Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, the last few months i had two intensive Call to Arms matches against Rafal Sokulski (who is in this forum too). First one with the central powers, second one I played the Entente. Both matches had more or less the same result: Germany was stopped at some Point in Belgium/northern France, which is the normal outcome. But Germany was in both matches even stopped by Russia nearly at the border itself. Germany was in both matches very far from reaching Warschau or gainig much territory in Courland or at other places. Both matches where ended in Autumn 1915 in a nearly hopeless Situation for the German Player with western Entente gaining more and more forces to cause losses in the west and an unbroken Russia in the east. Rafal is definitively a very good Player and i belive, i am not so bad too, so it is not because of our skills as central power Player. Two main reasons for this game outcome (which will be repeatable in many matches): - The British decided in both games not to seize the Osman Dreadnought: The consequence is, that OE will join the war much later (somewhen in Spring 1915). That means, the Russians have their Dardanelles-Trade much longer and don't loose MPP for fighting against OE in this time, too. - These "Bonus-MPP" are used by Russia by investing heavilly in trench tech (5 Chits as soon as possible). The result is, that Russia has trench tech 1 after maybe 4 turns and 2 at the end of 1914 or early beginning of 1915, with higher Levels to come. That means, each Russian unit has entrenchment Level 3 (in cities even more) before (!) Germany is able to launch a great offensive against Russia. Every German Offensive in these conditions must end with a failure. Without Artillery German corpses are nearly not able to cause any damage against the entrenched Russians and Germany will not have a gas/shell tech level higher than (max.!) 1 at this time, so even with the two artillery pieces, they have in beginning 1915, there is no much land gain possible. If Russia plays like this, it is nearly inevitable, that Germany has not only the historical stalemate-line in the west, but also another stalemate-line close to his borders in the east, which means no extra MPP by conquered russian cities, no NM-Gains by them too, etc.... I don't know, wether another patch is planned for Breakthrough, but if you do so, you should think over this points. Two suggestions to solve the Problems: - You should implement bad consequences, if Britain doesn't seize the Osman Battleship. At the moment OE does get this Ship, but that is it with bad consequences. OE can't do very much with this Ship. Against the western Entente, it's fleet is clearly outnumbered even with this additional Dreadnought, in the Black Sea there is not much, OE can do with it's fleet end even there, Russia can become a dangerous opponent by putting their two Dreadnoughts, that are in the building Queue and another submarine (even already in the bulding Queue) into the black sea. Historically Russia would be badly angered, if Britain delivered this ship to OE. The main aim of Russia was to gain controll over the Dardanelles (even if OE was not in the war, as it began) and that would have been endangered by another heavy Ship for the Ottomans. And the British public opinion, which feared the German fleet wouldn't have accepted either to handout a valuable ship to a potential Opponent. My Suggestion: Implement a noticeable NM-Penaltie for both (Russia and Britain) when deciding in this way. - Trench tech research should be more expensive for Russia. With the last patch yo raised the costs for OE ( to reflect the disproportionate cost to their limited war economy of constructing the sort of defensive positions that were built on the Western Front), but I think this should be the same for Russia, which didn't build trench Systems on the same Level as the other Nations for the whole war. Another idea would be to limit the number of chits for trench tech research (maybe for every Nation) down to 2 or max 3 chits... What do you think? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Steelwarrior, i am not a fan of too mutch changing here. I know, the combat results are sometimes annoying, especially in the cases, you describend above, but both sides have the same risks and chances of better or worser combat results. I belive (not shure) at the Moment, there is a chance/risk of 33 %, that the combat results will be 1point better or worser then predictet. This means, if you have a prediction of lets say Att 1:2 Def, it can be 0, 1 or 2 for the attacker and 1, 2 or 3 for the defender... If you would calculate the chances of casualities divergent from the combat predictions in the way, you suggest, there would be no chance at all for divergent results in many cases. A garrisson for example has no attack/defend values and because of ist size Maximum of 5 it has always relative bad readiness values. So it causes (lets make an example)calculated attacker losses of 0,27 (Sounds quite realistic), which means a prediction of 0. If you multiplicate this with 15 % like you suggest, it would still cause losses of just 0,31 which still means no damage for the attacker. So the chance of 30 % has no impact at all. But if you take the number itself 0,27/0,31 the number should mean a loss of 1 Point in 0,27 %/0,31 % of all similar combats so it is far from 0. Another Point ist, that (especially in Russia) there are no losses by technical Problems or Attrition. In reality both where big Problems (especially for the Wehrmacht with it's over-sophisticatetd technics and the very long supply-ways). So maybe you can see the cambat Problems as an Surrogate therefore. But there is one combat Situation, which should indeed be changed, if possible: If an enemy unit survives two or three attacks with one Point strength left (or in the case of the garrisons in Kopenhagen and Oslo it hast just one Point strength at all). If you then attack with another unit, you would normally have a predictition for the Defender losses of 3 or 4 Points. Of course you now just have a prediction of 1, because there is only 1 Point left of him. This means, that in the following combat, there will be a chance of losses 0, even though you would normally cause 3 or 4 Points losses. That is stupid. And it is even worser. Sometimes such a unit has (even though it did lose 9 of 10 Points strength in this turn and should be nearly unable to fight therefore)still a readiness, which is not completely down. So the combat prediction says losses for the attacker of (let's say) 2 Points. If the unit would have four Points strengh left, the prediction would be Att 2:4 Def, which would be OK. But in the Situation, as ist is, the prediction is Att 2:1 Def (because it hast just 1 Point strength left) and the attacker is quasi cheated of the higher Defender losses... This Problem should be solved (maybe you make a hypothetical combat prediction how the combat would end, if the Defender had enough strength points left. Maybe this hypothetical prediction would be Att 3:4 Def. To get the real and realistic combat prediction each Point of losses, that can't be caused because of not enough strength, should be subtractet from the attacker losses, so in our example, the prediction would be Att 0:1 Def.) If you do it like that, there would still be the normal chance for worser results, but than it would be ok...

Hi Bill, I'll ask him, if he doesn't read here. But if I am right, the solution is simple: - If Vichy is declined by the axis, France gets the plains, right? - France gets the plains in´it's next turn after the Vichy-Decision, right? - And if France doesn't exist in the next turn anymore (because it did completely surrender in the same moment), there is no France, that can get the plains and therefore no one gets the plains... Even if this is not true, the events with the plains could be handled better. Why not making another decision Event: "Shell the plains be delivered to England (Yes) or to France (No), so the Player of the Allies can choose, which is the better way. And this one would even be more historic, maybe. I believe the US Gouvernment would have not delivered plains to a France, that is still alive, but with it's end very near and very obvious... (and that is what happens, if someone Plays like steelwarrior and goes for Algiers with all he can...)

Hi Bill, mh, ok, not quite shure (we should ask steelwarrior for that if we Need more informations). But my Explanation is the following: He didn't take Paris before he took Algiers, so the French NM didn't reach the Point, where he was asked for Vichy (until this Point I'm shure) until the following: Than he managed to conquer Algiers and took Paris after that in the same turn (he was waiting outside the empty Paris with one unit). He had Bordeaux before, so there was no alternative French capital in this moment. Because of this French NM reached 0 or at least the critical Point for it's capitualtion. Maybe Steelwaarior was asked for Vichy in this Moment, but of course he refused. And at this Moment Algiers was already in his Hands (as described above) so the French gouvernment was not able to move to Algiers and France did capitulate completely after his turn. So he did refuse Vichy (what means the british cannot get the plains themselves anymore) but there was no France anymore so they couldn't get the planis either... Could that be possible?

Hi there, some Addition to this Topic. We are now in Summer '41. Algiers did fall (not quite shure) in December '40 or January '41. In the end I had no Chance to hold Algiers as I told you above (although I had additional british troops here, an army, an HQ and a corps). Spain is in the war and Germany attacked the SU, but not as strong as usual (at least that, what I have seen so far). I am curious, how it will become in the long term... Some question regarding the plains, delivered from the US. I never got them! Normally (as written above) the british player becomes one stratgic bomber an one ground attack bomber unit somewhen after Vichy. Alternatively the French Player get some aircraft (a fighter and a strategic bomber) after Germany declines Vichy. In our gáme neither the French got some aircraft (there was no Vichy decision because of the way, steelwarrior played ]see above]) nor the british got them from the US... Is this possible? I got some air Units with the british in egypt (I think it was the wester desert fighters Event...?) but I belive, these are not the formerly French ordered plains from US and I would have got the desert fighters in every case, right? So I belive there is a mistake in the Events structure, when the axis goes this way. It doesn't make sense, that the allied Player doesn't get these valuable plains at all... What do you think? Furchtlosundtrew

This is right steelwarrior, but as I wrote above i knew before what you where planning and moved therefore my BEF not back to England but to Algiers. And (more important) i began moving French troops to Algiers in a huge number very early. These troops cannot stand the german tanks, but they can buy me two or three turns while they are slaughtered but blocking the german advance, Many other Players would have recognized your plans two or three turns later (because they didn't play against you before ;o) and than they would have invested fully in a defence against Germany in France and it would be to late, to organize a defence in Algiers then... On the other hand, I was not shure for some turns wether your newly push to Algiers could be a feint. If you had pushed to Paris with all you had, after feinting, you would have been able to finish France two or three turns earlier (at least!) as normal, because of my transports (four or five Units) to Algier and my disbanding of other Units to get more MPPs and the early retreat of the british troops. For some turns I was afraid you could do so. And not to forget: Even with some British troops here my Situation is desperate and despite all my Investments with the French and the British I am close to lose Algiers the next few turns...

Hi Sea Monkey, it is (in my opinion) hardly possible, to hinder axis transports to northern africa. If the italian Player takes his heavy bomber to scout from sicilia, the italian (and german) transports go their way relative safe to the lybian ports... Hi Bill, I would say the western attack against France started in April and the german troops are close to Paris in late July and where able to take it (if they wanted) in mid August (aprox.). The Attack on Algeria went through Tunesia. I think this one started in early 1940, too (Italia was early in the war). It is now September 1940 and the axis is almost in Algiers and they would have it already, if i didn't make some troop transports there, but even with these troops i will lose it the next two turns probably. This should be the right dates nearly. Let me know, if you need the exact dates, then i will have a look in my save files to tell you. Kind regards Furchtlosundtrew

Just a little addition: Steelwarrior now stands around an empty Paris and doesn't take it in the hope to get Algiers first. It may last four or five another turns, until French morale gets to 0 without falling of Paris. Clever gaming by steelwarrior, but it shows, that the algerian Units (and maybe even the better supply of Algiers) shouldn't be linked to the Vichy Event...

Hi there, some remarks/questions about Algeria in the SoE-scenario. At the moment I am battleing against steelwarrior. He likes the strategie to conquer Algiers, to refuse the building of Vichy and to get spain on his side. In a first match I was able to defend against his attack for some reasons. The most important fact was, that he had to decide over Vichy, when he wasn't close to Algiers yet. After he refused to allow Vichy I got per Event some French Units around algiers. Especially an HQ, and a fighting squadron. And Algiers became capital and therefore a higher supply Level (eight or ten, not quite shure). So i had enough time to organise a defence and to bring some extra air power here... In a second match, he did bring some german Units to africa very early, he is very fast (France has not mutch to defend here) and is not far away from Algiers now. But France is not going to capitulate the next two/three turns. This means, the Vichy event will come later and that means i will get the extra units around Algiers and the better supply level (which I need both to defend here) later or let's say to late. I am in danger to lose Algiers, before the Vichy Event... I am not shure, if this makes sense. Maybe it would be better to build the French extra units in that moment, when France loses Tunis to the axis. The French units are much weaker than their german counterparts, so Germany maybe able to get Algiers nevertheless, but the Entente Player would have a Chance to hold. I think without some changes like this you have no chance to counter the Algiers strategy, when you are not on the alert to it. Another Option would be, to implement scorched earth here regarding to newly conquered supply resources. This would slow down an axis advance too... another question around this: If the axisplayer accepts the Vichy Event, the british get some airplanes from the US, one strategic bomber and one ground attack aircraft. If the geman player denies vichy, these aircrafts are delivered to Algiers and handed over to the French (as i said above). But the French get a strategic bomber and a fighter (instead of ground attack aircraft). Wouldn't it be better to deliver the same Kind of aircrafts in both cases...? What do you think abaout it? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, i don't think, more Units would make CtA or SoE better. In SoE Germany has a large amount of troops which are all in full strength in the beginning (it takes rounds and rounds just to get all French unit to full strength in the opposite). Yes Germany has the Problem, to get from poland to France and than back again. But a part of your Units can be moved with force-marching to spare some MPP. Or you start moving to the west (and after the fall of France to the east) before your actual enemy is complete beaten, just finish it with the rest of your troops. Yes ist is hardly possible, to defeat whole France and not take the Vichy-possibility. And it is hard to get spain into the Achse. But there where reasons why this didn't happen in history either. But you have other possibilities to Play ahistoric and to be succesfull. But Germany is the harder part in SoE (my opinion), i think steelwarrior has a Point here. In the beginning it seems, that Germany is too strong, but when it Comes to the SU, it is hard to win. Each mistake early in the game will come double expensive then. Maybe some (not too mutch) extra MPP for Germany would be a solution? Regarding CtA: I think in many games the NM will directly or indirectly decide the game. With more Units on each side the game would become a tactical game as the only way to win would be, to be more effective in killing men than your opposite. As it is now, it is a strategical game and in many sitiuations it is a very difficult balancing-act, to decide between new troops or Research, between eastern or werstern front, between France and the middle east, between the serbian front and galicia (just to make some examples). So I think more Units would reduce the fun in this Scenario massively.

Hi Steelwarrior, there is one of your questions not answered yet: Yes, you get the Bonus by an newly attached HQ that round, you attach it. You can try it by looking at the values (morale and readiness) of the Units before and after attaching. You can even try which HQ is the best for your unit by attaching several HQs. You will see, that sometimes an HQ with a lower Rating but a higher experience causes better results. Regarding to your very first question (hitting ships in ports): As I know, there is one possibility to hit them before shelling the port to Zero and with a surface vessel: A surprise contact. Move one of your ships to a port which you didn't Scout before (but where you are nearly shure, that there should be an enemy vessel). If there is a ship in the port, it should result in a surprise contact with fighting and some losses for the enemy too. This can make sense, if the enemy ship is very weak (for example a good part of the austrian ships in the adria is not at full strength). Some (like me) could say, that this tactic is a Little bit gamey, but you can do some damage in this way ;o)

Hi Woverby1963, reload means, that someone did load the savefile more than one time. There are some reasons to do so. The most ugly is, when the Player is not pleased with his turn (maybe he is unlucky with his combat results, maybe he made some mistakes like bumping into enemy units with an surprise contact). If you load another time you can Play the turn again with maybe better results. There is no Need to say, that this is unfair gaming. There may be some other reasons for reloading (i had for example in a multplayer a Computer Crash during my turn and there was no other possibility than reloading; sometimes i wanna see a replay of the enemy's turn more than one time and therefore i reload without having played my own turn). But you should talk about it if somethimng like that is allowed and normally it's a matter of trust, that no one uses a reload to Play a turn again and again for better combat results.. As i know the number of reloads is producfed, with the savefile, so you can see, how often your enemy did reload, when you see his save file and he can see your number of reloads, when he sees your save files. I hope i could help you. Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, just thinking over the weather effects. I think I am not completely happy with the rules regarding to aerial warfare. If there is rain or snow, you can't use your airplanes (or zeppelines). Seen individually this is a good rule. But the problem (in my eyes) is, that it is a question of luck, wether you have good weather or not. It can be kind of annoying if you have planned some bigger operation with depends of preparing air strikes or (specially in the WW1szenarios) air reconnaisance and you can't start it because of the weather. Even more, if it happens several times in one game and it feels like your enemy has always the sunny side of the weather :cool:. In some cases it can be decisive for the whole game... You can say, that this will shurely be compensated in other games, where you can have the same portion of luck with weather yourself, but in my opinion the mount of luck/unluck should be as small as possible. Some ideas to solve the problem: - why not change the effect of weather for airplanes in the following way: They can fly even in bad weather, but they could suffer some extra losses (like ships, that are not in port) and could be less effective as in good weather (malus for attack values and smaller spotting range for air reconnaisance). - knowledge about the weather in the next turn (implementing of meteorologics in the game). Maybe like following: You get a weather forecast and there is a certain percentage level (maybe 70 %), that it will come true. So you could adapt your operations to the weather but have no certainty. what du you think about it? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, I checked it yesterday: At the Start of the turn 26.09.14 Turkey and Albania are in the war. I am not shure, wether they joined at the end of my turn before (12.09.) or at the end of the enemy's turn between. I belive, turkey joined after the enemy's turn, but I dont remember. So it would make sense, that at the end of my turn the jump in the bulgarian readiness could be a reaction on the war entry of turkey just before... Is there a relation between turkey and the bulgarian readiness? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Bill, - Yeah, the lack of movement could indeed be, because Belgrad was (in many of this turns) empty. I feel like sapare, i never knew about this requirement and in my opinion it doesn't really make sense. If you don't change this completely, then maybe you could change it in this way, that it is enough, do have at least on unit one tile away of Belgrad (what would suppress any partisans too)... - I am thinking on about the great progress from 26.09.14 - 24.10.14 (16 %). Belgium surrendered after the 4th turn (12.09.14) so this can not have any impact on the big progress two turns later. There where no other surrenders of any countries in this time too and no declarations of war by one of the major nations... I have one idea (but can check it earliest this evening): Albania joined the Entente around this date (the "normal" Albanian war entry). Maybe this could be the reason? Or the War entry of turkey (which was too somewhen around this date, not quite shure with the exact date, I have to check it this evening)? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Bill, thank you for your answer, I understand the "Belgrad event" that way, that the 35 % Chance/turn lasts until Bulgaria is in the war or the game ends, there is no end of it, right? In my actual game, i have a strange process of bulgarian mobilisation: 15.08.14: 34 % In this turn i captured Belgrad, so the following step is because of this: 29.08.14: 50 % 12.09.14: 53% 26.09.14: 56 % 24.10.14: 72 % (!) Nothing special happened this turn. Neither did I capture Nish, nor something other special. I Didn't have a diplomatic chit investetd in Bulgaria either. I cant't explain this jump from 56 % to 72 %, can you...?:confused: 21.11.14: 72 % 19.12.14: 77 % OK, this is just a bagatelle, but there should be a progress of a maximum of 4 % because of the Belgrad event, but it are 5 %, nothing special happened this turn... 30.01.15: 77 % 27.03.15: 77 % 24.04.15: 77 % 22.05.15: 77 % 19.06.15: 77 % 10.07.15: 77 % 24.07.15: 77 % 07.08.15: 77 % OK, this could be just misfortune, but I never had it as persistent, as this time. The Chance of not getting another single progress in eight turns should be about 3,4 %... I will have an Eye on it the next turns, maybe it is just unluck and there will be further progress, but i am asking myself, wether there where some changes from Breakthrough 1.4 to 1.5 (because this is my first game in 1.5 and in the versions before i never had such problems as this time, to get bulgaria to war...) Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, I'm just thinking over the bulgarian war entry in the call to arms campaign (should be the same in ostaufmarsch). What factors do influence it? I think there is an event after capturing Belgrad, right? What is it's exact effect? what else, are there other events? And if yes, what are the trigger factors? Does succesfull warfare against Serbia (destroyed corpses, captured towns...) have any influence? Is there a deadline, when Bulgaria goes to the war at the latest? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Hubert, thanks for your answer, this helps indeed! Maybe I will ask again with more questions... Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Hubert, thanks for your fast answer. As always some comment/ additional questions to make it clear for me ad 1) OK... I don't like this rule as it makes it simply depending from pure luck, wether the unit gets anihilated (chance 2/3) or not (chance 1/3). I would prefer a normal loss calculation and if the prediction is higher than the units's strength it should be a safe victory for the attacker, but just my opinion... ad 2) ok. ad 3) Yes, but the strength of the HQ itself does influence the benefit, the HQ gives to it's attached unit's readiness, right? What i wanna say, a HQ with (for example) a strength of just 7 points gives just 70 % of his Rating and his combat morale bonus to it's attached units right? And does this influence the unit's readiness during a turn, if the HQ is damaged (and looses some steps of strength) during the turn? ad 4) OK, another point that is now totally clear for me, thank you:) Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, back again with some additional questions to this topic: 1. After calculating the battle results there is a +1/-1 chance for each side. What about the case, if one side (mostly the defending unit) just has a strength left of 1 point. The attacking unit would in many cases be able to cause more then 1 point damage but is limited to one point because of the strength of it's opponent. Is there nevertheless the chance, that the attacking unit will make 1 point less damage then predictet (what means 0 points)? 2. Demoralisation: If a unit takes casualities in a combat it will automatically and immediately loose morale and readiness as both values are partly based on strength, right? 3. What abot the effect, if a HQ, an enemy unit is attached to, looses strength. As I understand the manual, the benefit, a unit gets from a HQ for it's readiness is related to the HQ strength [formula is the following i belive: readiness = ((strenght + HQrating*HQstrength/10)/2 + Morale/10 + HQ eperience*HQ strength/10)/2]. If this is true, there should be a prompt effect on the readiness of a unit, when the HQ, the unit is attached to, looses strength (same way, as losses of the unit itself affect the units readiness immediately). But while doing some tests it seems to me, that this is not, what happens...:confused: 4. What about direct demoralisation: Some units (especially battle ships, recon bombers and artillery) have a value for demoralisation. How is this calculated? I understand the manual in the following way: A heavy artillery unit has a demoralisation value of 5 % (if not upgraded). So with each shot it takes 5 % of the morale of the enemy unit. - Does this mean 5 % or 5 percent points? - Is the demoralisation result always the same or is there some random as in the combat calculation? - Do entrenchment and/or other defense boni play a role? - If the artillery has not full strength, the formula would be: demoralisation= 5%*unit strength/10 right? - what about an overstrenght unit, does a elite artillery with strength 13 cause 5 % * 1.3 demoralisation? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Hubert, yes thanks, this helps again. I don't have any additional questions this time. Just two comments before closing this thread: - I think it would be good, to be able to see the readiness of an (enemy) HQ. Normally (but not always) it will have relative high numbers and you should be able, to calculate the prospect of success before attacking an enemy HQ. - Yeah, the formulas are written down a little bit confusing in the manual. Maybe an example calculation would make it clearer for other users. By the way: My sollution for the morale formula ("strength*10") comes to the same results as if i calculate in the "right" way you told me (values between 0 an 10 and then converting to %). So thank you again for your patience in answering my questions and the (like always) helpful hints Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Hubert, yes, this helps a lot, thank you:)! My Mistake was, that i didn't realise the defense bonus given by trenches additional to the trench value itself. I never realised this defense bonus and thought, the entrenchment value would be the only benefit from trenches. Now i got it, this answers nearly all my questions. One is left, the additional ©. Indeed I made this one not sufficient clear. I make an example, to show you, what i want to know. What I wanna show is the value of the defenders losses. It is calculated like this: Att Mult*(Att Typ Val + Att Exp/3) - (Def Mult*(Def Exp/3 + Entr + DefBon)) I wanna make two examples to show my problem. In both examples the attack type value shell be 4, the Experience of Attacker and Defender shell be each 1, the Defenders readiness shell be 70 (and because of this the Defender Multiplier 0,7). In both examples the defender shell not have any entrenchment or defensive bonus. So the only variable shell be the attackers readiness (and following this his Multiplier). It shell be 65 in the first version and 85 in the second version. Let's fill in: Version 1: 0,65*(4 + 1/3) - (0,7*(1/3 + 0 + 0)) =2,8166666 - 0,2333333 =2,5833333 I think the game rounds it up to a prediction of 3 points losses (right?) Version 2: 0,85*(4 + 1/3) - (0,7*(1/3 + 0 + 0)) =3,6833333 - 0,2333333 =3,45 I think the game rounds it down to 3 points losses (right?) If you look to the exact (not rounded) results, there is a difference of nearly 1.0 points between the two results. Does this difference have any effect (maybe a higher chance of causing the one point extra losses, you wrote about) or is it completely equal, wether the prediction comes from a strongly rounded up or a strongly rounded down calculation? (I hope i could make clear this time, what i wanna to know). As (almost) always I have a couple of additional questions (hoping my nosiness doesn't nerve too much:o) additional (1): You told my, that the prepared attack bonus applies to the attacker multiplier in the formula. Is this true for the calculation for the defender losses and the attacker losses (in both formulas the attacker multiplier is used)? additional (2): For an HQ-Unit there is shown no readiness in the unit informations, but the combat formula bases on the readiness. Do they have a value for readiness (and if yes, where can i see it) or don't they (and if this is right: how is the combat with HQs calculated instead?). additional (3): Formulas for morale and readiness: In an older thread you answered the question of the user Altaris after the formulas for readiness and morale. He supposed, that the formulas are not correct like wrote in the manual. You answered him the following formulas: Morale: morale / 10 * .75 + (strength - old morale / 10 * .75) * unit.supply / 10 * morale / 100 Readiness: ((strength + HQ Rating) / 2 + morale / 10 + Parent HQ Experience Value) / 2 Maybe it's too long ago, that i went from school, or we have another notation for mathematics in Germany but i think these formulas can't be correct too. If I fill into the morale formula an old morale of 90 and strength an supply each 10 (nearly optimale values), i get the following result: 90/10*.75 + (10 - 90/10*.75)*10/10*90/100 =9*.75 + (10 - 9*.75)*1*0,9 =6,75 + (10 - 6,75)*0,9 =6,75 + 2,925 =9,675 This is clearly not the result, it should be. I tried a little bit and maybe I found a sollution. My theorie is, that the formula should be Old Morale*0,75 + (Strength*10 - Old Morale*0,75)*Suppl/10*Old Morale/100 If I fill in here, I get a result of 96,75... And to readiness: If I fill into the above formula values of strength 10, HQ rating 8, Morale 90, HQ experience 2 (again nearly optimale values) I get the following readiness: ((10 + 8)/2 + 90/10 + 2)/2 =(18/2 + 9 + 2)/2 = (9 + 11)/2 = 18/2 = 9 This can't be the result, too. Can you help me again, where my mistake is? Furchtlosundtrew

Hey, good to see another Will an Ash AAR! Will there be comments by Ash too or will you describe just your side? Interesting start with your offensive to Kovno. I started something similar in my actual game a week ago and I think, there is not much, Russia can do against it! But i'm curious what effect complete the ignoration of Belgium will have. There is a nice plunder bonus, you don't get. There are some NM-towns in northern france, that you are not able to occupy. France and england will have much free MPP to invest in early artillery or early attacks at other fronts, if they don't have to fight Germany. And what about an attack on belgium by the entente itself...? I hope, this aar proceeds soon! Furchtlosundtrew

Thank you for your answers Hubert, i don't understand everything (maybe it's my bad english), so some additional questions: - Combat formula: Ok, seems like i missunderstood the manual. The listed factors, I enumerated in my starting post above, are already contained in the combat formula itself, or in the formulas for morale and readiness, on which the combat formula is based, right? Additional (a): The effect of prepared attack (should be 35 %) is calculated in the end, based on the outcome of the combat formula for the defender losses an then multiplied with 1,35. And the effect for attacking over rivers (should be - 30%) analog (combat outcome defender losses x 0,7) right? Additional (: The effect of weather does influence the battle too, doesn't it? Which are the exact effects and are they calculated like prepared attack bonus/river malus? Additional ©: What about an uneven result in the combat calculation. To make an example what I think about: The calculated result for the losses of the defender is 3,3 (instead of 3,0). It should be shown in the battle prediction as defender losses 3. Is there a higher possibility to cause 4 points of losses, than it would be, if the calculated result would be 2,8? Or does it make no difference, wether the calculated result is (to name the extremes) 2.5 oder 3.4? Additional (d): Experience isn't always an even value, too. Before I get the first full experience star (or iron cross if I play the CPs), it can be 0,3, 0,4 0,5 etc... Does the battle formula calculate with the exact (uneven) values or does it only calculate with the full numbers 0, 1, 2 or 3. If the last one is right, does the game round up from a value 0,5/1,5 etc. on or do I have to reach experience 1,0 to gain the first effect from experience? Where can I read the exact experience value, my unit has at the moment? -entrenchment/ground cover: To make it clear for me: There is no difference in the battle result between two defending units, one with entrenchment 1 and the other with ground cover 1? This would mean, that it is useless, to entrench units, until I have researched trench warfare... Additional: I think this one wasn't answered clearly (or I didn't understand): If a unit is attacked from a side, trenches are not facing, does this unit have ground cover instead of entrenchment? - entrenchment/facing: You write, entrenchment will always have an effect in the formula, but there will be no defense bonus from the trenches, when attacked from a side, the trench is not facing. But what remains as an effect? The formula for the defender losses is Att-Mult* (Att Typ Value + Att Exp/3) - (Def Mult*(Def Exp/3 + Entrench + Def Bon)). Lets fill the variables, maybe you can see, where my problem is or where i make the mistake. Lets make an example with defender readiness 70 and attacker 90, entrenchment 2 and just plain terrain (what means no extra Defense Bonus from terrain). Attack and defence type value are 4 in my example. Experience 1 for each side. Filled this in, the formula is 90/100*(4+1/3) - (70/100*(1/3 + 2 + 0) = 0,9*4,3333333 - (0,7*2,333333) = 3,8999 - 1,6333 = 2,2666 If I attack from a side, the trench is not facing, it should be like this: 90/100*(4+1/3) - (70/100*(1/3 + 0 + 0) = 3,8999 - (0,7*0,33333) = 3,8999 - 0,2333 = 3,6666 When this is right, where is the remainig effect of trenches when attacked from a not trench facing side:confused: Would be glad if you could help me again Furchtlosundtrew

Hi, no answer so far to my issue:confused:; i am actually doing some tests for the several factors, that should influence the combat result, to figure out, how big they each are. You could help me doing that, by answering some smaller questions: - Is the terrain defense bonus cumulative to entrenchment or ist it alternativ(should be cumulative, shouldn't it)? - entrenchment and ground cover is not cumulative but alternative, right? - The effect of ground cover is much lesser, than the effect of entrenchment, right? (can anyone tell me, how big the difference is?) - If an entrenched unit is attacked from the rear, does the entrenchment have no effect? The entrenchment (like i do understand it from the manual) should have two effects: a defense bonus and a chance of suppressing losses. I belive, an entrenched unit, that is attacked from the rear, will not benefit from the defense bonus of his trenches, but it will benefit from the loss suprpression chance, right? - Does an entrenched unit, that is attacked from the rear, benefit from the ground cover, the unit should have, when it would be not entrenchend? - The chance of loss suppression, that should be 10 % for every step entrenchment: This does not influence the combat formula itself but is calculated, after the combat is calculated, right? Is this chance calculated for every point, that would otherwise be lost in the combat? (to make an example what I am thinking about: a defending unit with entrenchment 3 has a combat result of 4 points losses. Is there a 30 % Chance to avoid all 4 points of losses, that is calculated one time or will there be four calculations - for every point of losses - with each a chance of 30 % to avoid one point of losses [i belive the last one is right...]) would be glad, to hear your opinion, Furchtlosundtrew