lettowvorbeck

Bill, With the change in def. value for Mtns for 1.04, I seem to recall that you were looking to do something for the Italian Alps to preserve their exceptional property as a barrier to attack. The map looks the same to me. Were there any changes made specific to this region?

A screenshot of a graphics and scenario mod done by a French player long ago: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/101/imagevers02ix9.jpg/ I wish we had some creative guys make some counter mods for SCWW1.

I've read that the extremely harsh terms that Germany pressed on the Russians with the B-L Treaty actually made the rest of the TE powers even more determined to not suffer the same fate rather than be demoralized from it. So their NM should actually rise with the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. In the game, does the NM of France, GB, and Italy fall with Russian surrender? I don't recall.

Wow, I am impressed. But dividing the Pacific Ocean into two pieces located at opposite ends of the board is a big problem for playing the Pacific War, isn't it? Perhaps the middle of Asia (where little action) should have been the map edge?

Even better! Thanks for the clarification.

acrashb, Pertaining to issue (4) I thought I read in the rules that units with 0 supply at the time they were destroyed could not be "repurchased". I'll have to recheck that. If true, that goes some distance in forcing players to think twice about fruitless advances behind enemy lines.

Jnpoint, I would recommend buying the WW1 game now. SC3 is not coming out anytime soon, and if you get stuck in the rut of always waiting for the next better version, you end up never actually playing anything. and what's the fun in that!

Another issue it would be help with: Let's say the attacker eliminates a defender, but doesn't advance into the newly empty tile. At the end of the turn all the defender's entrenchments disappear completely, so if the defender wants to reoccupy his own defenses on the ensuing turn he is now completely out in the open and sure to get smashed by the entrenched enemy corps in adjacent tiles. This is a large part of what fosters those silly west front lines that have long stretches of empty tiles between them, with both sides afraid to enter the space.

Given the constant problem in WW1 of having the defender able to assemble reserves and counterattack faster than an attacker could exploit success, wouldn't it be cool if units behind a defending tile could be tagged with a 'Reserve' setting which would allow them (if they are not in an enemy ZOC) to move into an adjacent tile vacated by a successful enemy attack. TOAW has this feature and I think it would work great for SCWW1. This would simulate the black hole meat grinders that many west front battles became. It would also ameliorate the problem of single defending tiles being generally helpless against the dreaded 8 corps alternating attack.

Since my local library system is pathetic when it comes to WW1, I was delighted recently to come upon the "Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War I." This is a truly stunning 12 volume history of WW1. Each book runs around 300 oversize, small-print pages that are heavily illustrated with photos and color maps. The text itself is densely detailed and covers all aspects of the war. Less the typical encyclopedia, it can be read almost as a narrative of the war. Each chapter is written by a different author, often a military officer. I'm sure some of the material is dated by now, but the 1914 Serbian campaign chapter is the best I've ever read (if one discounts the Serb nationalist tone of the Serbian general officer that wrote the essay). I've finished the first volume. There is a heavy British bias overall, with many chapters following the exploits of the small BEF, leaving the vastly larger French armies somewhat in the background (this is not surprising given the publisher is a UK one). Maybe Bill can elaborate, but apparently this Marshall Cavendish publisher has created encyclopedia sets for just about every subject under the sun, from gardening to whatever. Unfortunately, the 1986 American publisher of the WW1 volumes only made them available for libraries, although I shudder to imagine what the set would cost to own.

Agreed, Sea Monkey. I am especially with you on the first point. The reinforcing of cut off units to full strength has gotta go. I would like to see a max 5 (to represent limited reorg instead of true reinforcement) or something like that in those situations.

Thanks, Bill. I think it would be a particularly tough decision for the CP to invade, unless the UK did not occupy, or was kicked out of, Basra. That oil well in SW Persia is ripe for the picking from there.

It's a nice "feature", because it (inability to exploit local breakthroughs) happened a lot.

I could see how it might be useful to outflank stalemate in the Caucasus. Here's what the strat guide says about Persia: "A divided country with a weak government, even her armed forces were split into two factions: pro-Russian Cossacks on the one hand, and on the other the Swedish Gendarmerie who favored the Central Powers. If Persia should enter the war on the side of the Central Powers then she will probably become the focus for intrigue and partisan warfare, as German agents like Wilhelm Wassmuss will attempt to prevent the Entente from exploiting the oil wells in the south". Which country from each side gets the MMPs from Persia?

Bill, What does the US think of the Allies invading Spain in the game (does their Allied alignment % go down?)? I would imagine we would have taken a dim view of the so-called good guys doing such a dastardly deed. You could make a good argument that that kind of brutality is worse than unrestricted sub warfare.

Does anyone ever go on a Persian adventure in the game? IIRC, during the war there were a number of incursions (ex. between Russian and Turk in the north and a British advance ("Dunsterforce") into the southern reaches of the country from Iraq).

Interesting, Glabro. You've won all your pbem games using this strategy?

I just never think of it when I'm playing :-( Now, I will.

The Pripyat Marshes have always been a barrier to invasion, but I am not sure it should be the complete wasteland that the Call to Arms game map makes it currently. If you look at maps of the Brusilov Offensive, for example, you'll see significant combat up at the north end of the front in the PM, so fighting did occur in there. If we want to keep Pinsk itself a cosmetic feature of the map, instead of a real city, shouldn't we at least have some roads connecting it to other parts of the front?

Interesting. Thanks. I'll have to check the reinforcement schedule. From my AI games, I always had the impression that there was a brief window for a Turkish offensive, even if the TE player chooses all the Middle East reinforcement DE options.

There seems to be two major strategic decisions for the TE player re: the Russian navy. 1) For the Baltic fleets, stay in port or come out and fight. Considering how easily my German opponent smashed my navy in port in 1.02, I was forced to reconsider the 'fleet in being' strategy for the Baltic. i don't know how, if at all, this will change with 1.04. One thing I didn't think of doing was going after the CP player's own North Sea ports and Kiel Canal opening while he was using his navy in the Baltic. This might have alleviated some pressure there. 2) What to do with Russian naval reinforcements. The submarines and dreadnoughts can make a real difference in controlling the Black Sea, but do you want them bottled up in there? If the Turks just decide to ignore them, the Russian ships basically just become interned (unless seaborne invasions are considered). Personally, I thought it was worth it to dominate the Black Sea, but I never did anything with it.

While waiting for v1.04 to appear, I thought it would be fun to discuss various strategies. One that I've always wondered about, was how difficult it is to maintain a British presence east of the Suez in the early period of the war. It can be done against the AI, but I don't know how it works against a human opponent. In my lone PBEM game, I immediately withdrew behind the Suez, thinking my artillery would allow me to re-cross. It was nuts to that as I didn't get Level 1 until 1917 (bad luck) and never did get a chance to cross against heavily fortified and upgraded Turks. Of course, with v1.04 the Caucasus front might loosen up a bit and I think there was talk about additional British options in Mesopotamia. This would force the Turks to deploy more forces in those places for defense.

Good point. There are mountains and then there are mountains!

Bill, Without getting too wonky on mathematical formulas, what effects do we see with changing the mountain defense value (i.e. does the proposed change only effect combat (and not supply and movement), are mountains now 1/2, 2/3, or a 3/4 as effective for defensive purposes, etc.)? I guess I am asking if they still feel like a significant natural barrier (as the should), while allowing a bit more offensive success than previous versions. I would definitely be in favor of that. It will be interesting to see if this loosens up the Caucasus as well.

I was wondering why we hadn't heard about 1.04 in a while. You were busy with the expansion for the other game.