Habari
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Habari
-
-
Having had a look around, it seems the Spanish army was the size of the Belgian and the quality of the Ottoman in 1914. This was even with some national service. The country was very unstable, neutral because it was split between the 2 sides, and suffered increasing strikes and social unrest, to the point of military coup even without joining in the war.
In short, the present force pool seems about right for the army. NM would be very low and revolution / civil war likely.
-
On their way to you now
-
Sorry no, it is 1.03.1, multiplayer, call to arms
-
3 things:
- Von Bohm Ermolli goes to HQ rating zero - all too much for him?
- 75% of the Austrian Army ends up by Trabazon, needing a 6 month trek through the Ottoman badlands to get back to Europe - I get the 'nearest friendly square' logic, but really?
- Russian fleet leaves the Black Sea (OK) and the Ottoman ships in Syrian ports abandon their ports in sympathy?
- Von Bohm Ermolli goes to HQ rating zero - all too much for him?
-
1916 and Russia has surrendered. Serbia, Montenegro and Albania still stand. As Russian minors I assumed they would benefit from their own productive capacity - 3 cities and 1 mine =45 points. However, they only get 24, plus 10 'serbian production'. The Russian 'morale booster' -25 is still kicking in, despite Russian surrender, so Serbia etc are getting a total of 9 per turn. Doesn't seem right?
-
When the Dutch switch to the Entente through diplomacy, Germany not only loses the 65 resource points, but also has the morale effect of blockade doubled. However, if Holland joins the CP, Germany only loses the 65 points (gaining about 40 points from Dutch resources instead). Would not the Entente have extended full blockade to Holland and thus should not Germany suffer the double morale penalty in this circumstance as well?
-
Looking for a game, anyone? Don't mind which side / which game.
-
I bow to your greater knowledge - but the point still stands. If it took us Brits more than 20 years and yet still not learn the lesson, that has an effect on how 'killable' our battlecruisers were, compared to other nations.
-
Just a suggestion - British battlecruisers had very significant armour weaknesses (witness their losses at Jutland, and the sinking of the 'Hood' (launched 1918) in 10 mins against the Bismarck). Is there a case for weaker naval defence stats for GB battlecruisers vis a vis other nations?
-
I have just completed my first game of CtA as Entente. It finished in spring 1916, and at no point did the NM objectives appear in the Ottoman territories south of Turkey itself. Moreover, everything in those territories was NM 0. This is very different from the maps I have seen in the AAR.
Also, captured trenches are NM 30, more even than captured cities (NM 24) - is this correct?
It was impossible to move the UK artillery across the suez canal - do you actually have to bring the HQ back (mine was in Gaza at the time) to get it over?
PS I have also seen the CP AI behaviour mentioned elsewhere leaving 1 step units alone when having the option to attack (but not that often).
National Moral and unit strengh
in Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
Posted
Can I second that? Particularly in the case of naval warfare, where there is not much you can do to balance it out (no entrench, leaders etc)