lettowvorbeck

After removing my multiple installations and doing a fresh single install I was able to use the same 1.05 exe to install the patch with no problem.

The corralling doesn't bother me too much in that it makes subs think twice about entering restricted waterways. With minefields not modeled in the game, it is something that represents the increased risk. Also, it sort of compensates for the times when the 'dive before combat feature' is overdone. None of these are strictly historical arguments, just things to think of in game terms.

Ah, that might explain my own experience and why it has only occurred now with v1.05 when I have two installations of the game on the hard drive and never before with versions 1 through 1.04 when i only had the one.

Hubert, I've downloaded all the of the patches from Atomic Gamer. Drew

I am not sure if it the THE problem that has been mentioned in various threads... but I was trying to apply the 1.05 patch on my original installation and I found a big problem with the auto installer. This is what happens: You tell the installer to install to this directory: c:\Program File (x86)\Battlefront\Strategic Command WW1 The Great War 1914-1918 BUT when you press 'next', the installer doubles up on the last directory without informing you: c:\Program File (x86)\Battlefront\Strategic Command WW1 The Great War 1914-1918\Strategic Command WW1 The Great War 1914-1918 which screws everything up by sending the files to a newly created subdirectory within your original destination folder, with the same name as the destination folder. I missed this the first time around. So I erased the extra directory and reinstalled the patch, making sure to delete the extra folder designation that the installer stubbornly wishes to tack on to the end before continuing on with the patch install. I did not encounter the same problem with the other patches.

1. With the newly adjusted Bulgarian entry: I like it better. However, the Bulgars came into the war in late Nov/Early Dec 1915 after Serbia had already surrendered. This seemed too late, given that one of their war aims was a chunk of Macedonia. On the other hand, I have no idea if the AI controlled Entente had used diplomatic pressure to keep them out (Bill, is this something the AI will even do?). This is just one game, though, and might be an outlier. IMO, a chance of late entry is legions better than having them come in in 1914 like they did in v1.04. 2. Rumania: I still don't have a grasp of exactly what external factors beyond a Gallipoli capture swing Rumania as they often act in a manner contrary to their self interest. Historically, they gambled that A-H was done for, but even though their war went disastrously they at least had evidence of A-H teetering on the brink. In my 1.05 game they came in a little early, but at a terrible spot, with A-H and the Germans armies completely ascendent on all fronts. The Russians were reeling, with their armies smashed on all fronts and losing territory uncontested. The Bolsheviks took over in Russia the same turn that Rumania joined. Of course, Russia's dropping out of the war completely was a surprise at the time and we can't expect the Rumanians to see into the future, but I think one of the problems with Italian and Rumanian entries are they are still too closely tied to historical dates and not affected enough by the contexts of the time (i.e. for Italy and Rumania strings of A-H military disasters, and, for the Rumanians, the success of Brusilov's Offensive). How that could be represented in game terms, if even possible, I have no idea. 3. Surrenders When A-H surrendered, 8 Russian corps were shifted into Serbia, where they would have no way to get back home. This isn't disastrous but it is inconvenient if you need them to continue the fight with the Germans. I suppose you could assume they are there to secure Russia's interests in the Dardanelles (but 8 corps is a large force). To eliminate problems, however, I think I would prefer that all units be sent back to the home country. What dates have you guys been getting with Bulgarian entry in your 1.05 games?

I would vote for the Athens detachment. It's simple and has no chance of raising other complications.

Sounds dastardly, but I would think a strong naval presence in the Aegean could stop this tactic with little trouble. I never thought of the specific situation you raise here, but in my pbem games I always have French-Italo-Anglo fleets and subs regularly patrolling the area.

I agree and would like to see the reinforcing points looked at again. The A-H units in Galicia spawn/mobilize in potential danger at the front in Call to Arms. I would prefer to see them appear a few tiles to the rear and have the player bring them up if they choose. There are enough units to cover the Galician forts and towns with corps present at setup, so it's not a question of necessity in occupying empty points. also, in a recent 1.04 game, a hard coded reinforcing French cavalry unit (the last of the units from 1914 mobilization?) appeared in front of my French lines and adjacent to two German corps!

Could very well be from the land and naval losses you've incurred conducting your offensives. If it's any consolation, you will gain a chunk back when Turkey joins the CP.

The v1.04 blockade stuff seems okay to me. Then again I've never had a pbem game get to 1918.

is it all over?

Yes, 288,57 is the tile directly NE of the current Lemberg location.

Every map I've seen has shown substantial parts of the Serbian army retreating through Albania without passing through Montenegro.

I brought this subject up right after the game was released (I'm sure you can do a search for the thread). It is better now than it used to be, when the mountains basically hugged both fortified towns on 3 sides! It was a bit of a design construct (unneeded, IMO) to help the Austrian defenders out. Bill's changes to the map created a more accurate representation of the geography, but I still don't think the "fix" went far enough (e.g. that whole stretch of mtns around Stanislow and Kolomea shouldn't be there, and the hills in front should be plains). I think a better place for Lemberg would be 288/57, as your 288.58 pushes it back toward the mountains. But, in terms of the Austrians ALWAYS holding onto Lemberg in 1914, human player or not, we also shouldn't underestimate the human player's desire to not replicate the thing that led the Austrians to lose Lemberg in the first place (a foolish offensive that left their right flank basically open).

Hmm. that hasn't been my experience. I should also mention that no one is suggesting that artillery should "totally obliterate" an attacking unit.

Hubert, Those savegame files are long gone, but I am going to try to get the opponent password from a newly terminated game and see if I can recreate the problem. When i find it, i'll send you the file.

Hi Hubert, Yes, the attacker is two tiles away and the HA strength is >= 5 and the defending arty does not always fire. I think it definitely merits a going over. A v1.04 example that immediately comes to mind from a recent pbem game...I had a 10 strength Level 2 HA adjacent to a friendly unit (with plenty of ammo and not in silent mode, of course). An enemy corps attacked the friendly unit, and swapped out with another behind it which also attacked. Neither was subjected to defensive arty fire!

I have a couple issues I'd like to raise about artillery on the defense: 1. The manual implies that, as long as you have the shells for it and the arty unit is not in silent mode, that each attacker within its range will get hit by defensive fire. But this is clearly not the case, as I see frequently see opposing attacking corps not get fired upon when i have plenty of shells to do so. What exactly is the % chance for arty to fire in the defense? 2. Since artillery was the king of the battlefield, shouldn't it also do more damage to attackers? It seems that even with Level 1, the most typical result of defensive artillery fire is 'no loss'. At worst, the attacker gets a 1 or 2 step loss. None of this is enough of a deterrent, IMO. What do you guys think? A nearby HA unit should be a major hurdle to cross, and it just isn't. 3. Counterbattery fire was an important consideration in trench warfare, but, since no one is foolish enough to put their precious HA units on the front line in order to reach an enemy HA unit 2 tiles away, it is now absent from the game. That said I am enormously glad that the range of Level 2 HA was reduced by 1 in an earlier patch, as it created ridiculously ahistorical offensive punch that could be sustained over huge areas. The only thing I regret about it is the loss of counterbattery fire. I remember a pbem game where I had an offensive prepared and right as I began to soften up the defenses, the counterbattery fire made it too expensive to continue and i had to call off the attack. IMO, we need to have this back in the game to make HA-backed offensive success less inevitable. Can something be done to put it back in the game, without reinstating the extra range for all purposes?

Well, if it is that easily done and maintained, and the consequences that steep to downstream supply, something definitely needs to be changed.

How many "hits" does it take before the tile is disrupted enough to block the passage of units by rail? Recently, I read an article on the Sinai/Suez campaign and it mentioned that TE naval fire so disrupted the coastal transportation routes that the Turks had to abandon them for inland roads. That said, completely cutting all rail service into the Middle East from Turkey solely by naval gunfire is drastic indeed! In game terms, there are limited options in stopping it. Bombers operated in would be like pinpricks but I suppose Austrian and German subs could help (although they could be easily trapped in the "elbow" there).

I agree. Changes to the game tied to events happening earlier (see my earlier post about v104 Bulgarian entry) tend to have no corresponding changes to the counteractions (e.g. an earlier Greece option to go with MUCH earlier Bulgarian entry, and like you say earlier reaction at Basra and Suez). That said, I thought that Turkey started with two diplo chits in earlier versions as well. Basically, the problem as I see it is we have fluidity in timing for a given event but rigidity on the response event, instead of them being in a sequence of some kind.

Arab lands, Syria, Libya, Persia (I think), Serbia, Missouri, Kentucky, and Northfield, Minnesota. (Well, forget the last three). If you press the 'P' hotkey, you can see the partisan tiles.

The manual says there is a small chance for Montenegro units to fight on, but I don't know the number. Like you, every game I've ever played from v1.0 to v1.04 had all the units disappear when the capital falls, so it must be tiny.

K, Serbia itself will instantly surrender if you lose all the capitals AND retreat all your units into say Greece, Montenegro, or Albania. The % chance surrender calculation itself applies only to Serbian units that are within its borders. So, if you have two units inside Serbia, but all 3 capitals are occupied, the country has 0% chance of surrendering (if 1 unit, 50% chance). The change makes it even easier than before for the Serbs to escape. I like the change, I think.