Ivanov

This day, 93 years ago, ended the First World War. Let's pay the tribute to all the fallen during this conflict. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F863oLNC3RI&feature=related

I hope that's not the case!

Probably Call To Arms and Race To The Sea were made by two different persons;)

I can imagine that is correct as historicaly Belgian army kept on fighting even after nearly all country was conquered. But let's see what the Gods Of War have to say:eek:

Bill, could you have a look at that?

Hi guys! Any news about the tournament? Kommandant - have you got the list of players yet? To be honest I have never seriously tried any of the mini campaigns that will be featured in this tournament, but recently we have been battletesting with Ghost Of War the "Race to the Sea" and I have some comments in regards. I know, that in the initial phase of the tournament we will be playing mirror games, so the balance of the scenario is not so important. I think however, that it would be worth implementing, some optional tournament rules for this campaingn. Basically from the very start Entente has a very significant numerical adventage over the Germans: 36 units agains 24 which gives them 1.5 numerical superiority in a situation when the Germans are the attacking side. Of course the 9 Belgian units are half strenght, but from the other hand the British have their experience on the level 2, which gives them a tactical edge over the Germans ( which is correct historically ). During the game both sides receive reinforcements, but the Entente still maintains superiority: 52 units against 39 which is like 1:3. From what I know and how I was always imagining this dramatic battle, it were few elite British units figting dramatic defensive battles, against numerically superior German divisions. In the game however, the Entente player can throw all the units against Germnans and crush them in the early stages of the battle ( especially the Beseler's corps in the North ). That result would be quite unrealistic and basically the main objective of the German player in this scenario is to survive on the battlefield instead of capturing the Channel Ports - which is virtually impossible. My suggestion in order to improve the balance, would be implementing a special rule, that would prohibit the Entente player moving the French 87th, 89 territorial and 38th, 42nd division to Belgium. If the divisions were territorial, they should stay in France. Also sending those units to Belgium usually decisively switches the balance of the early battles around Nieuport or Ypres. If the divisions stay in their country, then the Belgians and British are forced to a defence and the subsequent battle would resemble more history. Of course that would be an optional rule and players would need to agree on it before the game starts. I think I have also found a mistake in this scenario. On 22nd,24th and 26th of October the French IX, XX, XVI corps are deployed to Flandres ( 11th, 17th, 18th, 26th, 31th, 39th,43rd divisions ). The problem is that the units appear as... British. And no HQ deploys with them. Has anybody and suggestions regarding other tournament mini campaigns? The last thing that I'd like to introduce, is an idea a Gentleman's Agreement before the game between the players. We are all aware of the flaws of the current supply model. We also know, that it may lead to some gamey tactics. So my proposition is, that the players taking part in this tournament, may agree not to abuse the system and not implement such a tactics during the competition ( for example sending a corps to an undefended city, behind the enemy lines, without a HQ support, just because is is so hard to disloge such a unit and it never runs out of the supply ). I hope that all the Gentlemen from this forum understand what I'm talking about and would agree with me;)

Ups, sorry - I didn't notice that you were talking about Allied declaration of war. In this case you are absolutely right.

I've just run a quick test and a declaration of war on each of the Benelux countries increases US and Soviet mobilizations by roughly 3%. So it means that the DOW on Luxembourg has the same effect, as DOW on much bigger and important Holland or Belgium.

Maybe it would be correct historicaly but I wouldn't weaken A-H too much, because that would change the balance in favour of the Entente. Austrian HQ's have usually quite low rating, so that in my oppinion reflects quite well weak perforance of their military.

Yes, join in! I have already filled the form few days ago

An extra invasion route would be definitely helpful, because it would require at least some extra units in order to defend the passes. I would also suggest that for the sake of supplying units, some of the tiles through which the roads are passing, be changed from mountains to hills or to clear ( for example the tiles adjecent to towns can be clear ).

Honestly I usually tend to ignore the other fronts than France and Russia and consider them as merely sideshows, so I have never gave them a proper thought. This discussion is quite inspiring however, so I have few comments in regards I think that Gallipoli landings are potentially quite benefitial for the Entente, contrary to what some of my interlocutors claim. Capturing Gallipoli increases Romanian and Greek leaning towards Entente to about 60 and 50% respectively. That, along with the diplomatic efforts, may lead to Romanian war entry in 1915, what can potentially change the whole balance on the Eastern Front and in the Balkans. The capture of Gallipoli lowers Ottoman morale and allows allied navies to block the Sea of Marmara. Quite beneficial if you ask me. The Entente player may perform the landing as a pure diversion and send only a small unit that will be subsequently destroyed, or try a more serious landing ( especially in Greece is already at war ) to threaten directly the Constantinopole. The other thing is that Ottoman Empire is too strong in the game. It is nearly impossible to disloge the Turkish army in the Middle East and Caucasus, so CP player can invest and build new Turkish units at will and later use them as a "fire brigade" on other fronts, which seems quite wrong to me. I'd suggest lower the industrial output of the whole empire to the initial 80-90MMP ( just like Italy in Storm Over Europe ) and add some events that would affect the morale of Turkish combat units, as there are already good few events that lower the NM of the whole empire.

They are the best choice not even because of the balance ( if there will be mirror matches in the first phase, then this issue is not so important ), but because they are most "mobile" scenarios and the playes will have an opportunity to prove their tactical skill. I think we should consider only those scenarios for the preliminary phase of the competition. If it comes to the semi final, shall we do a mirror match aswell? Has anybody seen CP winning "Fate Of Nations" ( I haven't )? If it comes to the final and the match for the third place - "Call To Arms" - I have no doubts, this campaingn is well balanced and both sides have equal chances, so the mirror game is not necessary.

No we come back to the issue of the referee. I mean the players can control each other but how will we decide who will play with who and the sides of campaigns? Any ideas?

I don't think there should be any time limitation because everyone's time is kind of limited. From my experience a large campaign takes usually around two months, playing a turn per day. O course players should have a possibility to surrender before time, if they decide that their situation is hopeless and that kind of result should be valid aswell. If we have eight players, starting with mini campaigns, then semi finals and a final, then I estimate that the whole thing will take around 3-4 months, so no rush. Kommandant - I think that the game for the third place should be Call To Arms aswell.

I'd suggest mirror matches of the mini campaigns for the initial stages of the competition. In this way the results would be fair and the games wouldn't take too long. Fate Of Nations for the semi final and Call To Arms match as a grand final, with a after action report on the forum. Some players would be out quickly but everyone will have next chance in the new tournament:) Now the question is who would be a referee - me not, casue I intent to win this goddamn thing! :eek:

Fate Of Nation would be also cool for a tournament - just quicker than Call To Arms.

In my opinion the scenario is in general well balanced and the fact that CP don't have to garrison their eastern borders, gives them too big superiority on the Western Front at the later stage. As someone put it before: when troops are transfered from Russia, there are more German units than spare tiles in Belgium and Northern France I'd suggest that leaving some units in the East should be offset by the lower impact of the Bolshevik agitation. I mean it should still affect NM of both sides, but not so fast, if the CP leave some garrisons on the former Eastern Front. It would be a nice trade off, because right now Germany & C.O usually surrender due to the loss of NM, not because of the the military defeat. Also, I think that both WWI campaigns should be set to finish automatically let's say in 1920, not 1918. I would also like to repeat here my earlier request. I'd be cool if in the new patch there would be an optional possibility of switching off the estimate of combat results. For some of us it would realy mean a big improvement in the game playability

I'm in! :cool:

Ok this is how I understand the events affecting NM in regards of Russia and correct me if I'm wrong: 1. Lenin a) Sending Lenin to Russia speeds up the demise of Russia because of the revolution, but will have negative long term effect on the CP morale due to the Bolshevik agitation Not sending Lenin to Russia prolonges the war on the Eastern Front but there is no negative effect on NM of CP 2. Brest Litovsk Treaty a) Signing the treaty - ends the war in the East and creates friendly states that support German war effort but the Bolshevik agitation continues. Not signing the treaty - war continues until Russia surrenders but then CP get morale boost after Thsar is finished and there is no negative NM effect due to the revolutionary propaganda. Ok guys, it's the last post from the old flat - I will check the site tomorrow evening. Ps. And yes Kommandant - you are more than welcomed to send me a turn :cool:

One more thing. Manual says that siging the treaty stops Bolshevik agitation. Is it so indeed or it's a mistake and the only way to stop the revolutionary and antiwar agitation is to fight Russia until she surrenderes?

Nice one Bill Those are really useful advice. Thanks again.

Hi Bill! Thanks for looking into this. The lower starting NM totals are probably the reason why casualties have bigger impact, because so far none of the potential NM penalties mentioned by you have occured in my game. Regarding the drop of CP National Morale due to the Bolshevik agitation, what are the best ways to avoid it? You mentioned not sending Lenin to Russia. And siging the armstice and creating firendly Ukraine and Baltic states? If CP player wants to avoid the destructive effect of Bolshevik agitation is it better to keep fighting with Russia? Thank again for your answer!

I think we need some further explanation, on how the National Morale scripts are set for each of the WWI campaigns. For example in Fate Of Nations, the A-H morale is falling quickly, even if troops of the Emperor only take part in the sussesful offensive against Russia and no friendly location is ocupied by the enemy. The NM of France is also affected even if Russia is still at war and French army manages to recapture all friendly locations previously occupied by the Germans. These are just two examples but I think that this subject has to be further elaborated in the manual or the strategy guide, because both of them provide just standard explanations how the NM is affected by occupation or casualties, while obviously these are not the only factors.

In my opinion the Red Army is too weak numerically at the beginning of the Operation Barbarossa. Usually when the Germans strike Soviet Union, they have not only qualitative, but also quantitative superiority. The map is huge and with Romanians and Bulgarians attacking from the south, some areas of USSR are usually practically undefended. The Soviets managed to stop Wehrmacht due to their ability to mobilize huge reserves, that were endlessly thrown against their seemingly unstoppable enemy. From June to November of 1941 Red Army formed 28 completely new armies. How many new armies were formed during this period of time by the OKW? Of course a lot of those armies were quickly overrun or destroyed in huge kessel battles, but their resistance eventually managed to exchaust the momentum of Barbarossa. I know that representing all of those units in the game would completely change the balance, but I'd suggest some script that would activate apperance of the five Soviet second echelon armies, that were previously invisible to the German intelligence ( in reality their deployment completely suprised German High Command ). Let's say that those units could be deployed near Smolensk after Germans manage to capture Minsk. They could be 8 strength and with no tech upgrades, nothing like the first calss Siberian Units, that appear at a later stage.