Bill101

Hi This isn't quite correct, as the second number is the number of months the unit will be in production, rather than the number of turns.

It certainly fits the pattern whereby if a unit is destroyed when its supply level is below its cheap rebuild level, then you get a nice National Morale bonus for destroying it, so it is certainly consistent.

It’s time for a counter-attack at Verdun! Maunoury orders an infantry assault which removes a German division from the field, and follows it up with an attack on one of the German artillery units that the enemy had brought up to bombard Verdun with. If it will be firing at Verdun next turn, it certainly won’t be at full effect. Further south, the B.E.F. fight a rearguard action in the face of the German advance, mauling some units in the process, while Foch launches a more powerful counterattack at Bar-sur-Aube. The Royal Flying Corps discovers that there are no German units behind the spearhead that is currently attacking Coulommiers. This knowledge inspires de Langle de Cary to send a division forward to cut the enemy’s supply line.

That would be big! This campaign could be extended and expanded no doubt to work like that for the Western Front, with research and other events coming into play. The German East Africa campaign is a full campaign with various decisions and events, but is actually at the Brigade/Regimental level, given the much smaller size of forces in the field there.

It’s time to start giving the Portuguese hell, and Wintgens leads the way by smashing one of their Askari units and attacking all other Portuguese units that are within reach. On Lake Nyasa, the Portuguese settlement of Mtengula is captured, and our cavalry race south, clashing with some Portuguese Levies and spotting some British that are holding Fort Maguire. Meanwhile the enemy have finally taken Bismarckburg, but amazingly not Dar-es-Salaam. Every man holding the city deserves an Iron Cross!

That's correct, but capturing and holding India is not generally going to be easy for Japan, and economically it's still not necessarily worth the effort - especially if the convoy route is interdicted. Yes, as Manchuria and China are separate countries, the income Japan receives from them is kept separate in the calculations.

Hi Mike What happens with income from conquered territory is that the occupier gains the MPP worth of the resource per strength point multiplied by the strength of the resource. However, if there is a convoy in place from the conquered country to its conqueror, then the convoy % you've mentioned is the % of the above that the conqueror receives. Thus if there is a country which would provide 100 MPPs to its conqueror if there is no convoy script in place, then by adding a convoy and selecting a % of say 50%, then the conqueror will only receive 50 MPPs a turn from that country. This enables us to fine tune the economic value of different areas, for either historical or game balance reasons, or a mixture of them both. Bill

Good question Mike, I think we'll have to investigate that one further then!

Glad you got it fixed!

Thanks for the AAR x13fox, I thought it was great and would like to see more!

Hi Wodin While the main campaigns covering the whole war are at the Corps level, the majority just cover a theater or even specific battle area, and these are for the most part at the Divisional level. The Corps level campaigns use different maps to the Divisional level ones, so for example, the map of France contained in this campaign is much, much larger than the one in the Corps level 1914 Call to Arms campaign. You can see the difference in the demo, as that includes two Corps level campaigns, and the Divisional level 1918 Ludendorff Offensive - which uses the same map as we're using in this AAR. You can download the demo here: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=267&Itemid=473 The Corps level campaigns really do have a much more strategic feel to them, with a greater amount of content aimed at that level, including a focus on research, diplomacy, the home front, naval warfare etc, whereas in a Divisional level campaign your focus will be almost totally on the military side.

Yes, strategiclayabout is correct. This way, getting a cavalry unit behind enemy lines isn't necessarily very useful, particularly as your opponent will get a National Morale if they destroy it while it's in low supply.

I had to deliberately leave Japan out of the equation, because the Zimmermann option isn't time based, but solely based on the USA's mobilization level. So it could come after the Japanese Destroyers have arrived in the Med, and this would be more problematical. I also thought that as Japan was an active ally in the war, that it would have been rather unlikely to leave the war against Germany, and switch sides to attack the USA. But it's an aspect of the whole affair that is generally poorly covered because it never got to that stage.

Thanks, I'll get these fixed!

That would certainly make sense Mike, if Persia was first conquered by the UK and then liberated by Germany, and if the UK is at war with Japan?

Looking at this, I think it must be the case that we introduced the rule about units with zero supply only have 1 AP after the manual was written.

Sir John French gains the acclaim of the British people as he orchestrates the successful destruction of the German 22nd Reserve division, with minimal British losses. In his dispatches, the B.E.F.’s commander has nothing but praise for one of his two Corps commanders, Sir Douglas Haig, but his reports on the other, Horace Smith-Dorrien, are nowhere near as glowing. Perhaps a command reshuffle will be required at some stage? A joint attack by British and French cavalry, with some infantry support, has also destroyed the German Cavalry division that was getting a bit too close to Paris for our liking. That’ll teach them to poke their noses where they aren’t wanted! The German infantry advancing on Paris are in a very sorry state. Desertions are frequent and prisoners are reporting that they haven’t been fed in days!

Wintgens is resting his men after their recent successes against the Portuguese, while we really are astounded at the bravery of our men defending Dar-es-Salaam! In the western portion of Portuguese East Africa, an invasion has begun, as our few remaining cavalry attack and destroy some Portuguese Levies that were defending Mtengula on Lake Nyasa. Further north, von Lettow-Vorbeck masterminds a bombardment of the 4th King’s African Rifles at Neu Langenburg, leaving them in a rather sorry state. Kraut continues his run of victories against the Entente by destroying an enemy brigade near Dodoma. Despite having been dug in, it proved no match for our worthy Askari! The enemy are finally attacking Bismarckburg. We have been expecting them to attack here since the invasion began, so it comes as no surprise. Wahle has things once again under control at Lake Tanganyika, where the 5th Belgian regiment has been beaten to within an inch of its life!

Hi Neel Thanks very much for taking the time to find and type up this information. Where I think we have to be careful is that if the automatic pressures within the game for the USA to enter the war are too strong, i.e. to protect their financial interests in the Entente, then it renders the German decision on whether or not to use unrestricted naval warfare less important. Generally, in my experience those playing the Central Powers tend to feel that they should be pretty much in control in determining whether or not the USA will enter the war. This is based on what is generally accepted to have happened, as the US authorities didn't give their financial interests in an Entente victory anything like as much publicity as they did to the Zimmermann Telegram and German U-Boat attacks. The question is then, is there a way to incorporate protection of US financial interests into the game more, without causing any friction to those playing the Central Powers? Given that there are already scripts in place to move the USA towards the Entente when Russia withdraws from the war, one idea that has come to mind is to add in something similar for when France or the UK's National Morale have fallen below 25%. If both France and the UK are below 25% then it would have a cumulative effect, and coupled with the Russian pull out would swing the USA towards the Entente at 3-6% a turn. But usually only France's will fall this low, so in all likelihood we're looking at 2-4% a turn. Given that this would occur in what would almost certainly be the later stages of the game, the USA would still be very likely to enter the war too late to affect the result considerably. That is, providing her mobilization is due to financial concerns alone. But by doing this, would we still be taking too much control out of the Central Powers' player's hands? Or, should the above, if introduced, replace the below that is currently in the game? US Concern at the situation in Europe From the 1st June 1917, the USA has a 50% chance of moving towards the Entente by 1-2% per turn, representing her concern at the situation in Europe and her interest in an Entente victory. Bill

That's an interesting thought. I'll have a think about this as the effect of doing so couldn't be the same once the USA is in the war.

Thanks for this, I'll get it corrected.

Understood, and this makes sense. I'm glad that we've raised the subject as it's good to consider game balance every few months, especially as the Breakthrough Edition of the main 1914 Call to Arms campaign has quite a few changes that weren't in the original version. I'm always happy to hear thoughts on balance as it's a difficult thing to get right, especially given the different strategies tried by both sides.

That's an excellent post, thanks for writing it up!

A copy of it is on page 70 of the 1914 Call to Arms Strategy Guide, entitled "The Importance of Ukrainian Grain Supplies"

Hi Mike There can be occasions when two Majors that aren't at war, can fight each other, and that will be when one side is on the territory of a friendly Major that the enemy Major is at war with, or on the territory of a Minor belonging to that friendly Major. I hope that makes sense as it almost sounds like a tongue twister! Bill