Bill101

The change does make the mountains a slightly less secure defensive position, by reducing the soft defence bonus from +3 to +2. They're still quite tough positions, and I think they still make good natural barriers. The Italian failure in my Fate of Nations is not solely down to this change, but despite being the Entente player I am really pleased with their failure because it's the most I've ever feared losing Italy!

We've been testing out +2 for mountains and it has changed some things: for the first time ever in a game of 1917 Fate of Nations, Austria-Hungary is battering the Italians and has just captured Venice! Italy's National Morale has fallen below 50% and things are looking a bit ropy. Just as happened in real life, some British, French and US forces might need to head to Italy! Overall it seems to work, and I'll take a look at Bulgaria and Macedonia.

Wow, so most of the German army in our game has forced marched across Germany to attack Russia? That's a surprise, as I'd imagined that you were sending most of it by rail. An East First deployment is an interesting idea... we shall see!

Hi Amadeus A new concept was introduced in a recent WWI patch, which now applies here too, whereby submarines attack at less effect if they move before attacking. This is to simulate their ambush role against naval vessels, as even in WWII their commerce raiding capabilities generally far outweighed their naval attack abilities. There was a thread on it in the WWI forum, I'm pretty sure it's this one: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100146&highlight=ambush Bill

Yes, the longer you forced march, the lower the readiness and the longer rest time needed to recover.

One thing that hasn't yet been done (but will come with 1.04) will be for the readiness penalty for using forced march to be increased quite significantly. This should make its use require a bit more thought, and hopefully make us use it a bit more cautiously.

Glad to hear you're back Kommandant! When do you the next phase using Fate of Nations will be likely to start?

Glabro introduced me to this on Friday as we've just started a game, and it really is much better and easier than emailing the files to each other. It took hardly any time at all to install, and based on my experience so far, I thoroughly recommend it!

I felt the same about Under The Dome when I read that recently... great until the end bit. Now you've pointed that out in the cloud, it's impossible not to see it!!

Hi I just came across site and thought I'd share it, as it's a collection of donated material which is being digitised on the Great War. http://www.europeana1914-1918.eu/en The material is being given in by families of those who lived and fought at the time, and they are asking for more info. It looks like a good project, and worth a browse as it has some interesting bits on it! Bill

Hi Glabro This is a situation we'll have to look into, because without seeing the file, my interpretation is that you've managed to conquer Russia, presumably very quickly, so that it's National Morale is still above zero, and it has consequently surrendered due to its capitals having been captured? I don't think that you will need to attack Russia again in order to win, because they are no longer in the war and that should be sufficient to attain victory once you have also knocked out France. But can you email me a turn please so that I can take a look to be sure? If you could also let me know if it is an AI game or PBEM it would be great. Thanks! Bill

Hi Ivanov A change has been made to this for the upcoming 1.04 patch whereby the UK will suffer 75 NM points per trigger, and Germany will gain 75, though of course this may be subject to alteration prior to release. Before that change I think that both the penalty to the UK and benefit to Germany were significantly lower, so you may well be right (though the chance to shut down the UK's ports is still something to factor into your decision). Bill

The problem with adding them to the Production Queue is that then they wouldn't arrive in their historic locations, which is why they arrive by script instead. You have made a valid point though, and I'll add something into the game so that both sides know that they can expect reinforcements. As to the capital, it is set in all campaigns that resources are the main, indeed often the only source of income. But, I will have a think as to whether exceptions could be made in some scenarios. The reason I haven't done that before is that it's been standard since SC1 that resource ownership is vital to income, so by taking it away it could also lead to confusion, e.g. I captured his capital, but he was still able to reinforce his units. Where does he get the money from? Yet, such a rule isn't necessarily as important in a scenario like Race to the Sea, so I will put my thinking cap on. But a change here would have to work for both sides... it probably does but I will think some more about it first. Edit: My first thought since posting is that if you were surrounded in Ypres, with no other resources held, should you obtain the same income as a German player who holds Valenciennes, Ostend, Bruges etc? The answer is probably not, and keeping it so that capitals are necessary to ensure income does avoid that. But I'm still thinking as there may be other answers!

Yes, they are Boghali, Krithia, Maidos, Sedd el Bahr, Koja Dere, and Biyuk Anafarta for an Ottoman Major Victory. Just Boghali, Krithia and Maidos for an Ottoman Tactical Victory.

Gallipoli - Entente Victory Conditions I've sent an email to all tournament players, but thought I'd post here too. Just to clarify that in this campaign: For a Tactical Victory, the Entente need to capture either Boghali, Krithia or Maidos. For a Major Victory, the Entente need to capture all three. Bill

The US won't necessarily join in 1917, without checking not since patch 1.02, and they may well keep out of the war for quite some time. It all depends on what both sides do, and how long the war goes on. Diplomacy, declarations of war and the use of unrestricted naval warfare will all be big factors.

This was my understanding of it too, and I'd be surprised if everyone in each league gets exactly the same results in every game. But if there really is a tie then there are ways of differentiating, such as the time taken to achieve the victory, and/or the casualties suffered by both sides.

Hi Glabro I will make some changes but Spain had the strongest revolutionary movement in Europe, it was slightly pro-Entente but neutral, and would have vigorously opposed any attempts to increase the army through conscription. The right wing favoured the Central Powers slightly, but again not that much, and the thought of a rapprochement by the right and left to fight together against the invader probably wouldn't have got far. The seeds of the civil war of 1936-39 were already very firmly in place. But I definitely agree that without a HQ Spain may well be too vulnerable to invasion, and I guess that if the player wants to invest MPPs in increasing the army, some leeway can be allowed for that too. It would therefore be up to the player whether to risk raising new Spanish units, that may not even deploy in time before the country falls. Bill

That is odd, as there should be a manual.pdf in there. But, fortunately it can at least be read online: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&book_id=15&Itemid=388

Good luck everyone, I'm sending my first turns off now!

It's both soft and tank attack and defense.

Hi Glabro I will take a look at this again. I must admit that finding out a suitable name for a Spanish HQ proved rather difficult when I was doing so a while back, but I will have another go. It must be possible! Thanks for mentioning this, I have a few ideas on where to look and I'll see what I can do. Bill

Hi Ivanov Wlape3 is correct, there are partisan scripts that trigger damage to Axis supply lines, so even though they are operating at a distance from Kiev, the harm they do is to Axis supply in Kiev. My own suggestion regarding partisans is to garrison only a certain number of trigger points to keep one or two routes into the USSR fairly partisan free. Don't worry about garrisoning every location, just those that lead to the main areas of action in the east. I hope this makes sense, and of course, my thoughts on anti-partisan strategy are just mine alone. Bill

Hi Baron Fortresses should definitely be going to zero, but if you have a saved turn where this hasn't happened please forward it to me Or if it is repeatable and you don't have a saved turn let me know the details (i.e. which Fortress and which campaign) and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks Bill Email: bill.runacre@furysoftware.com

Hi Baron The strength value of the Fortress should immediately decrease to zero when it's captured, but the captor will entrench up to a certain amount automatically. Is it the automatic entrenchment that is the issue? Whether or not this is right or wrong is a good question, but generally I think that a Fortress that has been fought over and badly damaged is still a good place to defend. Therefore it generally should be fairly difficult to oust the captors, but not as hard as it will become over subsequent turns as they entrench to their maximum. Please let me know your thoughts, and whether this makes sense or there's an issue I've missed. Thanks! Bill