Ludi1867

The file that caused my query in the first place has been sent. Thanx for looking at this Hubert!

The Allied player placed the BEF in Bordeaux before France offered (and the Germans accepted) Vichy. Bordeaux remains at a supply level of 10 after Vichy was accepted, and all other Allied units have been removed from the continent. Is Bordeaux supposed to remain at supply level 10 in this situation? I guess I have to double check the supply rules, but it sure is hard for the Germans to get ANY kind of supply way down there, and I am a little at a loss as to why Bordeaux would remain at supply level 10.

In a recent AoD game Tunis was 'invaded' (as a result of a computer generated DE) by the Axis because the Allies had successfully conquered Algeria (end of 1942, early 1943). While this is reasonably historical, what was hard to understand was that this 'decision event' fired at the END of the Axis turn. The consequence was that the Axis could do nothing – the DE was announced at the END of the Axis turn by the computer, without any involvement by the Axis human player who simply sat at his display in bemusement – while the very next turn the Allies could (and did) simply move into Tunis without having to declare war, or deal with any garrison, etc. The Allies would likely have easily captured Tunis in any case, but why does this event fire at the END of an Axis turn? It might make sense if it happened at the beginning of an Axis turn, when there is at least the possibility of the Axis moving a unit into Tunis, but for the event to fire when the Axis can do nothing but watch the result of the DE in disbelief, seems to make no sense. Was this DE supposed to fire at the end of an Axis turn? Or is it just a glitch? Or is it INTENDED to give the Allied player a bonus? I am really unclear as to why this happens as it does!

Hi Layabout While I welcome your enthusiasm, and certainly agree that NOT having Paris does cost the Axis a few MPP, there is a negative downside to DE 602 NOT being offered (as it will likely be rejected) to the Axis until Algiers falls. While you will, I am sure, never get into this situation, it is all too possible (as I have learned from personal experience) for the Allied player to not only be in trouble in continental France (ultimately everything but Paris captured), but Italian units start moving towards Algiers as well. The fall of Sousse is a bad sign, but when Tunis is aggressively captured then it is clear that things are going badly for the Allies. At this point – with Tunis captured and all of France – except, of course, Paris – in trouble, the Allies SHOULD have some options. Perhaps FRANCE should be given the ability to offer Vichy to the Germans if Tunis falls and France is in serious trouble? The benefit would be, if Germany rejects DE 602 at this point, that the capital is in Algiers AND THE FRENCH get several units (as well as the possibility of having units in the production queue arriving more quickly, if I read DE 602 correctly). These are useful benefits to the Allied player when things are looking very bad for the French. Currently the Axis player can completely AVOID DE 602 by holding off on capturing Paris until Algiers is captured. Now, this may never happen if the Allied player is skilful (clearly, I am NOT skilful enough), but the status quo, that allows the Axis player to completely avoid DE 602 if he is unscrupulous enough, is not reasonable.

There is a problem with DE 602 – if an unscrupulous Axis player chooses to NOT take Paris, even when every other city in Continental France has been captured and there is not a single French unit left in Continental France, until Algiers is captured, there is no point in Germany accepting Vichy. In fact, if the Axis 'plan' envisions NOT accepting Vichy then NOT capturing Paris until after Algiers is captured is a bad idea, in game terms. This is simply common sense from a game perspective, even if it violates reality in any reasonable sense. Therefore, to avoid pure 'gameiness' of this sort, DE 602 should be amended. The offer of Vichy to Germany should happen once the majority of France is conquered OR the majority of French units are destroyed. A random aspect might be useful here. As it is clearly intended that a prolonged defence of France and French territories (such as Algiers) should take place if the majority of Continental France is conquered and Vichy is refused, then this DE should fire without Paris HAVING to be captured, as it is now scrupulously avoided. And having Paris avoided, even when all of the rest of France has been conquered, is just wrong. For reference, here is DE 602: DE 602 - Germany: Create Vichy France?  Event fires: Once France has surrendered and Paris is in Axis hands.  Cost of accepting: 0 MPPs  Yes: The following countries are formed: Vichy France formed, as are Vichy Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, French West Africa, French Polynesia and French Equatorial Africa. French Polynesia receives a Corps. Germany is presented with DE 515, the UK with DE 100 and DE 101, while the USA is presented with DE 302.  No: France continues to fight, with Algiers becoming her capital while she receives units in Algeria, French Polynesia, Noumea, and air units (a tactical bomber and a strategic bomber) manufactured in the USA. Free French units may also arrive at a higher percentage chance. Syria, French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa and French Polynesia will all swing 80-89% towards the Allies if Germany forces the surrender of France from Algiers. Once Algiers falls to the Axis, Germany is presented with DE 603.

If Baron can join this ladder, then I guess I better join as well. I am not likely to win a lot of matches, but I can act as cannon fodder and may even learn enough to win one eventually.

Hi Mike While I do not want to get into a long debate about Finland and the Winter War – your points are correct, and I really don't have a problem with the decision event that basically covers off the Winter War now – I would have to say that I really do not understand your proposed solution. The problem for me is not so much with the Winter War, but with when the Soviets attack Finland AGAIN after the German invasion begins. If the Soviets are prepared and make this attack well before Finland joins the Axis then Finland is really in trouble. One of the main reasons they are in so much trouble is because the Finnish units enter the war completely unimproved. So level 2 Soviet Armour (rough estimate) and level 1 or 2 Soviet infantry attack unimproved Finnish infantry, and the results are usually not pretty. An attack like this is not all that unreasonable (if ahistorical) but my problem is that Finnish units in this situation should NOT be level zero, as that IS unreasonable. Does your proposed solution address this sort of situation? If so, how?

Strategic Command (SC) is a great game. However, neutrals are attacked far too often, and often too easily, in this game. There have been suggestions to increase the diplomatic costs for attacks on Ireland, for example. Yet so far little has been done. This suggestion is to alter the game engine to make neutrals less technologically feeble as the game progresses. Neutrals cannot conduct R&D, which only seems reasonable given the constraints and nature of the game. But as time passes and technology changes neutrals become inherently more feeble – and therefore even easier to attack. When attacked, neutrals should instantly become aligned with the faction opposing their attacker (this is the intent, I believe, of the current setting in SC but anomalies still occur - see the post by Pacestick regarding Italian fighters NOT intervening during the invasion of Tunisia for one example). They should then become INSTANTLY outfitted with the technology level of the dominant (or closest) major power in what has now become 'their' faction. Some examples should make this evident: When the various neutral low countries are attacked by Germany shortly after the main war campaign commences, then a level zero technology for most units seems sensible. After all France is the main power for the Allies at this point, and the level of technology of most French units is indeed zero. However, a real invasion of Finland after the USSR becomes fully mobilized still finds Finnish forces at level zero technology. This seems much less sensible. By the time in the war this can occur the main opponent of Russia – Germany – should have a number of technological advances. These should be reflected in Finnish forces, and are not. The result is that Finnish forces are generally fairly easy prey – at least they are significantly easier then they would be if upgraded before deployment to the level of the primary opponent of Russia, Germany. Finally, the introduction of the Atlantic Wall in Assault on Democracy is an innovative improvement. However, an unintended consequence is to make the invasion of neutrals such as Portugal and Spain (if Spain is still neutral by this point) more attractive. To avoid the Atlantic Wall the Allies can now land in the Iberian peninsula. The opposition put forth by the neutrals there will STILL be at level zero tech, even though it should be 1943 or 1944 at this point. The invading powers should have significantly advanced forces by this point in the war. The main Axis power, Germany, should ALSO have significantly advanced tech forces. So level zero forces are rather easily brushed aside – and this is NOT the way it should be. If getting the game to recognize the tech level of the main opponent of an invader is too complicated, then it might be easier to have the tech level of the invaded neutral be the SAME as the tech level of the invading major power. This is less historically reasonable, but it may be more easily accomplished, and would still make neutrals somewhat less of the easy sport they are now. One less than optimal result would be to have neutrals in the low countries in 1939/1940 have tech level one infantry weapons tech, as Germany – which would be the invader in this case – starts with that tech. However, neutrals would still be relatively easy prey, and if the change makes neutral less of an easy sport then it is an improvement worth making. SC is a great game. Making neutrals less of an easy target would make a great game better.

Hi Amadeus Having been 'prodded' by Catacol Highlander, I would be interested in joining your Tournament. I have tried sending an e-mail to the address you gave in the first post in this thread, but if that does not work, please consider this an official request to join.

I am surprised and confused by part of Bill101's response: as far as I have been able to determine Germany and Italy can ONLY invest one chit in ANY area of research in this scenario. Is that not correct? Overall I have found German R&D to be somewhat slower than Soviet, but ALSO I have found research to be incredibly varied in this scenario. Why? Well, part of it is the restriction of ONLY one chit in any area. That means that breakthroughs are incredibly important in this scenario. You CANNOT prioritize any area of research, and what to do after putting a single chit in infantry, air and armour research is really hard to tell. So far I have NOT been impressed with the balance of this scenario at all.

Hi Mike Your loop ideas are actually quite interesting. The one thing I have to add to this discussion is intelligence. The key reason that Axis raiders succeeded so frequently early in the war is that German naval codes were pretty much impenetrable to the Allies early in the war. The Bismarck sortie was not stopped by decryption, but Allied chances of interception were definitely improved by the breakthrough in decryption that occurred just before that vessel entered the Atlantic. Intelligence actually proved quite important in the Battle of the Atlantic as well, although it was only part of the overall Allied response. The actual details are quite complex, but should not be forgotten when you are thinking about adding more 'historical reality' to the game, which in essence is your objective here I believe. When it comes to your loops it might be interesting to tie them to the intelligence advantage (or disadvantage) as it exists in a game as opposed to simply putting a termination (or activation) date in for them. Termination and activation dates have the advantage of simplicity, but intelligence advantage has the advantage of reality – as well as making intelligence research even more useful than it currently is. One of the great challenges would then be balancing a game with all these various possibilities integrated into it, but then that is also the whole point of most games of this nature!

Allied warships have the ABILITY to CHOSE to raid convoy lanes or not. However, it does not seem to make any difference whatsoever when it comes to the convoy lane that passes close to Norway en route to the Baltic. If the Allied player CHOSES to raid this convoy lane then it is eminently reasonable to have the Norwegians be irritated by this. However, the Norwegians recently proclaimed their irritation at the presence of an Allied warship that was well outside their territorial waters and NOT raiding. It happened to be adjacent to the convoy route, but I had – quite deliberately – CHOSEN not to raid. Nonetheless the Norwegians moved 17% closer to joining the Axis (went from 10% to 27% in one turn). I had ALSO placed the French submarine so that it was not adjacent to the convoy lane – although it very well could have been placed adjacent. This is irritating, especially as this problem has been raised before. There is currently no way that Allied warships can operate close to Norway at all without raising the possibility of forcing Norway into the Axis camp inadvertently. This is patently ridiculous. If the Allied player CHOSES to raid the convoy route then there should certainly be the possibility of negative consequences. But when the Allied player deliberately CHOSES NOT to raid it is ridiculous that the Norwegian's react. I also checked the graphs to confirm that no damage had been done to German convoys (which, of course, there had not been). The Allies should have the ability to operate in the open ocean (at least one square from Norway) without the possibility of irritating the Norwegians. The current situation is simply wrong. I can forward the save game files for my turns (I am currently in a PBEM game, so my opponent's files are his to decide what to do with).

Xworm It wasn't just fast passenger ships that were relatively safe – find ANY troop convoys that were attacked in deep water and you will be lucky. Troop convoys in disputed waters, such as the Bismarck Sea, did result in devastating losses to the troops, but this was NOT anywhere near where loops usually go. As for fast vessels being more in danger if the war lasted longer, the only possible answer to that is 'perhaps'. Type XXI U-boats, which were finally becoming operational as the real war ended, MIGHT have been able to sink a fast ship, but the limiting lines of submerged approach on a fast passenger ship were still pretty small even for a Type XXI. Basically a U-boat needed quite a bit of luck to sink a fast passenger ship because of the geometry forced on U-boats by the speed of the passenger vessel – it is actually quite hard to sink them. I have done the calculations and its really not easy at all – especially if the large ship uses any kind of long leg zigzag (which they should and usually did). The main problem with proposing operational movement for troops is the seamlessness of the oceans. Do you charge by the increment? (ie for every ten squares travelled charge so much MPP?) What do you do? The current system requires troops to embark in amphibious ships or transports, both of which already cost MPP. Therefore there already is a cost to use naval movement for troops. The main concern raised (aside from yours) is the slow pace of this movement, both for transports and naval warships, not the cost. Operational movement offers the possibility of faster (potentially MUCH faster) movement, but it is difficult to see how the cost factor would be addressed. Charge more MPP for a longer move or one flat fee for ANY movement at sea? I really think the operational movement approach would be more complex, and would offer less intercept possibilities – even less than the loops do. And, finally, how many naval engagements actually occurred where the loops are? Most naval engagements happen near 'something', whether it is a strategic destination or a place where shipping is likely to congregate. The convoy lanes already offer a reasonable (gamey, but reasonable) way to attack (and defend) merchant shipping. Aside from these battles (and even GRAF SPEE, a ship operating primarily as a raider, was cornered at a strategic location, the Plate River) how many battles occurred in the open ocean? Very, very few. In game terms having the occasional intercept in the deep ocean may be 'interesting', but that is really a game thing – not historical reality at all. After saying all this I do think that the loop 'speed' is much too slow, but it is scaled to the game (I am trying to be fair here). If reality were any guide ships would pass through the loops much faster than they do. But if wishes were fishes, etc.... Mike I take your point that amphibious shipping as configured in the game CAN be researched to the point where long distance lifts are possible. However, this is difficult, unless you use the editor. I avoid the editor (for many reasons, but I will just leave it at that). Without editing or a LOT of research, the game rather penalizes the western player. Which is simple enough, but wrong. The western Allies were primarily naval powers, which in this game are made somewhat similar to the Axis for simplicity. Fair enough. Its just not very accurate historically!

Loops in AoD are ONLY for naval shipping – not merchant shipping. What is the difference? Well, in the game (and this is very much a GAME), merchant shipping is abstractly depicted as a convoy 'lane'. This convoy lane can be raided by submarines, ships or aircraft, although submarines are the primary warships employed in this role. Is this a kludge? Absolutely – you will NOT see 'lanes' painted on the water in any ocean of the world. Even more significantly, convoys in World War II were regularly routed along different paths to AVOID U-boats (who sometimes had intelligence that allowed them to intercept, sometimes just got lucky, and other times simply were placed on the expected great circle convoy route and told to scout for ships). Do convoy lanes work in SC? Well, more or less, yes they do – although they are most emphatically NOT historically correct. Now, loops can ONLY be used by transports (which represent embarked land units) or warships. There are serious problems with loops – Mike has certainly noted that the speed of naval units in SC is very, very slow, something I have complained about for years – but causing intercepts to be avoided is not really a major problem. Xworms argument that 'loops have killed my interest to play this expansion' is therefore not really very valid, as it can only be because naval ships and transports are not being intercepted as readily now that loops are available. But historically naval warships and transports with military troops embarked were not often intercepted in mid-ocean. As a game mechanism to reduce work and preclude interception of these vessels in mid-ocean (a rare occurrence), loops more or less work. I really don't know how to fix the speed issue. It is a definite problem, but there are a number of related problems that are simply not addressable in the current configuration of the game, so I am simply accepting it as an SC anomaly at the moment, as any fix I can think of rather disrupts the game. (Examples of the issues that the game currently doesn't address? Amphibious operations by the Allies included massive lifts across entire oceans – much of the force involved in Torch, as just one example, sailed right from the continental US. This is pretty difficult, verging on impossible, to emulate in the game. The Axis were not really EVER capable of this level of amphibious sophistication, but in the game the mechanism used by both sides is pretty much the same. And in terms of simplicity that works, but as a means of recognizing the incredible versatility of Allied operations in the Second World War, it is not nearly as good. But we are playing a GAME). So, while there are significant problems still evident in this game, the addition of naval loops is, for the most part, a good addition to the game within the parameters established by the game. Is it close to historical reality? Well, not really. Is it closer than previous iterations of SC? Actually, I think it is.

Hi Rankorian and XWormwood I am glad you are enjoying your 'honeymoon' period with this game Rankorian, and there is certainly a whole lot of things that the game does right. It is certainly the best game of its type for naval warfare in general. However, having said that, there is still room for improvement. I have more or less given up on the speed of naval movement, which now more closely approximates elephants mating than the reality which occurred at sea, but I really am concerned about the problems that exist in the inshore areas. Naval ports should be very difficult to attack by submarines – it really did not happen very often (once, as I say, and the commander of the boat became the first one in the Kriegsmarine to receive the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross – a pretty exceptional performance). Similarly, naval units should not be able to loiter in the coastal waters of an enemy so easily. It really is too easy now. As for Xworm's points about diver or 'special' attacks, there is actually a lot to discuss there, and SC has made some effort to address the topic of special attacks with their Decision Events (DE). In the First World War there are DE that allow attacks on enemy harbours by Austrian or Italian 'special' units. In the Second World War there is a DE that allows the Allied player to undertake the CAMPBELLTOWN attack on St Nazaire. Now, there are a number of other events that might be considered – the X-Craft attack on the TIRPITZ, the Italian 'special' attacks on the ports of Alexandria and Gibraltar – but these are not necessarily critical to the game (although they were fascinating operations). In particular, inshore operations in the Second World War game are significantly constrained by the possibility that tactical aircraft might inflict serious losses on an attacker. By the time that an attacker has such air superiority (or command of the air) that the concern about an attack by enemy tactical aircraft is minor, the player defending the shore usually has bigger things to worry about. In any event, a major aerial offensive is now very important in the Second World War setting before operating naval forces close to the enemy shore, or else the offensive player is taking a significant risk. The situation is rather different in the First World War. Tactical aircraft are much less common and considerably less effective against naval units. This is entirely consistent with the historical record. However, the historical record also indicates quite clearly that operating naval forces close to enemy shores was risky, and often resulted in significant casualties. THAT does NOT happen in SC WWI or Breakthrough, and that is unfortunate. If certain chokepoints, such as the exit to the Kiel Canal, are fortuitously seized by an aggressive Entente commander then the naval war can be VERY different than historically because there is NO direct cost to placing naval forces near an enemy coast. There is also very little that can be done to divert enemy forces loitering in your coastal area for prolonged periods … and this is very wrong. I think Xworm may have a good idea with using a variation of the weather check to inflict damage on naval units operating along a foreign coastline. It would not require much change to the existing engine, and although perhaps random, if it works and causes commanders to start being concerned about placing units in enemy coastal squares than, hey, why not? So although SC gets the major naval aspects more or less right, it has unfortunately left some loopholes that are completely wrong. And once your honeymoon is over, perhaps you will agree that SC would be even better if it did not encourage completely ahistorical moves by players.

The title of this thread is obviously related to the one regarding the elegant naval warfare system in SC. The contents of that thread are reasonable – SC is certainly the best strategic level naval warfare system available at present, despite a lamentably slow pace of naval and maritime movement – but there are serious problems with the inshore aspects of the naval combat system. In fact, non historical techniques are not only possible but far too easily used in SC WW 1/Breakthrough. The reason that this is such an egregious problem is that SC really should try to cause players to at least consider issues from the perspective of leaders of the period, not engage in flights of gamey fantasy. First, why is this a problem, and why now? It has ALWAYS been a problem with the SC games, but it has become particularly acute with the WW I games because the counter tactics available in the World War Two engine (Particularly the use of the much more numerous aircraft of World War II in a maritime attack role) are less available now, and the number of naval assets is significantly larger. What is the problem? Historically, naval units were reluctant to operate close to enemy shores for the very good reason that there were too many ways that significant losses could occur. In particular, and completely absent from SC, mines were prolific in coastal waters and comparatively low cost. There have been a number of suggestions that mines be included in the SC engine, but this has never happened. Further, submarine attacks on ports remain all too possible. They have become less easy over the years, but veteran players – that would be Catacol Highlander to my, woefully, certain knowledge – have become adept at employing submarines in attacks on ports. The problem is that the SC system, which does not allow stacking and which only allows naval units in strength 10 ports to re-build to full strength, actually makes submarine attacks on ports far too easy. Now, submarine attacks on defended ports did occur – U-47 famously sank HMS ROYAL OAK in 1939. I have been unable to find any other examples of a submarine attack on a defended port, but they MIGHT have occurred. It is just VERY unlikely. Why? Submariners are reluctant to operate submarines in shallow water – and anything inside the 50 fathom line is considered shallow. The reason for this reluctance is extremely practical – ANY damage to a submarine can render that vessel incapable of diving (and we are discussing, to be precise, submersibles more than submarines in World War One and most of World War Two), and this would leave them highly vulnerable to destruction. This is not to say that submarine attacks on UNDEFENDED ports were completely unknown. Some did occur, including two on the anchorage at Wabana in Newfoundland, but against naval ports they were extremely unusual and even against undefended harbours they were, to say the least, uncommon. So coastal squares were usually defended by mines and naval ports were generally well-defended. But this is NOT the case in SC. The Royal Navy can lay siege to the exit of the Kiel Canal and, if too much of the Kriegsmarine is in the Baltic, this can be done with little cost. The Royal Navy can stay in these shallow, coastal waters with little that the German player can do in SC WW1, but in reality this would have been a very hazardous operation, one that would quite likely have resulted in serious casualties to the Royal Navy. A player in SC would not know this, however, and would probably think that Admiral Jellicoe was simply too cautious an individual. Of course, if the only obstacles Jellicoe had faced were the same as those of a SC player, then concluding he was a coward seems inevitable. But Jellicoe was neither a coward nor a fool. He understood very well the challenges of operating his forces inshore, and CHOSE not to place his forces there. SC really should have some mechanism to make the possibility of serious losses in enemy coastal waters a, well, possibility. Submarine attacks on ports are also a very real problem with the SC engine. Submarines DID make at least ONE attack like this, but such attacks were highly risky and very, very rare. Specialized forces could be developed and used, and a Decision Event already allows for such a possibility in SC WW 1 – highly commendable. But it is probably more reasonable to make ALL submarine attacks on naval ports impossible – or at least extremely hard (leave a 1% chance of success?) So what else can be done? The easiest thing would be to make the squares adjacent to enemy occupied coasts impassable to friendly naval forces. This would emulate the existence of all the coastal defences that DID exist without requiring any 'work' by either player. A more complicated, but possible, alternative would be to require the defending player to buy and deploy coastal defences. This option might cost 10 MPP to deploy a 'mine' counter (of which there should be an almost infinite number in the Order of Battle, usable only in friendly coastal waters) in a 'friendly' (adjacent to a controlled square) coastal waters. This mine would attack each and every turn, having a high probability of causing one to ten points of damage each time a unit is in that square (whether it is simply traveling through or ends the turn in the square). Such attacks each and every turn would soon make players rather cautious about placing their naval units in such waters – a caution that is NOT required now, but should be as it most certainly was during the actual war. The worst option would be to leave things the way they are, with a growing tendency toward ever more gamey (and ahistorical) tactics being the inevitable result.

Hi Bill Thanks for providing all this background – now we have all the information that Rabelesius wanted, and it does make for a more informed discussion. I completely agree that adjustments in anything that affects National Morale is difficult, and there is quite a balancing act involved. Nonetheless, I still remain convinced that your efforts to encourage the use of U-boats has been too successful, and that adjustments to make the use of U-boats in the Atlantic potentially more painful to the Central Power player – Germany almost inevitably – are needed. First, I rather strongly disagree with your comment that U-boats following the rules only caused 'small annoyances'. This very much reflects a hindsight view of the campaign. In actual fact, new rules were being devised (and revised) as the war continued, as cruiser warfare rules adopted by the international community before the outbreak of the First World War were almost impossible for submarines to follow. This is not so much a case of blindness as an example of a reaction to a previous conflict – the US Civil War in particular – and a failure to understand that submarines would require different rules. There were only a few brave souls, Admiral Fisher for example, who really thought that submarines would actually torpedo merchant ships: most thought such a use of submarines too barbaric for 'civilized' nations. The war changed this, of course, and submarines torpedoing merchant ships is not viewed today with anywhere near the same pejorative view that existed in 1914. We have had decades and hundreds, even thousands, of torpedoed ships to allow us to get used to the idea. But there needs to be an understanding that the 'rules' of commerce raiding for U-boats changed, and quite significantly, during the war itself. Should this affect SC? A valid and difficult question, but I think it can and should. First, if a Central Powers player chooses to use commerce raiding, it might be very easy to make one change that would actually be very simple and not too far off history to adopt. As soon as a Central Power player uses commerce warfare ANYWHERE in the Atlantic (or perhaps just on the convoy lines that run to North America – that might be a more appropriate kludge) OR unrestricted warfare then there will NEVER be any chance of the northern blockades affecting US attitudes. This reflects the fact that almost ANY U-boat attack was worse than what happened to ships inconvenienced by the blockade, as U-boats almost HAD to sink ships to be effective, whereas a blockade did not. And sinking ships caused a significant and one way change to US attitudes. So IF a Central Power player chooses to use commerce raiding in this way, he automatically makes it easier for the Entente to blockade – which is actually what sort of did happen historically. Second, the actual impact of U-boat attacks, even when following 'rules' that were adjusted as time went on, did cause irritation and were much more likely to cause offense than is reflected in the current numbers. In particular, I think a fairly straightforward change is that the more times U-boats attacked, the more irritation should be caused. So instead of each turn checking and applying an increase to US preparation for war at a very low (a very, very low) possibility rate, increase the rate for EACH and EVERY U-boat attack. The probability of the US increasing its preparation for war as a result of commerce attacks in the Atlantic should therefore rise steadily, perhaps even to the point where every U-boat attack had a 100% chance of causing US preparation for war to rise. Now, there is one important caveat where I sort of agree with Bill. U-boats that followed the 'rules of commerce warfare' (as these were established) were extremely unlikely to have caused the US to enter the war by themselves. My proposal to deal with this situation (which is reasonable) would be to put a cap on US preparation for war caused ONLY by U-boats attacking commerce using the rules (ie 'normal' raiding of the convoy lanes in SC) at perhaps 85%. This way the US would not enter the war so long as U-boats followed the 'rules', but – as Bill notes – US support to the Entente over the convoy lanes would increase substantially. To actually cause the US to enter the war would require another trigger, be it the Zimmerman Telegram, unrestricted submarine warfare, or some other event external to the commerce raiding campaign itself. IF these changes are adopted, then perhaps the current unrestricted warfare results do not need to be adjusted (and every change does impact other changes, as I am well aware). However, if nothing is changed then I think the current unrestricted rules may need to be boosted a bit. I think Bill is perhaps right to suggest that unrestricted warfare should have a 100% chance of increasing US preparation for war, and adjusting the range of increase to 1-5% (or perhaps 2-5%) does not seem unreasonable. But all changes impact upon each other, so I think it depends on what (and how much) is changed. Overall the U-boat campaigns proved an important part of the war. However, the more recent adjustments make these commerce raiding campaigns a little too positive for the Central Powers. I think that the best way to balance things is to adjust how much the US might prepare for war, based on what actions the Central Powers (Germany in particular) takes, or chooses not to take. This makes events in the game contingent on strategic decisions that players make, and should make the possibility of the US being a factor – or not much of a factor – a result of game events. Right now there is just too little chance of the US being involved period, no matter what the German player does. I think it also worth noting that US entry into the war is hardly definitive in and of itself. I have seen the Entente player defeated even after significant US forces arrive in Europe. It just makes the task of the Central Power player harder – and this seems entirely reasonable to me.

Hi Sapare Thanks for your comments. The Entente does have the potential to be more powerful than the CP, but the CP starts with significant advantages – that is one of the reasons this game can be so balanced. I agree that the U-boat campaign does have potential pitfalls for the CP, but I would argue that, in the Call to Arms campaign, those pitfalls are not severe enough to offset the advantages of using unrestricted U-boat warfare, and that the restrictions to using U-boats as commerce raiders alone are so slight as to be non-existent. SC WW I is overall an amazing balancing act, so adjusting anything is fraught with difficulty. However, in my experience over about ten Call to Arms PBEM games, not a huge number but enough to get some idea of how things work, I consider that the use of German U-boats in the Atlantic fails to be penalized quite enough. I am most certainly not saying that these should not be options – but there should be a more significant cost associated with those actions, and I have yet to see the US seriously impacted by unrestricted U-boat warfare, let alone almost any impact from U-boat commerce raiding in the Atlantic. Almost invariably the war ends before the US is enters, despite extensive use of unrestricted U-boat warfare. Sometimes the CP wins and sometimes the CP loses, but the US ends up being an almost complete bystander. The Fate of Nations campaign is quite different. With US preparation for war starting at 60%, a German decision to use unrestricted U-boat warfare holds real risk of bringing the US in. I have played Fate of Nations less frequently than Call to Arms, but in those Fate of Nations where unrestricted U-boat warfare was adopted the US did come in and make some difference. I am not sure what the magic level is so that Call to Arms will end up being more like Fate of Nations in terms of the potential for US involvement, but overall the balance seems better in the latter campaign than the former. I speculate that a somewhat more significant impact on US prep for war as a result of a German decision to use U-boats aggressively against commerce in the Atlantic should help to balance the game more. So I suppose you are correct to argue that the game is not that bad as it is, even if the use of U-boats in the Call to Arms campaign has such a limited impact on the US. It is, however, very far from the historical model which would have CP use of U-boats in the Atlantic causing a significant potential for US entry into the war on the side of the Entente. I am not arguing that the ASW model or the convoy raiding model should be made more realistic – they are kludges but the kludges more or less work. But the strategic decision for the Germans should be whether the use of their U-boats in the Atlantic is worth the risk of US involvement. Right now there is so little risk for the German player that the decision of using the U-boats aggressively seems completely one-sided: of course the German player should use the U-boats aggressively as it would be very unintelligent for him not to. You are essentially arguing that the German player has to use U-boats aggressively if he is to have any chance of restricting the massive British economy. While this may be reasonable, I honestly think that the use of U-boats against Atlantic commerce (I am very specific about the Atlantic here!) should involve more of a strategic decision in the Call to Arms campaign, which is already the case in the Fate of Nations campaign. As for the blockade, I agree that it is more or less correct as is. Whether it should cause more NM damage is arguable - it does have an impact, depending on how vigorous it is applied. If you doubt the impact, just try to not have any blockade and see how happy the Germans are in terms of NM.

Hi Bill No, that is not the case here. The big problem is that IF a sub is visible, it WILL stop an opposing sub from passing through the square, whether the opposing sub is in silent or normal mode. I just ran a test in hotseat, Call to Arms Campaign, patch 1.05 using the Austrian sub in the Adriatic and the French and British subs in the Med. If the French and British subs are NOT visible, then the Austrian sub is able to pass through the Otranto area easily (that is the narrow neck in the Adriatic adjacent to the Italian port of Brindisi). However, if the French and British subs ARE visible (I put an Austrian warship adjacent to them to make them visible) then it didn't matter what mode the Austrian sub was in – it could NOT pass from the Adriatic into the Med. It didn't matter whether there was a whole lot of Entente ships south of the British and French subs or if there was nothing but empty squares – all that seems to matter is whether the Entente subs are visible or not. And if they are visible, they completely stop any movement into the Med for the Austrian sub, no matter what mode it is in. This is the essence of the problem, and it clearly represents something that is not correct. If the British and French subs are NOT visible (ie the Austrian warship is moved away) then the Austrian sub CAN move into the Med. The whole point is that whether the Entente subs are visible or not should really not be relevant to the passage of the CP sub. Arguably, if the Entente subs are visible it should be easier for the CP sub to move through them, as opposed to impossible. There really does seem to be a problem here.

This is a very specific topic, and the play testing I have done is almost exclusively with patch 1.04, so if 1.05 fixes the problem, then please ignore this. The basic issue is that U-boat attacks in the Atlantic on commerce and even unrestricted U-boat attacks on commerce have far too little impact on US entry into the war. There does seem to be a chance that regular U-boat attacks might cause the US to be irritated by this Central Power action, and therefore raise its preparation for war or even enter the war. Based on my experience in a number of games, this chance is low or very low – I have only seen it happen a couple of times in the course of perhaps 50 U-boat attacks on commerce. The number of attacks by U-boats made in a single turn does not seem to matter – I had one opponent attack five times with U-boats in a single turn and the US didn't make a peep. Unrestricted U-boat warfare has a significantly higher chance of irritating the US, but the subsequent impact on US preparation for war is seldom even 5% (it has been higher – once! - but it has also been lower). This is far too little. A few comments on the commerce raiding campaign in SC as compared to historical reality. As might be expected, the commerce raiding model in SC WW I is a kludge. There were essentially NO convoys in the Atlantic until rather late in the war (April 1917 is the conventional date for convoy start). Once convoys were started, U-boats had almost no ability to find them once they were more than 2 to 400 miles off shore – the 'wolfpack' tactic used extensively in WW II was neither conceived or really all that practical in WW I. (The squares designated for unrestricted U-boat warfare actually are pretty close to historical reality here). Finally, there were a grand total of six – and ONLY six – U-boats that actually had the range to travel to North America and attack shipping. So the concept of convoy lanes being raided by U-boats in the middle of the Atlantic in SC is just about completely artificial. That said, it sort of works – except that U-boat attacks seem to have very little or no impact on the US. This means that one of the great issues of the First World War is almost absent from this game – reasonable Central Power players face almost no chance of the US being any kind of factor in the war, let alone ENTERING the war, no matter what they do. I have extensively used unrestricted U-boat warfare as the Central Power player, and crushed the Entente before the US ever got close to entering the war. In fact, in one game in September 1917 the US was still only at about 60% preparation for war. As a comparison, the Fate of Nations campaign, which starts in January 1917, has the US starting at 60%. Based on my experience I would suggest that there is something very wrong with how little impact the unrestricted U-boat attacks have on the US. A related but not quite the same topic is the Entente blockade of the North Sea and NW of Scotland. This blockade has clearly been adjusted to irritate the US, depending on Entente efforts to mount the blockade, and I think the adjustments are not too bad. (I also advocated the changes, so I guess I am biased in my view). However, I ALSO advocated a strengthening of the impact of U-boat commerce raiding in the Atlantic on US prep for war. I didn't comment on Unrestricted U-boat warfare as I did not realize how little the unrestricted attacks would affect the US. Now, with a lot more experience, I would strongly suggest that both regular commerce attacks and unrestricted attacks need to have a more significant impact on the US than is currently the case. I would also argue that, when Unrestricted attacks are taking place, there should be almost NO chance that the blockade would reduce US preparation for war. I am currently playing a PBEM game where my opponent has been conducting unrestricted U-boat attacks for about the past five turns. Last turn, the US level of preparation for war DROPPED from 16% to 15% because of the blockade. Now, 16% was silly enough, given the remarkable provocation that unrestricted attacks represent, but to have the level actually drop was just astonishing. Getting the variables affecting US entry into the First World War right is a really, really difficult task, but in my assessment the impact of U-boat commerce raiding and unrestricted U-boat warfare are both not well reflected in the Call to Arms campaign. The Central Power player should have to choose between reducing British imports using U-boats or irritating the US and potentially causing it to enter the war. Right now the Central Power player is not much affected by the impact of U-boat operations on the US, which means there isn't much of a choice – it simply is too beneficial to the Central Power player to use U-boats against the British, and there is rather limited downside risk in doing so.

Sub movement through occupied tiles is a frequent challenge in SC. I can see a 'reasonable' argument in game terms for subs being unable to travel unchallenged through squares occupied by ASW capable units. As long as a sub is surrounded by ASW capable units then I think the swamp method of surrounding a sub is arguably reasonable, although it might be possible to allow a sub to ATTEMPT to escape at the risk of suffering a double attack (ie it might suffer double damage IF it is NOT successful in an evasion roll – and that roll would be similar to an attack roll by the ASW unit attacking the sub.) However, the ability of a sub to attempt to pass through an ASW capable unit would be a 'nice to have'. The status quo is probably OK in this respect. What I find very wrong is the fact that subs, especially discovered subs, can stop movement of subs in stealth mode trying to pass through their square. In SC subs have no ASW capability. While that can be argued (it is a dubious proposition, as although subs were not primarily expected to kill other subs, they most certainly could and did do so whenever possible, and succeeded a number of times) the use of subs to block sub movement in SC is really wrong, and can be especially successful and irritating off Otranto. The placement of an Entente sub in this key location can make Central Power U-boat transit in and out of the Adriatic extremely problematic, and really demonstrates WHY it is wrong to allow subs, especially visible subs, to block the transit of a sub, especially when the transiting sub is in stealth mode. I would argue that subs should either be given an ASW capability – which would be a little challenging – or that subs, especially visible subs, should NOT block subs moving past them in stealth mode, which would probably be an easier fix. But whatever fix is chosen, SOMETHING about using subs to block movement should be done.

The issue of dedicated reinforcement locations is very problematic, and has become a serious problem for me in PBEM games. There are a number of occasions where newly introduced reinforcements end up being badly mauled or destroyed because they are placed in positions that are either exposed or too well known to players. There have been a few mentioned already, and there are others, such as Hindendburg. It may seem like the initial positions that these units are placed in are reasonable, but once the spawn location is known, it can become vulnerable. (And Hindenburg CAN be killed, even though his start location seems well behind the lines...but once a player knows where Hindenburg will show up, the exact location becomes vulnerable.) There is at least one easy solution – stop letting the computer automatically place reinforcements. Instead, allow players to place the newly arriving unit, either at the end or the beginning of a turn as appropriate. To reflect historical location, the initial placement locations might be restricted to within two or three squares of where the computer 'normally' places the unit, but a live human can judge whether a reinforcement should be placed closer to – or FURTHER away – from the front line, as appropriate. The solution that SC has for initial placement of mobilizing or DE units may seem reasonable, but against human players it all too often becomes a real problem.

Before the fourth patch I had not ever heard of the Ottomans entering the war early. Now, since the patch appeared, I have both heard of it and experienced it, and it seems highly problematic as currently configured. The CP now (with patch 1.04) appear to start with two diplomatic chits in Turkey. If these succeed quickly, then the Ottoman Empire can enter the war very early. While in and of itself this counter factual result is not that hard to see as a possibility, the problem is with the ABSOLUTE lack of any Entente response. NOTHING changes in response to the early Ottoman entrance, with the exception that the Decision Event concerning Basra is apparently now eliminated. Why is this significant? Well, any time that counter factuals are dealt with anything can be argued. But if the Ottomans had entered early, it is really hard to see the British Empire, with the entire resources of India close by, not responding in any way. Nor would the Russians, likely, adhere to a mobilization schedule that appears to be broadly historically based. But the Entente does NOTHING other than the usual while Turkish troops flood the map much earlier than usual. Is this reasonable? I would argue no. As it stands the British Empire has one decision that is (in my case) made before the diplomatic chits operate, as to where a single Indian corps lands – France or Egypt. I mistakenly chose France, not being aware of the Ottoman entrance at that point. The British 'garrison' that arrives coincident with the hordes of Turkish troops is two measly detachments...not nearly enough to bar the Suez Canal – a level that is difficult to understand given the significant historical failure of the Turks to capture the canal. The Caucasus is just as bad, where two Russian corps and a Russian detachment try to stare down the Turks until the 'real' Caucasus mobilization finally happens. What can be done? Lots of options exist. An early Turkish entrance could result in slow Turkish troop deployment, or more rapid Entente mobilization. The disappearance of the Basra option might be partially offset by a more muscular Indian option to Egypt. But the current status quo for the Entente even after the world dramatically changes as a result of the early Ottoman entry? Ridiculous. The possibility of an early Ottoman entry is perhaps OK. The complete lack of Entente reaction if that happens is wrong. Either the option of early Ottoman entry is removed OR a reasonable Entente reaction if the Ottoman's enter early is added - but having one without the other is simply wrong.

Hi Hubert I think ANYTHING would be an improvement on the status quo, which really is problematic. Having the colour change (or some change to the pattern) when you have reached maximum movement allowance BEFORE the player clicks to start movement is certainly a potential solution. I would prefer a solution that requires an active decision on the part of the player, but your solution is practical too - and if it is easier for you to code I would suggest that we try it and see how it goes.

The option to hold down control and move units in SC is very powerful and can often be very useful. However, there is a weakness in the current implementation that makes control movement difficult, and sometimes even arbitrary. This weakness results from the fact that, when holding down control, clicking on what is the maximum movement of a unit results in IMMEDIATE movement of that unit. If the extent of a unit's movement is clear and obvious (as is generally the case at sea), then PERHAPS this is OK. But there are a number of occasions when the maximum extent of a unit's movement is not obvious (especially on land close to opposing units), and the first indication that the maximum move has been reached is when a player clicks on what he THINKS is an intermediate movement square – and his unit moves. Are there any easy solutions to this? I would suggest that there are at least two potential solutions. First, a confirmation 'yes or no' box could pop up any time control is held down and a unit's maximum movement is reached. If the player really does want to move to the square that will be reached if he goes ahead with movement, then he should click 'yes'. If, however, the square that the unit would move to is not at all where he wanted his unit to end up, then he should click 'no'. If that is too unwieldy (and, given the occasions where control movement is warranted, I really do not see the confirmation as unwieldy), then it should be necessary to 'double-click' when you want a unit to move with control depressed.