I easily lost that much morale in the continuing slaughter of Austrian units and captured cities. Their strength just completely surprised me, and I was stuck in historic thinking of them being near useless. Aside from that, ceding those cities deny the Entente another front, and most importantly three diplomatic chits.

- Here you have to consider Entente can still bring Italy in the war with diplomacy and their are other penalties for Austria than just NM: combat efficiency with morale/readiness shock for units, losses of MPPs/supply, vulnerable border, loss of ports making austrian navy even more vulnerable...

- In my opinion it's a very dangerous gamble if you have no other plan than just keeping Italy out. The decision of course depends on what happens on other fronts but oen strategy is to cede those areas to buy time before invading Italy with CP by surprise.

I'm curious about what you guys think of the Ceding to italy strategy, in terms of diplomatic and military consequences. Also, is the strength of the Italians at start accurate? I know this was wildly skewed by lucky inf hits and lacking commitment on my part, but the basic strength was still there...

Yes. They had masses of infantry hence the infamous "Isonzo battles":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Isonzo

You also have to think about the events allowing Italians to reinforce their troops using french and british MPPs.

Still, the west held beyond all expectation, and I slowly clawed my way to a small shot at victory.

At the very end, I think a lot of people would have thrown everything at the western front and let the other fronts crumble. I made a different choice, partly based on erroneous assumptions, but I think I would make the same choice again nonetheless. As was immediately clear once the real fighting started, german Nm dropped like a stone and the gap between French and german nm quickly grew despite more than twice the casualties on their part. I needed NM somehow, to allow me to reach Paris.

Another issue is that I never found a good way to deal with tanks, tanks in fortresses are beastly. Artillery is extremely random, perhaps a massed and upgraded airforce?

- That is also an effect of you playing with soft builds (I think ?). Too many tanks on the field . The only way to deal with them is tank vs tank plus artillery. Heavy air force support with ground attack upgrades can help finish them or soften them but usually it's better used against artillery and HQs.

I’m also a bit concerned about the viability of just sitting around with the Russians, withdrawing and skirmishing and “keeping them alive” passive aggressively that feels extremely wrong in the context of the historical period and imperatives that drove the warring nations. Sure, the Galician nm spots look nice, but keeping the Russian an annoyance and a threat in being until 1918 and beyond by playing an “army in being” doctrine could well be much more effective.

- You don't have to sit around but early in the game you have to be cautious. It's easy to waste russian corps when your economy can't keep up.

There are many corps arriving by events soon enough to build a near continuous line quite quickly.

- What Russians have to do is THREATEN CP vulnerable spots to force troop transfer and MPPs burning. Air and cavalry are keys to spot thsoe weaknesses as it's hard to cover everything in the East at start for CPs.

- The silesian mines are usually a good target but of course it depends where CPs deploy their extra-units at start and by event (austrian reinforcements). I also think taking out the oil wells in Galicia is a more attainable and effective objective than the nearby fortress.

- Also remember Russia amphibious moves can be a pain for OE. Another little trick is to let the Sultan Osman shop go to OE for Brits. Why ? Because it delays OE war entry meaning Russia will keep receiving 30MPPs per turn thanks to Dardanelles trade :cool: !

Nevertheless, it was an awesome game, and close to the finish!

On to bugs and oddities.

I’ll summarize some of the things from the entire thread here;

1. Fixed treaty of Bucharest “earliest” date regardless of Russian surrender

2. The “spend MPP to raise morale” option did not appear for either Russia or Germany at 25%

3. Railway gun bug, when bombarding a resource/city with a unit on it, it suddenly “drove over” the unit and the unit vanished.

4. German commanders often bug out with their command, meaning that they can only command four units. If you remove all assignments, they can often command 5 again, but that is not good in terms of combat power

5. Romanian occupied Varna not returned to Bulgaria after treaty of Bucharest

6. Us entry (see separate post).

- I think you can add diplo chits from surrendered majors being still active ?

@ Altaris:

Not invading Belgium at all is VERY dangerous. A well coordinated attack with Brits and French can roll over Belgium and threaten your industrial heart in 2 turns. From there they can even Dow on Holland later to hit your NM while flanking whatever defense you have. Not a good deal in my opinion.

[AshesFall]

@StrategicLayabout;

Thank you, as always, for your insights. Of course, with a game as complex as this many things are down to preference and the individual player, would be interesting to see if there are more takes on the strategic angles you mentioned?

Interesting about Italy, with their large army. Lousy commanders, less experienced troops, and to a smaller extend worse equipment hampered them the most it seems. Does the game model those disadvantages well? I'm not sure actually. The inf tech is easy to invest in early and then hope for an early hit, the bad commanders replaceable.

One thing I would actually really like to see in the WWI game is a sizeable penalty for dismissing commanders outside of events. Prestige loss, rigid seniority structure, disruption to operations and so on. Less experienced... hm, that would mainly be the commanders I guess? As discussed early in this AAR its pretty hard to maintain elite steps on inf in this variant.

On soft builds, yeah thats probably it! Do people use soft builds or hard generally in this campaign? I usually like soft builds, but there might be a point to the hard ones here. What would be the down and upsides?

Any thoughts on US entry? They raced ahead wildly faster than the event we looked at in the AAR.

The current bugs and oddities list stand like this then;

1. Fixed treaty of Bucharest “earliest” date regardless of Russian surrender

2. The “spend MPP to raise morale” option did not appear for either Russia or Germany at 25%

3. Railway gun bug, when bombarding a resource/city with a unit on it, it suddenly “drove over” the unit and the unit vanished.

4. German commanders often bug out with their command, meaning that they can only command four units. If you remove all assignments, they can often command 5 again, but that is not good in terms of combat power

5. Romanian occupied Varna not returned to Bulgaria after treaty of Bucharest

6. Us entry (see separate post).

7. Diplomatic chits from surrendered majors being still active ?

8. Redeeming diplomatic chits do not yield half their investment cost back

@Bill101 Yeah, I think that could be an interesting choice, with the second event!

[Strategiclayabout]

@StrategicLayabout;

Thank you, as always, for your insights. Of course, with a game as complex as this many things are down to preference and the individual player, would be interesting to see if there are more takes on the strategic angles you mentioned?

- You're welcome as always .

Interesting about Italy, with their large army. Lousy commanders, less experienced troops, and to a smaller extend worse equipment hampered them the most it seems. Does the game model those disadvantages well? I'm not sure actually. The inf tech is easy to invest in early and then hope for an early hit, the bad commanders replaceable.

- Somehow yes because Italy need to be at least some kinf of a threat to Austria otherwise CP players would just ignore that front. Actually it's quite easy to keep them under control in the mountains as in the Isonzo battles.

- One thing to do is to build all detachments for Austria quickly so you'll have 3 extra ones with the free border detachments, add an HQ in the low supply area when you can and entrench your men early where their ZoCs will prevent movement in your back then you're set ^^ !

One thing I would actually really like to see in the WWI game is a sizeable penalty for dismissing commanders outside of events. Prestige loss, rigid seniority structure, disruption to operations and so on. Less experienced... hm, that would mainly be the commanders I guess? As discussed early in this AAR its pretty hard to maintain elite steps on inf in this variant.

On soft builds, yeah thats probably it! Do people use soft builds or hard generally in this campaign? I usually like soft builds, but there might be a point to the hard ones here. What would be the down and upsides?

- I think I remember seeing somewhere this campaign being best played with hard builds (historical force pools) but difference isn't that great and costs for units above pool limits climb quickly.

* downs:

less detachments so hard to cover all weak spots for CPs

less artillery for CPs

(Germany 4 Austria 2 OE 2 Bulgaria 1)

* ups:

less infantry/corps for France

less tanks for Entente

Any thoughts on US entry? They raced ahead wildly faster than the event we looked at in the AAR.

- You have to win before they come or diplo them before Entente do to delay their entry further . More seriously as the trigger lies with Russia's surrender it comes down once again to how you "control" that to squeeze NM and MPPs from the Tsar while not eliminating him too quickly.

- Other than that I think the numbers in the manual were changed at some point because players found the cost to bring USA on Entente side wasn't worth it as they came in too late to change anything before. Now it's an actual threat and CP can't just sit behind trenches waiting for french NM to reach 0.

The current bugs and oddities list stand like this then;

1. Fixed treaty of Bucharest “earliest” date regardless of Russian surrender

2. The “spend MPP to raise morale” option did not appear for either Russia or Germany at 25%

3. Railway gun bug, when bombarding a resource/city with a unit on it, it suddenly “drove over” the unit and the unit vanished.

4. German commanders often bug out with their command, meaning that they can only command four units. If you remove all assignments, they can often command 5 again, but that is not good in terms of combat power

5. Romanian occupied Varna not returned to Bulgaria after treaty of Bucharest

6. Us entry (see separate post).

7. Diplomatic chits from surrendered majors being still active ?

8. Redeeming diplomatic chits do not yield half their investment cost back

- For 8 I think that's quite logical to have a difference here between research and diplo chits. Once you begin to give diplo "gifts" you can't take them back or you'll upset your new "friends".

@Bill101 Yeah, I think that could be an interesting choice, with the second event!

- One more thing about french NM objectives: Paris is close to the front so you don't need that many special NM tiles for Germans. Verdun and Belfort don't seem like much but their one time NM hit bonus plus their 30 NM value per turn is huge (growing NM gap of 120 per turn between France and Germany, 170 if you add Nancy, over 200 with 2 more nearby minor towns).

- If you add the usual NM locations gains in northern France it can quickly become an endless bleeding for France as they don't have that many enemy NM locations available unless they go after the Turks.

[sokulsky]

Can't agree with some points presented in this thread regarding CP weakness.

In my opinion, balance of this game is currently on the CP side of the barbed wire, mostly due to the Captain Hindsight abilities that allow you to act differently than in reality.

Proper play by CP involves:

- hyperteching the Industrial Technology with Germany (similar effort on Entente side requires much more MPP's as research in their case is much more expensive and doesn't provide the similar effect really <single centralised MPP power in Imperial Germany vs divided economies, of which the strongest has the weakest army - Russia and all of them have to pay for tons of different, really necessary things early in the game)

- hyperteching the trench warfare with Germany (Yet again, just 250 MPP's and soon your line in the West is very safe and you can go on a rollercoster with german army vs Russia - similar effort on Entente side is pretty much impossible due to early "pay for this, pay for that" events and it's yet again more costly (Russia needs to put a lot of MPP's to stop Serbia from falling too quickly, while taking Lemberg is often an impossible to do effort)

- keeping OE alive by conserving it's forces (not that hard, just don't attack Russia, defend everywhere, invading Gallipoli is very pricey anyway but keep troops around there as well)

So Captain Hindsight for CP is pretty much:

- go for 5 chits in Industrial tech ASAP (with Imperial Germany)

- go for 5 chits in Trench Warfare ASAP (it's a no 1 choice for AH to make Italian forces useless in 1915 and 1916)

- Go for full Schlieffen instead of cutting it short towards Marne like Von Kluck did) - all 3 players I started Breakthrough! games followed it

- Go for Russia with Germans as soon as possible with German forces - all 2 out of 3 players I started Breaktrhough! games followed it

- deploy 2nd AH army in Galicia - 2 out of 3 players I started Breakthrough! games followed it, it can easily stop Russian offensive there

- keep Holland on your side of the fence (quite easy really)

- don't waste OE forces vs Russia (easy, even with artillery unit there, Russia can hardly bite OE there w/o losing hard vs ahistorically large war effort on Imperial Germany side), just go for the trench warfare

What to do with initial german deployment?

- there are 2 great opportunities, one is the Belfourt move (capture it on-instant in turn 1) or put it all (except for arty) in Prussia and save a lot of MPP's for operating units there later on (I tend to call itKleine Ostaufmarsch option), both are great and both give better-than-historical outcomes as you will capture Arras anyway, arty or not if you force march efficiently enough

Why to go for Russia with Germans ASAP?

- to gain large NM pool quickly that will stop the North Sea blockade effects (totally ahistorical btw. as gained territory was unable to prevent the blockade effect of hunger even after the defeat of Romania and effects of socialistic agitation while currently in game German NM goes slightly up even with a full blockade ON due to the amount of captured Russian territory).

Why to go with 2nd AH army vs Russia?

- do that and stop them from taking Lemberg (it's quite easy, tbh too easy) and prevent some NM boost to Russia + stop Romania from taking interest in te conflict. You'll take Serbia anyway with German help.

What to do with Austro-Hungary?

- 2nd army to protect northern border vs initial russian offensive (if you're lucky enough you might retain both Lemberg and Oil fields with german help), entrench on Italian border and use superior trench tech to be protected there + assist in German push vs Russian army (best area is ofc Ukraine), do it well and your NM won't go below 90, later on use your army vs Italy or France as a meat shield to keep German NM on a good level

What to do with OE?

- sit tight on Gallipoli, sit tight in Palestine (get some German help in case of increased Commonwealth efforts), protect Baghdad and... see how supply problems kill most of the GB player efforts (tbh it wasn't that hard)

What to do with Kaiserliche Marine?

- don't go for Jutland, keep it in Baltic and hunt Russians as your march progress ; go for submarine tech and launch undersee campaign once you will get a lot more U-boots than initially - destroyers efficiency vs subs lacks a lot even on a parred level and they can hurt larger ships easily anyway, so just just play the cat & mouse with them and who knows, perhaps you'll be even able to sail against Royal Navy if you'll do well enough. Generally speaking they need 2 destroyers to stop your 1 U-boot.

What to do with Kaiserliche Marine und Königliche Kriegsmarine?

- keep it in port and reinforce, until that time shield with subs and in the end try to sail to Mediterrean after 1917. Even if it will get hunted early in the war, it doesn't matter as Trench Warfare hyperteching willl stop AH from any chance of crumbling for sure, so yet again, a risk on Entente side.

Do I want to go with Unrestricted Naval Warfare?

- of course you don't!

Positive Captain Hindsight for Entente gives following possibilities:

- save most of the Belgian army

- save a lot of Serbian army and use it in defending Greece

- don't go for Gallipoli (but it may be a mistake in the end)

- invest early in anti-submarine warfare with GB

- keep Russian army in coherent state via massing a lot of troops and leaving the area of Poland soon enough

- entrench ASAP in western front (still won't stop germans from taking Arras)

- amphibious attacks on AH from Italy (only if AH navy is going to be defeated, which is not that easy and tbh not that efficient due to Italy MPP limits and small army size)

- amphibious attacks on OE from Russian side (hardly possible if CP players uses his initiative well)

Now, what's wrong with Entente in addition to Captain Hindsight effects:

- France has to pay for too much things in 1914 and 1915, it's army cap in historical option seems to be too low in term of amount of corps when compared to total amount of mobilised soldiers (almost 8,5 million), in initial turns you're forced to "shield&dig" because MPP's have to be used for other things (sure, try not to pick up Foch or take Marines - tell me when you'll do it, because I can assure you that it won't be 1914 anymore), so there's no place for that initial punch vs punch battles of 1914 as it's either reinforcements or LT1&Trench Warfare parity for France

- Italian army often enters the war underequipped to the point of being useless vs high trench tech and can't be used efficiently until rearmed and hyperteched which is hard as hell with their low-MPP abilities

- GB has to pay tons of MPP's for events and yet again, tons of MPP's for moving units to France (how the hell is it logical for the transport costs to be fixed? In terms of moving units, it doesn't matter if you're going for Suez or Calais - you're still going to pay around 36MPP's for a corps and 15 MPP's for a detachment which is a lot and can only be countered by investing in Infrastructure which just doesn't pay off in terms of transport at this moment)

- if CP will hypertech in industry, there's a significant lack of resources for diplo-action to pull USA into war, as it's just very expensive (it's enough to read MP AAR's on forum to see that they almost never enter on Entente side), it requires a few thousands of MPP's and it's a hard to achieve effort espescially that Northern Sea blockade sometimes kill your efforts to some extent and not a single wise CP player will go for Unrestricted Naval Warfare vs GB, knowing what's behind it (same with Zimmerman telegram)

So basically speaking, NM mechanics and Captain Hindsight cost Entente additional tons of MPP's, while CP can just chillout until beating Russians prudently. Later on, try to stop Ludendorff, as you had to go with additional diplo-hits on USA. Your diplomats prolly won't beg hard enough before Kaiser will take Paris.

IMO, without a serious (I'll stress it, serious) mistake on CP side, Entente can just play along the CP initiative (which is quite easy to maintain, largely due to it's land connection).

[Cfant]

I'm still new with the game, having played both sides against AI now. From my (very limited) experience, the CP have much more freedom in what they do. Russia and Britain have so many things to do with very few MPP. While I could buy extra units AND develop upgrades without any problem as CP, I had problems to keep my existing troops reinforced with the Entente until middle of 1916.

Look at the Royal Navy - for whatever reason, the navy is understrength and it takes quite some time and MPP to get ready to fight, while the Hochseeflotte is in better shape.

Regarding the US entry - in RL the US entered the war, but I guess they seldom do in the game. Imho things that happened in RL should be LIKELY in the game. But even if you invest a lot of MPP into the US as Entente, the US will enter the war rather late (if ever). Yepp, they give you NM, but having bought more units with the MPP instead of buying diplo-chits, maybe your NM wouldn't be so low as Entente

So in my opinion the CP face a more comfortable situation than in Real Life Still it's what I thought while playing against the AI, I don't know how the situation is in a PbEM. It's just my two cents

[AshesFall]

@Soulsky;

Well, that is certainly a very definite and deterministic assessment of the game. Does everyone in the thread agree? It would be interesting to hear counterpoints.

I'm pretty aware that my eventual defeat was mostly engineered by my own bad planning, and Wills solid counter play. The question of the US is rather one of Historicity, would they truly have joined at all barring the events of actual history?

I must say, I really like the WWI campaign, and the shortcomings described by sokulsky, if accurate, can be fairly easily remedied by some tweaks.

Discussion is still open!

[Strategiclayabout]

Yeah but I'm playing Sokulsky now so I understand where he comes from ^^ .

Can't agree with some points presented in this thread regarding CP weakness.

In my opinion, balance of this game is currently on the CP side of the barbed wire, mostly due to the Captain Hindsight abilities that allow you to act differently than in reality.

- Can't agree completely as it works for Entente too: no silly Nivelle "Chemin des Dames" offensive with a 2,000 casualties rate per minute .

Proper play by CP involves:

- hyperteching the Industrial Technology with Germany (similar effort on Entente side requires much more MPP's as research in their case is much more expensive and doesn't provide the similar effect really <single centralised MPP power in Imperial Germany vs divided economies, of which the strongest has the weakest army - Russia and all of them have to pay for tons of different, really necessary things early in the game)

- Indus tech is 125MPPs for all major majors (UK-France-Russia-Germany) so you mean more expensive vs income I suppose ?

- Game only allows 3 chits in industry at any time and most 75/100/125 fields so you can't hypertech indus. You can hypertech trench tech however (5 chits allowed in 50 fields) but you have to consider german research limit of 1,000 MPPs:

1x125 infantry

3x125 industry

5x50 trench

- That's already 750 then you have those combinations remaining to max out:

2x75 & 1x100 or 2x50

1x50 & 2x100

3x50 & 1x100

2x125

5x50

- However with only 4x50 in trench you free some very interesting ones:

2x125 & 1x50

1x100 & 4x50

1x125 & 1x75 & 1x100

3x100 (3 chits in shells or intel from start Mmmmh ^^)

4x75

- hyperteching the trench warfare with Germany (Yet again, just 250 MPP's and soon your line in the West is very safe and you can go on a rollercoster with german army vs Russia - similar effort on Entente side is pretty much impossible due to early "pay for this, pay for that" events and it's yet again more costly (Russia needs to put a lot of MPP's to stop Serbia from falling too quickly, while taking Lemberg is often an impossible to do effort)

- Here you have to consider how those events (especially for UK) save a lot of MPPs in the long term:

1) the Basra event gives a great strategic chance and MPPs/NM per turn with the city and oil field

2) deploying units near Arras help France a lot and saves a good chunk of naval transport costs

3) the event to get "free" corps by raising a new army is a great bargain

4) and so on...

5) UK also has the Sultan Osman event which if declined will provide Russia with 30 MPPs per turn (Dradanelles trade) for several turns. With some luck it can end above 200 MPPs for the Tsar. Sure OE will get a battleship but the cost and NM target it will be can be more of a burden than anything.

- Furthermore Germany also has many events to pay for (Hindenburg HQ, help to OE and such).

- keeping OE alive by conserving it's forces (not that hard, just don't attack Russia, defend everywhere, invading Gallipoli is very pricey anyway but keep troops around there as well)

- OE is clearly the weak link for CP as they can't cover everything. Taking Gallipolli is great and pricey indeed but just landing on the strait tile to send Entente ships to Marmara Sea can hurt OE a lot and it's cheaper . Some good amphib moves with only detachments can truly break OE apart.

So Captain Hindsight for CP is pretty much:

- go for 5 chits in Industrial tech ASAP (with Imperial Germany)

- go for 5 chits in Trench Warfare ASAP (it's a no 1 choice for AH to make Italian forces useless in 1915 and 1916)

- Go for full Schlieffen instead of cutting it short towards Marne like Von Kluck did) - all 3 players I started Breakthrough! games followed it

- There is a reason to cut short and it's to save MPPs and maintain german units efficiency. Any counter on german units after forcemarch can hurt you badly and cost a lot of MPPs !

- Usually I only do that when I deploy all starting german units in the West but most players will deploy some in the East.

- Go for Russia with Germans as soon as possible with German forces - all 2 out of 3 players I started Breaktrhough! games followed it

- deploy 2nd AH army in Galicia - 2 out of 3 players I started Breakthrough! games followed it, it can easily stop Russian offensive there

- It's interesting but has downsides. Actually it depends on what you do with german starting units. You don't need 2nd AH army in Galicia if CP can shorten the front quickly in Poland.

- Furthermore those units and the HQ are enough to at least capture Belgrade securing a good supply source in Serbia for 1915 and providing some MPPs while pushing Bulgaria towards CP early. You won't need to send german units (except artillery maybe) and they will go to Poland instead where anything they conquer will give you NM (not the case for Serbia).

- keep Holland on your side of the fence (quite easy really)

- don't waste OE forces vs Russia (easy, even with artillery unit there, Russia can hardly bite OE there w/o losing hard vs ahistorically large war effort on Imperial Germany side), just go for the trench warfare

What to do with initial german deployment?

- there are 2 great opportunities, one is the Belfourt move (capture it on-instant in turn 1) or put it all (except for arty) in Prussia and save a lot of MPP's for operating units there later on (I tend to call itKleine Ostaufmarsch option), both are great and both give better-than-historical outcomes as you will capture Arras anyway, arty or not if you force march efficiently enough

- There is at least a third option in Poland as said before. The main downside of deploying in Prussia is that it doesn't shorten the front (quite the opposite actually ).

Why to go for Russia with Germans ASAP?

- to gain large NM pool quickly that will stop the North Sea blockade effects (totally ahistorical btw. as gained territory was unable to prevent the blockade effect of hunger even after the defeat of Romania and effects of socialistic agitation while currently in game German NM goes slightly up even with a full blockade ON due to the amount of captured Russian territory).

Why to go with 2nd AH army vs Russia?

- do that and stop them from taking Lemberg (it's quite easy, tbh too easy) and prevent some NM boost to Russia + stop Romania from taking interest in te conflict. You'll take Serbia anyway with German help.

- It can be quite interesting to appear weak in Galicia to bait Russians down there even if you lose Lemberg. The line will be weaker somewhere else for Germans.

What to do with Austro-Hungary?

- 2nd army to protect northern border vs initial russian offensive (if you're lucky enough you might retain both Lemberg and Oil fields with german help), entrench on Italian border and use superior trench tech to be protected there + assist in German push vs Russian army (best area is ofc Ukraine), do it well and your NM won't go below 90, later on use your army vs Italy or France as a meat shield to keep German NM on a good level

What to do with OE?

- sit tight on Gallipoli, sit tight in Palestine (get some German help in case of increased Commonwealth efforts), protect Baghdad and... see how supply problems kill most of the GB player efforts (tbh it wasn't that hard)

- Build all small units and even air to protect against amphibious moves and gain more strategic mobility. Keep an eye on partisan tiles once arab rebellion starts. Put an unit in Aqaba as soon as possible to delay Brits unless they seize it right away with an amphibious move.

What to do with Kaiserliche Marine?

- don't go for Jutland, keep it in Baltic and hunt Russians as your march progress ; go for submarine tech and launch undersee campaign once you will get a lot more U-boots than initially - destroyers efficiency vs subs lacks a lot even on a parred level and they can hurt larger ships easily anyway, so just just play the cat & mouse with them and who knows, perhaps you'll be even able to sail against Royal Navy if you'll do well enough. Generally speaking they need 2 destroyers to stop your 1 U-boot.

What to do with Kaiserliche Marine und Königliche Kriegsmarine?

- keep it in port and reinforce, until that time shield with subs and in the end try to sail to Mediterrean after 1917. Even if it will get hunted early in the war, it doesn't matter as Trench Warfare hyperteching willl stop AH from any chance of crumbling for sure, so yet again, a risk on Entente side.

Do I want to go with Unrestricted Naval Warfare?

- of course you don't!

Positive Captain Hindsight for Entente gives following possibilities:

- save most of the Belgian army

- save a lot of Serbian army and use it in defending Greece

- don't go for Gallipoli (but it may be a mistake in the end)

- invest early in anti-submarine warfare with GB

- keep Russian army in coherent state via massing a lot of troops and leaving the area of Poland soon enough

- entrench ASAP in western front (still won't stop germans from taking Arras)

- amphibious attacks on AH from Italy (only if AH navy is going to be defeated, which is not that easy and tbh not that efficient due to Italy MPP limits and small army size)

- amphibious attacks on OE from Russian side (hardly possible if CP players uses his initiative well)

Now, what's wrong with Entente in addition to Captain Hindsight effects:

- France has to pay for too much things in 1914 and 1915, it's army cap in historical option seems to be too low in term of amount of corps when compared to total amount of mobilised soldiers (almost 8,5 million), in initial turns you're forced to "shield&dig" because MPP's have to be used for other things (sure, try not to pick up Foch or take Marines - tell me when you'll do it, because I can assure you that it won't be 1914 anymore), so there's no place for that initial punch vs punch battles of 1914 as it's either reinforcements or LT1&Trench Warfare parity for France

- The fact is french historical mobilization effort went beyond limits. France had 40 millions people vs Germany's 65 millions and couldn't do more than what you have ingame. The war bled the country dry.

- However France has a great advantage with mostly good defensive terrain, short front, ability to share losses early with UK and a great array of supply sources to keep morale high. It's nearly impossible to destroy french units in low supply so their casualty replacement rate is very high. They also have 2 tanks instead of one coming with hard builds.

- Italian army often enters the war underequipped to the point of being useless vs high trench tech and can't be used efficiently until rearmed and hyperteched which is hard as hell with their low-MPP abilities

- Italy adds cannon fodder and diplo chits to Entente as well as several ships and threatens the soft belly of Austria with its ports and navy. Even without offensive it's a constant problem for CPs.

- GB has to pay tons of MPP's for events and yet again, tons of MPP's for moving units to France (how the hell is it logical for the transport costs to be fixed? In terms of moving units, it doesn't matter if you're going for Suez or Calais - you're still going to pay around 36MPP's for a corps and 15 MPP's for a detachment which is a lot and can only be countered by investing in Infrastructure which just doesn't pay off in terms of transport at this moment)

- if CP will hypertech in industry, there's a significant lack of resources for diplo-action to pull USA into war, as it's just very expensive (it's enough to read MP AAR's on forum to see that they almost never enter on Entente side), it requires a few thousands of MPP's and it's a hard to achieve effort espescially that Northern Sea blockade sometimes kill your efforts to some extent and not a single wise CP player will go for Unrestricted Naval Warfare vs GB, knowing what's behind it (same with Zimmerman telegram)

- Here you have to notice that Entente diplo chits for USA cost 150 MPPs while CP ones cost 200 MPPs !

So basically speaking, NM mechanics and Captain Hindsight cost Entente additional tons of MPP's, while CP can just chillout until beating Russians prudently. Later on, try to stop Ludendorff, as you had to go with additional diplo-hits on USA. Your diplomats prolly won't beg hard enough before Kaiser will take Paris.

IMO, without a serious (I'll stress it, serious) mistake on CP side, Entente can just play along the CP initiative (which is quite easy to maintain, largely due to it's land connection).

- Entente has the initiative against OE especially with Bulgaria out of the war. And while CP have more strategical mobility it cost a lot to operate units from one front to another. Overall combined NM is also weaker for CP and Russia can be a pain for Germany as long as it can maintain a continuous frontline. The possibility to hit CP NM/MPPs with diplomacy is also a great advantage (Holland, Norway, Sweden, USA...).

I hope all of that will help have even more fun with the game ^^ !

[Furchtlosundtrew]

One point that i want to discuss:

Is ist wise, to invest chits in intelligence research? Ash did it in the beginning of the game (at least to chits) and even Strategiclayabout discusses it. Clearly is: When you do so, you have to do it early in the game because only then you can have the full benefit from a faster research. But if you do it early, i'm not shure wether you won't miss the investment in other research areas.

I belive you can reserach your intelligence in the WW1 Campaign only to a maximum of two (maybe i am wrong and it are three but not more) steps. So even if you reserach intelligence up to the maxiumum, the effect is not that strong as in the storm over europe campaign. Furthermore the campaign is mutch shorter than the SOE Campaign so you have less time to use your faster research...

I think most players would agree, that investment in industrie (at least two chits = 250 MPP), infanterie warfare (maximum of one chit = 125 MPP) and trench warfare (at least three chits, some player would say even four or five chits = 150 - 250 MPP) should be done asap. So there are imperative investments of 525 - to 625 MPP, even more if you wanna invest more chits in industrie. These MPP are (especially in the beginning of the game, the first ten turns) not simple to save while you have to replace losses of units etc...

So lets say you are able to invest in intelligence in about the sixth or seventh turn (which would be rather early but not impossible to the cost of other investments). If you are lucky you can have a research breakthroug hit after maybe five or six turns (if you are unlucky and have to research the full 100 % it may last 10 - 15 turns...). So the probably earliest point, the effect of your step one intelligence starts is after 11/12 turns (and only if you make an early investment and are very lucky). At this point, when you start to research a little bit faster than the other nations, the other nations will have yet made significant progresses in their own research and will have the first step (or are very close to) in their preferred research areas. So you can only slow down the later steps of your enemies but will loose a 100 MPP investment early in the game in important areas.

I think an early investment maybe in gas/shell for 100 MPP will pan out much more than an intelligence investment

What do you mean?

Furchtlosundtrew

[AshesFall]

One point that i want to discuss:

Is ist wise, to invest chits in intelligence research? Ash did it in the beginning of the game (at least to chits) and even Strategiclayabout discusses it. Clearly is: When you do so, you have to do it early in the game because only then you can have the full benefit from a faster research. But if you do it early, i'm not shure wether you won't miss the investment in other research areas.

I belive you can reserach your intelligence in the WW1 Campaign only to a maximum of two (maybe i am wrong and it are three but not more) steps. So even if you reserach intelligence up to the maxiumum, the effect is not that strong as in the storm over europe campaign. Furthermore the campaign is mutch shorter than the SOE Campaign so you have less time to use your faster research...

I think most players would agree, that investment in industrie (at least two chits = 250 MPP), infanterie warfare (maximum of one chit = 125 MPP) and trench warfare (at least three chits, some player would say even four or five chits = 150 - 250 MPP) should be done asap. So there are imperative investments of 525 - to 625 MPP, even more if you wanna invest more chits in industrie. These MPP are (especially in the beginning of the game, the first ten turns) not simple to save while you have to replace losses of units etc...

So lets say you are able to invest in intelligence in about the sixth or seventh turn (which would be rather early but not impossible to the cost of other investments). If you are lucky you can have a research breakthroug hit after maybe five or six turns (if you are unlucky and have to research the full 100 % it may last 10 - 15 turns...). So the probably earliest point, the effect of your step one intelligence starts is after 11/12 turns (and only if you make an early investment and are very lucky). At this point, when you start to research a little bit faster than the other nations, the other nations will have yet made significant progresses in their own research and will have the first step (or are very close to) in their preferred research areas. So you can only slow down the later steps of your enemies but will loose a 100 MPP investment early in the game in important areas.

I think an early investment maybe in gas/shell for 100 MPP will pan out much more than an intelligence investment

What do you mean?

Furchtlosundtrew

I'll freely admit that my intelligence investment here was mainly a result of Habit. In some of the SC games, most notably AoC but also prominently in both SoE and AoD, intelligence is absolute king. Consider AoC where a one point int tech lead translates into 50% faster tech than your opponent, or the AoD/SoE variants where the US puts int down, and either neutralizes any advantage germany might have compared to all the allied nations, or gains a truly filthy technological lead by 43/44. I've won an AoC game hands down due to int tech lead, where soviets outteched germans in 43 on both inf and armor.

In Call to arms, specifically, the per turn base progress is quite high (6%) and most techs only progress to lvl 3 or so. The gain per level here is definetly not very significant, not like when you're trying for lvl 5 armor for that critical edge.

That said, I often think intelligence is a very good investment. If nothing else, the WWI game is in many ways shaped by the flow of infantry tech. If you can get an early hit lead on your opponent, whether lvl 1 or 2, and retain that lead for a month or three, that translates into very real gains. Having the intelligence, then, lets you invest less in research in the long run for the same result, or gives you a higher chance of such temporary tech advantages both in arty, gas/shell, and inf tech.

It didnt help me much in the inf war this time around, I was really unlucky there, but I did get -very high- industry, production and trench tech early with minimal investment. Getting lvl 2 arty and high shell tech hits early saved the west front for an entire offensive season. Also, investing in int with germany with its centralized research makes sure that brits or russians cant sneak an int tech in and turn those tech gaps on Ottomans and Austrians.

Just my thinking

[Strategiclayabout]

Ash is right ,

- Though less important than in WWII campaigns, intelligence main effect is to reduce the probability for CP to be overteched by Entente. Even if you're not lucky wityh infantry tech the window where you'll have to deal with enemy superiority will be short. If you're lucky it will increase the time you have to make a decisive offensive (just 4-5 turns with infantry advantage over Russians can change the game flow).

- It's also good to know that UK starts with 1 chit already invested in Intelligence. A possible investment strategy is to put 1 chit in every field you want to research first then max out the fields you want to go heavy on. That will send things rolling early and increase chances of quick breakthrough.

- The point you raise about Shells vs Intel is an interesting one and actually depends on you overall strategy. If you go against UK instead of France with high naval power, shells won't be a priority.

- If you go for shells you better be ready to produce all german artillery units early to get the most out of it. You'll also have to consider bringing Bulgaria in as fast as possible as they will provide another buildable artillery unit. It's also a good idea to consider a chit in artillery level 2 to get the maximum power out of those units as soon as possible.

- So as you can see there are many choices, some mandatory (1 chit in infantry) other much needed but not decisive. One field players tend to ignore is motorization. It gives increased mobility to cavalry, tanks, artillery or HQs and can be a bad surprise for an enemy counting on ZoCs to stop you.

P.S.: oh I nearly forgot Intelligence also increases your chance of diplo hit !

[Furchtlosundtrew]

Thank you gentlemen,

you hit some points.

Its new for me, that research even increases my chances for a diplo hit. Is it one point per int-Level or ist it one point per int-level multiplicated with the ivested diplo-Chits?

Id didn't know either, that Gb has already one chit investet in intelligence, which changes my sight slightly because that means a relatively early hit on Intel for the entente.

I made al little summarizing estimate of the effect of Intel/vs. no Intel:

If you have no intel-Steps you reserach with 3-9 % progression/turn so averaged with 6 %. You need 16 turns to reach 100 % and 7,5 turns to reach the breakthrough threshold of 45 % (i think it was raised up to 45 % instead of 30 % wasn't it?).

If you have 1 step in intel the numbers are 4 - 10 %, averaged 7 %. That means 14turns for 100 % and 6,4 for the threshold.

With two intel steps: 5 - 11 %, averaged 8 %. 12,5 turns for 100 % and 5,6 for the threshold.

Because of the increased breakthrough chance with intel-Steps (1 % extra Chance/Chit) the chances for a breakthrough are ca:

Without intel: 14,3 % after ten turns; 24,3 % after 12 turns; 32,1 % after 14 turns.

with 1 step intel: 23,4 % after ten turns; 37,6 % after 12 turns

with 2 step intel: 36,8 % after ten turns; 46,5 % after 12 turns

(For explanation: I calculatetd the statistical probability for getting no breakthrough after 10/12/14 turns and concluded from that to the probability of getting a hit at least in the 10th/12th/14th turn).

You can say, these are great differences in having intel researched or you can say they are not. I think, the difference between having two steps of intel are remarkable, while the difference of one point is not that bad, especially if you have in mind, that there is a very big influence of random numbers in the hole reserach system. Probably it depends of the situation in the game and as Strategiclayabout said on your strategy. One point that makes me think over intelligance as Central-Power-Player is the already investet british chit (because an early invested and achieved second step for the british could be expensive for CPs). On the other hand as said before: If you not research intel: At the point, when the effect beginns, you will probably have achieved or almost achieved the first step in other research areas, so the effect will mostly happen on the second (and maybe third) step of any area, which means in middle/late 1916 or so...

So I doubt a little bit over my previous reserach strategy but i'm not fully convinced of the contrary:)

Furchtlosundtrew

[Bill101]

Hi Furchtlosundtrew

Just wanted to say that Intelligence research can increase your chance of research success, but not of diplomacy.

Bill

[Strategiclayabout]

Thanks for that Bill ,

My bad was quite sure there was a marginal bonus in diplomacy with intel tech.