Bill101

The Romanian army seems to have started with four Corps and then expanded up to seven, but when it had seven it seems that a lot of units were understrength. Increasing the mobilized strength of the Romanian army is now on my "things to consider" list.

It will, though with some changes so that it represents Europe in 1939: lots of new countries, lots of name changes too! But I don't think there are any changes that will prevent you from starting to implement scripts for your own mod using this map, or at the very least working through ideas for your campaign.

No problem vonRocko, having it easy to read was top priority!

That's correct, but being entrenched itself also gives you some protection. Nevertheless, if attacked in the rear then you won't benefit from the extra bonuses to your combat factor that the existence of the trench provides. So, if the enemy start to breakthrough and outflank you, you may need to change your facing, retire, or go boldly into a counterattack!

Consider this in the works for a little change.

Hi Wushuki This is a very impressive and useful exposition of the pros and cons of various changes, thanks! All I can say for the moment is that I am thinking about this, it's too early to say exactly what may come of it at all. I'm also following the discussions in other threads about the same subject, so we'll see. Bill

Given what happened it's very hard to be 100% sure either way, but from reading about the build up to the war in the UK, it was the German threat to France that had the British wound up, because it was feared that with France beaten, Germany would be able to challenge the UK. The attack on Belgium (which came after the UK started mobilizing for war) gave the British the ability to present the war as a defensive one, in aid of Belgium whose neutrality had been violated. Thus it was much easier to sell the war to the public than if the UK had just entered the war to go to the aid of France. But maybe I've just read the historians who think this! Are there some who argue strongly that the British may have remained neutral, if only for a few months? If so I'd be interested to read their arguments.

Bulgaria starts with 1 HQ, 2 Detachments and 3 Corps, while Romania starts with 1 HQ, 4 Corps and 1 Detachment. Both have the capacity to be enlarged in the game through unit purchases should you so wish.

Ok, thanks. Looks like I'd better have a go at rewriting this!

The problem here is that then someone could just evacuate the country and leave it to go and fight in a better situation elsewhere. So what we have here is a strong incentive for players to defend Serbia's homeland up until the last minute, as well as the possibility of evacuation if it's not left too late.

But the problem with this is that the units arriving by script won't be able to move far in the first turn, therefore it's more something that has to happen before the Central Powers go on the offensive. All told, I think a campaign that is specifically geared to an eastern front first strategy would be the best bet. The surprise element wouldn't be there, but it wouldn't really matter because as soon as the Entente see large German forces marching east, they'll know!!! I've not known of anyone making a large scale US map, but feel free to use the portion that is included with the game and enlarge it accordingly.

It might pay to play with the Alternate Capitals highlighted so that you can see at what point it might be best to evacuate what's left of the Serbian army rather than fighting on within Serbia.

Hi Worg64 That is correct, it is the weather rather than the season that may affect the effect of the attack. Bill

From the Knowledgebase: "Our Online Activation System... allows you to activate a game on one PC plus one backup PC. However, unlike eLicense, the new OAS also gives you two "overflow" activations by default, no questions asked. Only after you run out of these 4 activations will you need to add an activation to your key, and can do so once per year. Activations are added at www.battlefront.com/activate. ...Once activated, your game will remain active on that PC for as long as it's installed. We have no means to deactivate your games, nor do we monitor any of your activities, or require online updates/license checks." The full article can be found here: http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=194

I think I see the issue here. However, I do wonder whether if ASW only improved ships defence values that it would make sub hunting a rather frustrating experience if even with high ASW, your DDs aren't really doing anything to the enemy subs. Plus subs will dive more frequently if attacked the higher their sub tech. A different solution might be to just cap ASW at (say) level 2, thus higher level subs will always have an advantage when attacking, and should hopefully (due to the trade off between extra diving ability and the enemy's increased sub attack values) lead to a more equal battle later in the game. This is just off the top of my head and any changes would need a bit more thought and consideration, but let me know if this might be a step in the right direction.

Hi Wolfpack Good point. What's happening is that the garrison's morale is being reduced due to the large number of enemy units surrounding the city and interdicting its supply lines. There just wasn't room to include this in full on the message, but I'll see if a few extra words can be added, plus also possibly adding something to the Strategy Guide.

With a massive amount of diplomatic investment by the Central Powers, theoretically, yes. But the cost would be huge as Belgium starts with a pro-Entente leaning, and the expense would almost certainly be much better spent elsewhere.

You are certainly correct in pointing out that neither of these fortresses are actually in the Carpathians, but their positioning serves to guard their relevant passes from Russian advances into Hungary. Thus they make good targets for the Russians to attack, and for Austria-Hungary to defend, and while some of the mountains could be changed to hills, doing so would make it very easy for Russia to bypass them.

Thanks very much for taking the time to post this great feedback! I've just checked the scripts for the Australian Light Horse and they should deploy on the 5th March 1916 at Suez. If Suez had fallen then I think they would deploy at another friendly location, so I am wondering whether they either did so, or your game ended just before that date? If not then I'll have to dig a bit deeper. Thanks!

Belgium will be open to bidding, or even an attack by the Entente if they are really feeling that way inclined.

Attacks in snow should be much less effective, but if the weather itself is normal then losses will be the same as in other seasons. Going back to sub effectiveness, there was a lot of fear of them at the time, even if their effectiveness against naval vessels wasn't as great as feared. Though there were some significant successes, including U-9s triple sinking of the British cruisers Aboukir, Hogue, and Cressy in September 1914. Thanks again for all the detailed feedback!

Hi Cavalry movement when out of supply is very low to prevent them from being able to raid indefinitely behind enemy lines. That might make more sense in an American Civil War campaign, but it was found in testing that a WWI Cavalry Corps being able to roam quite far when out of supply just didn't feel at all right. British intervention is inevitable in the default campaigns because they were mobilizing for war when Belgium was invaded. We'll never know for sure exactly what impact on their actual war entry date a German decision to not attack Belgium might have had, but it would probably have been minimal. Niall Ferguson in his The Pity of War estimates that even if the British government had fallen it would only have made a difference of a week.

Two that are on my shelf that were written by famous names of WWII deserve a mention: Erwin Rommel's Infantry Attacks and Heinz Guderian's Achtung Panzer! Of course, the second one isn't just about WWI but it does give a lot of information on some WWI battles and tactics, and it explains the context from where the ideas that developed into Blitzkrieg warfare came from. Both also show that there was much more to WWI than the frequent misconception that it was just about going over the top and being massacred. Especially at the strategic level this war has so much more to offer.

If he enjoyed them then I'd like to think that he'll enjoy this too!

Hi Worg64 Thanks very much for the detailed feedback, lots to think about there! Getting sub naval attack factors right is difficult because if they are too low then they will not strike fear into enemy Battleships and Cruisers, and be unable to hold their own against Destroyers. Thus there is a fine line between making subs too powerful against enemy naval vessels, and too weak. But I will take another look at the statistics and see if an amendment can be made that doesn't upset this balance too much. For HQs, because they represent the command, control and especially logistical arms of the army, it wouldn't feel right to give them entrenchment, or allow them to entrench. The HQ represents thousands of people and animals moving forward and back, providing supplies to the army. To partially compensate for their inability to sit in trenches, the HQ will have a Ground Defense value of 1 if attacked (this is almost as good as entrenchment level 1) and it also now has limited defense factors. So for the first time in Strategic Command history, at least in the default campaigns, units attacking HQs may suffer casualties doing so. Thanks Bill