Ivanov

Finally I have time to have a look at the changes implemented in the 1.04. What I have noticed is that in the SOE campaign the mountains still have the defensive value of - 3. Was the change to -2 suppose to affect only the WWI campaigns? From the other hand I still believe this kind of terrain should be again carefully reworked on the map and a the the mountains would need to be divided into two categories ( with the influence of -3 and -2 ).

I have no dobut that it should be gold...

Then it should be Kattowitz for the WWI map but the city does not even appear on the WWII map.

Bingo. Interesting comparison between the modus operandi of the Republic Of Poland and the Soviet Union in the 1930s, provide the assassinations cases of Bronisław Pieracki ( Polish minister of internal affairs ) and Sergey Kirov ( high ranking Bolshevik leader ). Both assassinations took place the same year, in 1934. Bronisław Pieracki was killed by a Ukrainian nationalist, who was then sentenced in an open and public trial. The trial lasted for 56 days and the perpetrator was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment ( he evaded the justice, escaped abroad and died in Argentina in 1966 ). In Soviet Union however, the same day as Kirov was murdered ( not a day after - THE SAME DAY ) the Central Committee of the Communist Party, "voted" a new act "of extraordinary procedures in case of the terrorist acts". According to it, the time for an investigation was reduced to maximum 10 days, the court was examining the accusations without the presence of neither prosecutor nor the attorney, the death sentence was final and immediately executed. Shortly after that, the Stalinist Great Purge begun. Let it be a sobering reminder for all those who for whatever reason, tend to perceive the greatest tragedy of the human history in terms of "fun". More humility please. Ps. Wait - is this thread called "First observation 1.04 Belgium" ??? :eek:

Just to be correct, we cannot forget that the Czechs occupied the disputed teritorry in 1919, when Poland was engaged in the war on her eastern border against the Ukrainians and the Bolsheviks. The area is called Zaolzie and a plebiscite organized by the League Of Nations was underway to decide if the teritorry should belong to Poland or Czechoslovakia ( before the IWW the area was predominantly inhabited by Poles ) . According to a British historian Richard M. Watt: "Beneš strategically waited for Poland's moment of weakness, and moved in during the Polish-Soviet War crisis in July 1920. As Watt writes, "Over the dinner table, Beneš convinced the British and French that the plebiscite should not be held and that the Allies should simply impose their own decision in the Teschen matter. More than that, Beneš persuaded the French and the British to draw a frontier line that gave Czechoslovakia most of the territory of Teschen, the vital railroad and all the important coal fields. With this frontier, 139,000 Poles were to be left in Czech territory, whereas only 2,000 Czechs were left on the Polish side(...) The affair soured the Prague-Warsaw relationship and proved a tragedy when the needed co-operation against expansionist Nazi Germany failed to materialise in 1938".

Too late I see:)

I've sent it to you be e-mail.

There may be a tie, if both players achieve the same type of victory in the mirror match. For example both score a minor vicory as Entente in the Fate Of Nations campaign. The comparison of NM, between the winners of each game of the mirror, seems to be a fair and simple solution in case of the tie.

I don't think that merely holding the ground could be ever a game winning tactics. There are other and more important factors than occupation of the enemy teritorry. In my opinion, the casualties are the single most important factor affecting the NM, so at the end the tactical skill on the battlefield will always be decisive. The NM effect of the occupied cities/resources is between 15 to 25 NM points per turn, while the loss of a single infantry corps is worth all it's MMP cost converted into NM points. In my recent Fate Of Nations test game as CP, I was practically expulsed form all the occupied French teritorry, yet mostly due to the casualties, the German and French NM were practically equal and I was expecting a major boost after the fall of Russia.

Thats because of ACTA.

I am impressed... - Added 1 UK mine at 197,47. - Decreased initial German IM from 80% to 75% to match the UK. - Added 2 mines to the USSR in the Urals that are not tied to the Industrial Transfer event. - Added an additional 2 mines to the USSR that are tied to the Industrial Transfer event - Added a 750 MPP boost for the USSR once it reaches 100% mobilization. I LOVE IT!!! - Increased initial US Industrial Technology to Level 1. - Placed 1 chit in Advanced Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, Long Range Aircraft and Naval Warfare. - Added 2 more Oil resources that will activate once the USA mobilizes for war. - Added an additional 2 more mines to the US that are not tied to the USA mobilization event. - Reduced US research costs by 50 MPP across the board. - Increased the cost of Tanks, Fighters, Tacs and Bombers by 50 MPP for all countries with the exception of the USSR. - Increase Anti-Tank TA/TD from 3/3 to 4/4. THANK YOU!

- Starting strength of the French Tank unit reduced from 10 to 5. - Starting strength of the II ANZAC and Canadian Corps reduced from 11 to 10. - Starting experience of the II Bavarian Corps in Flanders increased from 0.5 to 1. - Starting shells of British artillery in Flanders reduced to 1, and their starting strength reduced from 10 to 8. - Starting experience of all Entente artillery on the Western Front reduced to 0, as well as the experience of some British and French units. - The French artillery near the Chemin des Dames now starts with no upgrades. - France now starts with only level 1 in Gas/Shell Production, though they do have a chit invested in researching it. - Germany now starts with Level-5 Trench Warfare. SWEET!!!

Yes, I got a feeling that the things vere strangely familiar when I was reading it recently:)

Ok Bill, I got it!

Bill - where can we get the full, detailed list of the changes implemented for the new patch?

Cooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!!

Great news:) And I see that we read the same books too

Thanks Bill:) That's the good news. If you are talking about the future changes, does mean that the 1.04 is already completed and ready to be released??? It has been a long wait...

Silence is a bliss.

Wow - that was a very creative post and also very out of context. Thanks for your input into this discussion.

I don't recal what happenes with the Entente NM in case of the Russian surrender, but I repeat thet it seems illogical to me that the Brest-Litovsk treaty prevents the bolshevik agitation effect on CP. I think it should be the oposite, as it actually saved the Bolsheviks and as we know the world revolution, happiness and freedom for all the workers and peasnts was always their ultimate goal and they would never abandon it. If the Brest-Litovsk wasn't signed, then I can imagine that the "white" generals and Germans could crush Lenin & C.O with a considerable ease.

That's strange - shouldn't you be able to hold on to the conquered teritorries ( Poland, Baltics, Ukraine, Belarussia ) after the treaty is signed?

Also, why would the CP lose some income due to the russian surrender? Haven't heard of it?

I thought if you went for the "east first" option, you'd pursued a total military victory against Russia i.e capture of Petersburg and Moscow. I imagined that a numerical superiority in the Eastern Front would allow you to follow this path and avoid sending in Lenin, what eventually would have a negative consequence on the CP aswell, as the pestilence of the red propaganda is supposed to spread to your countries too:) What I still don't understand, is what is the alternative to not signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. It's seems to me that the Treaty is only beneficial to the CP and not signing the treaty has negative consequences in regards to the bolshevik agitation affecting Germany and A-W. Shouldn't it be the opposite? If the CP player decides not to sign the treaty and crush Lenin militarily - shouldn't that kind of move eventually prevent the agitation? That would be a logical offset to not signing the treaty. The war in the east would be prolonged but in the long term the CP NM would benefit from it.

I have already tried to play the Fate Of Nations campaign few times - both as the Entente and Central powers. I have to say, my feeling about what is happening on the Western Front in 1917, are quite mixed. The Eastern Front is modelled just perfectly - Russia will eventually fall, but the Entente player has a chance to give a good fight there and delay the CP victory. But something should be done about how the Western Front is represented. In all my games, the British and French armies were always able to go on to the notorious "neverending" offensives and by the time Russia surrenders, the western allies usually manage to liberate most of the Belgium, Luxemburg and capture Strasbourg - more territory than historically by the end of the war. The French and British armies have more MMPs to spend, more artillery, more tanks and that superiority is not offset by the higher trench warfare tech of the Germans. Normally the rate of attrition is about 3-5 German corps destroyed per turn and is barely sustainable. The 1917 battlefields resemble more those of the second half of 1918... I think something can be done about how the French Army in 1917 is modelled. As we all well know, it was unable to perform any serious offenssives and that is why today we read about Cambari, Messines or Passchendale that were British, not French battles. There is a scrip in the game, that represent the infamous mutinies, but it's not enough because the units affected can fully recover after 3-4 turns. Appart from that, the French HQs have a high rating, so in the game their performace in 1917 is usually really good. They represent more than half of the allied armies on the Western Front ( while historically this bigger half was out of serious action for most of that difficult year ). In my opinion, there could be maybe a script, that would activate the mutinies if too many Frech units went to the attack in 1917. Or maybe, the mutines script, could be simply activated repeatedly during the period of few months and some French units, could start the scenario not in a full strenght and with low morale and readiness.