Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, back again with a new topic. I am currently trying, to understand the battle system. Could someone tell me the complete formula for the loss calculation. In the Manual (should be page 40 i belive) there is just a part of it, the multplier and an aproximate calculation. Until this I can totally comprehend the calculation. Unfortunaly the manual doesn't decribe exactly, how the other factors (the manual names "unit type, experience, supply, strength, morale, HQ -command rating and combat morale bonus-, entrenchment and defensive bonus by terrain type" as factors) do exactly influence the battle outcome. Could someone tell me the complete battle formula? The reason why this attracts my interest: I had in a new game a number of austrian corpses adjacent to a serbian detachement in Belgrad. All in diferent combat situations (some with a river between, some not; some with prepared attack bonus, some not; some facing serbian trenches, some not; two available HQs with different rating and so on). By loading and reloading several times, i recognized, that it is far from equal, in which succession I attack. In some tested succession, i was far from destroing the detachement, in other successions I could destroy it relative savely. To my surprise it was not the order i thought to be the best, that had the best result. So the reason behind my above question ist, to come behind the mechanics, so I can say, in which order i should attck before a battle starts. Furchtlosundtrew

Thank you for the additive information Bill. I appreciate the personal service by the game-developers in this forum. It's outstanding! Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Xwormwood, I hope you see my message here. Your Mailbox is full, can't send you the next turn ;o) Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Bill, thanks. Very usefull to know these facts. One additional question: I think there are some more rebell-trigger points after the start of the rebellion. It is random where they occur isn't it? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, it's question time again and today I have three little questions:) 1. In my actual pbem I defended the galician oilfields as the austrian succesfully. After some turns i noticed, that the oilfield isn't producing any longer although I never lost it. My explanation for this: The russian army had for a longer time four units adjacent to the oilfields (but didn't cut the rail-link). Is the "siege-effect" in rule for resources too and that's the reason? 2. As the austrian You get the three detachments in Trento, Bruneck (?) and in Triest. At the same time you are warned to remove theses units because of the effects this could have on italy. - What exactly is the effect of removing one respectively all of these detachments? - If there is an effect, is it a one-time effect or is it for each round the towns are not guarded? - Is it neccesary to hold exactly these detachements in the three places or can they be replaced by other units? - Is it necessary to keep the units exactly in their towns or is it enough to keep them nearby? (This is interesting because especially the Triest-Detachement doesn't stand perfect in the later defendig line and I#d mostly prefer to move it one tile north-west and start to entrench there instead in Triest...) 3. The "official" arabian rebellion starts somewhen in 1916. But from the start on there are trigger-points for rebells in the region (especially in Medina and nearby Damascus). - Are they in work before the official rebellion? - If yes, from the beginning or just later? - If Yes, how big is the chance of a rebellion here when I don't have a unit adjacent? - This last point is anyway interesting for all rebell-trigger-points: How big is the chance of a rebellion in an unguarded trigger-point? Is there a certain number? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Bill, thank you, I understand. I didn't know, that there is another event that gives greece more troops (that his how i interpret the venizelos coup without exactly knowing it). Against the AI the greece surreender follows normally shortly after the war entry I think you choosed indeed a good solution to avoid the necessity of a chain of events Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, just a short question this time. Is there any reason for the full war entry of greece in the Call to arms campaign in 1915? In Reality there was only the occupation of Saloniki (and maybe some parts of northern greece) by the Entente and Venizelos. A full war entry happened just in 1917. You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece_during_World_War_I Why not make the occupation-event (there is some occupation of an greece island by british forces in 1915 as an event) to an "Entente-Forces seize Salomiki" event? Furchtlosundtrew

Thanks Bill, would be glad, if something could be done here. I didn't know about this possibility too until my current pbem, and I think my opponent didn't either. Somewhat like a random discovery

Thanks Bill, it sounds good. I'm waiting patiently for the upcoming naval changes, whenever they will come Furchtlosundtrew P.S. By the way, do you know when there will be a new patch for breakthrough?

Hi there, in the "some thoughts about naval warfare thread" did I write about the town of Scutari (see point 2. in this thread "shelling of towns...). It's the turkish town of scutari (near Istanbul) I talk about and not the albanian one with the same name. As I wrote there is a simple trick for the russian fleet, to make a huge damage on the turkish war efforts by shelling scutari. Scutari is on the rail from Istanbul to anatolia and further palestine etc. By damaging Scutari one (!) step there is not just the possibility to operate troops from the european part of turkey to the asian part gone, but also every city - linked with that railroad has just a supply level of 5 (normally i Think it`s 8) and is producing less mpp. If you have in mind, that there are many cities on this railroad, especially in Syria/lebanon/palestine, you will see, that the effect of this reduction is quite massive. The supply-effect is even worse, because you have to fight against the superior british troops in palestine and there is a great difference between having a HQ with supply-level ten or a HQ with supply level eight (especially when you have in mind that there are many hills in that area which cost more supply/Tile than in plains). I knew this effect before but just from completely cutted rails (by landing troops) not from shelling a town on the rails. As an effect of cutted rails by landed troops it is quite realistic. As an effect of town shelling it is too heavy (my opinion). If you land troops to do something like that you have to pay a realistic prize (The cost of an amhibious landing, the risk of a failure and the risk - even if it succeeds - to loose this unit rapidly and out of supply). If you shell scutari instead you risk nearly nothing. OK, you may loose some steps of your battleships (if you are unlucky, the risk is not very high). But that is worth the result. You can soon have a clearly superior navy in the black sea as the russian and there is nearly nothing the Ottoman empire can do against this fact and as a result nothing it can do against shelling scutari. With the small income of turkey and the demands from other fronts (caucasus, palestine, Bagdad, maybe Gallipoli or other attepmts of amphibious assualts) it will not be able to reinforce its ships immedeatly not to mention buying new ships in a time, it could help. So Bill, Hubert. If you don't wanna change the naval warfare in all (as i suggested), please do some changes at this little point. My proposal: Remove the town of scutari. This would be the most simple change to prevent the problem without causing some serious inbalance... Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Bill, glad to hear that. I belive that I sometimes sound very harsh which is not intended I would be interested in what do you think about naval warfare. Are there any changes intended? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Sapare, - I'm not shure, if shelling of units is as inefficient as you say. Of course the shelled unit gains experience, but it will loose some when taking losses too. When taking looses there are mpp-Costs to "repair" the unit (somewhat around 15 (?) mpp for one step of a corpse. I don't have to tell you, that this means around 10 % of for example austrian or maybe france [in the beginning!] budget, For turkey even more). The next effect are losses in readiness and morale for the shelled unit. If The attacker combines this with a land based attack on the unit it will looses some more steps, which means, that the gained experience will be lost immediately. And to have it in mind: The attacking ships take no risk with it, the corpses (and other units) can't strike back. And as a bonus: Even the attacking ships gaines experience and to use your words experience is very powerful. - Shelling Towns, of course you can take some damage but maybe not enough? Spoken for this point and the point above: Maybe it's a question of luck and in some games you are lucky and in some you are unlucky. In my actual pbem against xwormwood and many games against the AI I had the feeling, that about every second shot on a unit is succesfull and for shelling towns its similar. I have the feeling too, that a ship shelling a town makes more often damage, than the town on the ship. And where is the sense of beeing able to shoot back but not be able to attack on yourself (as twons only have defensive fire).? - You are right when you say, the attack of a ships means a week (or in aother turns even more) of shelling a unit. But then i have to ask back, When did it ever happen, that ships could shell shores or towns over weeks without a serious reaction of the attacked nation (as xwormwood wrote above)? Could it be made? Didn't the attacking ship need some refreshing of ammunition and other supplies (No ship had shells for more than maybe two serious battle days)? Didn't every battle ship and cruiser call of a battle (and of course a coast shelling two) when there was just the suspicion of an enemy submarine nearby? Did an attacked land unit stand still for a week until the shelling was over? Couldn't they dig some trenches or hide in woods, behind hills a.s.o.? And what about the attrition of the guns of a ship which does fire over weeks (they had a durability of some 1000 Shots). - I don't see Ships as totally useless whe changing something. You still can make some attacks on units/Towns but with a significant risk on your side (like in reality). The british fleet still has the worth of making the blockade against Germany (like in reality) and the German fleet still is a (small but significant) risk for the blockading british fleet and can maybe be used for some operation in the baltic sea (like in reality). And to be honest: The fleets were in history indeed not useless (see points above) but the influence of fleets on the warfare were by far less, than it was estimated before the beginning of the war. The greatest and most important influence was the british blockade. Major Battles on sea and some coast shelling took place but with nearly no operational effect. - And ships wouldn't easily be destroyed in ports in my dreamed gameplay-Changes. Xwormwood wrote it: there would be real minefields, coastal guns, pt-boats implemented which would cause heavy damages on the attacker too. He will think twice wether to take the risk or not. - You often argument, that there should be no change in the gameplay because it works well. In the "italy before war entry thread" maybe you are right with this, because the land war is indeed very balanced and the points of criticism I had there are not worth the risks of chnaging the gameplay. I think for the naval system you can't say the same. I Don't wanna use the words of Nats but let me say the naval system is far away from beeing perfect (my opinion). [but before someone could say I should play another game when I#m not satisfied with thisone: I like this game very much. Especially for his very good implementation of historic courses in many sections. It is the best one I know. But that doesn't mean, that you can't make it even better:)] Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Xwormwood, thanks for your comment. ad. 1 - 2: Good Ideas, especially your thoughts about reactions of an so attacked force. PT-boats were not in my mind, but of course they played a role in coastal defense too. They are to small to be represented as units but in the way of an automatic (maybe random based) penalty for driving past or holding at an enemy coastal tile is a good idea. Something like I had in mind for implementation of minefields (and it could represent both at the same time). I like even the idea of something like costs for the ammunition of battleships. ad 3.) I had this in mind too, but mines were very dangerous for submarines too. Many of them got lost because of running on mines. For Submarines there were some other instruments of port defense like underwater nets and patrolling destroyers/torpedo-boats which made it very difficult to past trough and cause a hit on ships in the harbour. Following wikipedia there were two german attempts to get into scapa flow in WW1, one time succesfull (but no sunked ship). So I don't know, if the difference the game makes between surface vessels and submarines in attacking ships in ports is historical. ad 4.) Good idea (btw. it would be a good idea for land units too, sometimes I don't want to make a surprise attack). [To our game: Really not? It seemd like ] ad 5.) Yeah, something like that I had in mind ad 6.) Probably you're right ad 7.) You wouldn't have a problem with ships spotting land units two tiles away behind the enemy lines. You could leave the land spotting for ships at one and put only the naval spotting up to two (it would make sense because ships have no scouts like land units have and soldiers are over 30 km not as good to see, as Ships are on the plane sea). Of course you have airships and seaplane carriers to scout, but especially the seaplane carriers are very limited in their abilities (one flight over a distance of three (?) tiles in the beginning). Maybe they would be more valuable, if they could do two flights (remember the duration of a turn). I am thinking, that the concept of surprise contacts (and they could maybe minimized with a slightly higher spotting range) is on sea (maybe with the exception of submarines) not fitting. You could see your enemy coming over 20 - 30 Km at least and prepare for battle (or try to avoid it if you are weaker). If there was a surprising contact (maybe at night or in fog) both sides should have been surprised with no advantage for one side... What I like is your idea making the normally not used techs more important by giving them new effects and your idea of combination of techs. Infrastructure in combination with heavy artillery could for example even give a possibility to upgrade the combat values of ports (and towns/Cities) against naval attacks (see above). Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, at the moment I am playing a pbem (Call to arms, Breakthrough, latest patch) against Xwormwood. In this pbem (because of some good moves by my opponent which the AI does not know) but even in some games against the AI, I noticed some points I am not totally happy with and some ideas to (maybe) improve naval warfare: 1. Shelling of units at the coast: It happens mostly at the channel coast by english or french ships on german troops. But it can happen in the baltic too by both sides or in the black sea. I think the effect of such bombardments is to big. If you have in mind, that a corps represents (historical) about 50.000 people, the loss of one point strongness represents losses about 5.000 peole. On the other hand a battle ship in the game represents one or maybe two battleships, maybe with some (but not very much) screening ships. They should never have such a firepower to cause such losses on a land unit. The ships did use heavy grenades but normally no shrappnels. And they had not the guns for high angle fire. So at least if the unit is entrenched there should be normally no losses. In the game I estimate, that every second shot on one of my units was succesfull. Another question: Shouldn't combat units be able to fire back. They had some artillery too and at least on destroyers they could have made some damage... 2. Shelling of towns/Cities/Supply lines: The same for fire on cities/towns. Of course it did some damage in history. But did it really cause serious and longer lasting (one turn is at least one week, up to several weeks) problems for production and suppy like it can in the game? In the case of bombarding scutari (near Istanbul) by the russian black sea fleet just one hit can cut the possibility to operate troops from or to the european part of the ottoman empire and all cities behind Scutari (especially the ones in the near east) are no longer at supply 6 (or 8 or what they are) but at supply five. Is this intended as an realistic effect of one or two ships? 3. Shelling of ports: I don't understand, why just submarines can directly hit Ships in ports, while surface vessels first have to shoot the port to zero and have just a random chance to hit a ship in the port. A port has no wall around it which has to be shot down first. On the other hand, why can Ships in the harbour not fire back, but just the harbour itself. My idea would be to have a double fire back (port batteries and the ship inside) but a direct attack at the ship in the port too. Another idea: A ship sunked in a port should be able to be buyed back in shorter time to less costs (like land units destroyed in good supply). Many of these ships sunked near by or in a port could at least theoretically be lifted and repaired or at least some parts (like the main guns) could be used otherwise. 4. Suprise contacts in ports: There is one possibility to direct attack a ship in the port: If you move a unit at the port without scouting the port before and then have a surprise contact with the unit inside. If you are clever (some would say it's an expoit, but the rules are in this way) you cause intentionally a "surprise" Contact to direct hit a ship in the port. This makes especially sense, if you outnumber the enemy in this area and you know (and sometimes you do) that there is e very battered ship in the port which you can possibly sink (the situation in the adriatic is mostly like this). If the rule is, that a ship cannot direct fire on an enemy ship in port (like discussed in Nr. 3) than it shouldn't be possible by a surprise contact too. (you could explain it historical: A ship in the port would not be able to immediatly fire or pursue an enemy ship). 5. Minefields and coast batteries: Maybe this point would be a possibility to solve some of the problems above. I strongly miss Minefields and coast batteries in the game. I know from reading in some AArs that at least in assault on communism these features are implemented already (even though if i not know how they exactly work). Especially minefields had a great influence on the naval war in the first world war. The whole baltic was a very dangerous sea because of german and russian minefileds. Every great naval operation had the risk to loose ships by mines. The same in the Channel, some parts of the north sea, the adriatic and especially the Turkish coasts (where the entente lost so many battle ships and cruisers by mines at Gallipoli, that these ships where not longer moved in these areas to support the landing troops). A direct attack by the british grand fleet on the german Hochseeflotte (or vice versa) near of their ports is in the game not often played but a possibility. Historical it would have been almost a selfmurder because of the minefileds. Therefore Minefileds should be implementend in the game as soon as possible. I can imagine for example the following: Maybe in the beginning of the game there are minefields of each nation (especially nearby the ports). Every Enemy unit that moves through these fields is automatically stopped (like a surprise contact). There could be a random risk to loose some steps while being in the minefields (similar to the "bad-weather-effect" but harder). Even the own fleet can move only slower through these field (maybe movement costs of 3 or 4 action points). After one time discovered an enemy minefield the enemy can move through too but with the risk of losts (see above) and high movement costs. Wether there should be a possibility to create new fields (by event or by units like the engineers on land, maybe destroyers and cruisers could make it) or to clear minefields i don't know. Even coast batteries should be implemented. They were a possibility to prevent the enemy from shelling shores/Cities. Of course there were some surprise attacks but heavy guarded points where risky to attack. At the moment maybe the ability of ports and towns/cities to shoot back when attacked is kind of an implementation of coast guns. But maybe it should be possible to buy extra batteries as units (maybe moveable maybe not) or get some by event. Another (or an additional) possibility would be to give coastal cities/towns and ports the ability for active fire at adjacent enemy ships. The damage they can cause should'nt be too big, but the enemy should have a significant risk for parking ships over weeks in sight of enemy coasts. 6. Naval Battles: In the game Naval battles are almost always decided by the pure number of Ships. The worth of a battle line (which was conditio sine qua non for every major naval battle in this time) is not modelled. Maybe you could make it with a combat bonus for ships in line (which means at least two adjacent own ships). In this way good movement and operations could be rewarded instead of an exchangig of units as long as there are no ships on one side... 7. Spotting range: Maybe you could raise it up to two tiles. I don't know the scale of the map in the great campaigns but dover - calais are two tiles (and about 40 Kilometers). This is a range enemy ships could spot each other (at least the smoke line). Maybe (but its a bit complicated) to make it depending from the weather... 8. Submarines:: Are at the moment discussed in the italy before war entry thread Phhhh... This became much longer I thougt before... I#m interested in what you think about it... Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Bill, OK, I see your points. My favourtite sollution would be, to leave the neutral majors asleep (like the minors are). Maybe until a certain point of preparedness. If this is not possible or not desirable, than are the problems with visibility inevitable. I think I can live with it (although I have still the opinion, both sides should be able to see what italy sees like written above... ceterum censeo I think the problem You poinetd out about avoiding an surprise attack on Italy by austria ist more academically. I think no austrian player has the units to launch such an attack before defeating serbia (and this is not possible before the italian war entry like i wrote here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112535 ) And if there was a realistic danger of such an attack you could prevent it by a heavy loss of morale for Austria (and maybe germany) for declaring war on italy which would be quite realistic. I see your point about MPP in the case of mobilisation too. And I like the mobilisation penalties. But Nice would be a small stock of MPPs in the beginning of the war (at the beginn of turn 1) for every nation (maybe 50 - 70 MPP). Not for researching (therefore it should be not enough) but for operating one or two units which should be possible to change some positions ore set a surprising ahistorical focus... And to Hubert: OK, I see the main problem. A good solution would be the following: - In the secret modus you can move your subs unnoticed from every enemy unit. You are even not noticed, when the move stops adjacent to an enemy unit. - Not possible is, to end the move on the same tile as an enemy (or friendly) unit. - It is not possible too, that the enemy ends his move on the same tile like the sub is. In this case it results in a surprise contact like it is now. - If an enemy unit just drives over the tile (and doesn't stop there) there would be no surprise contact. -Special rules maybe for destroyers. You should have in mind, that in world war 1 it was much more difficult to find a sub (especially dived) then in world war two 2 1942/43 on. There was no radar, no sonar and the sound location was in the beginning too. Even when found it was not easy to kill a sub (from the same reasons). On the other hand the subs where slow, couldn't dive that deep, had not many torpedos and especially their range was limited too... Furchtlosundtrew

good points - The Serbian Typhus epidemic should indeed have a remarkeble effect on their troops. At the moment i can't see any effect when the event triggers. Maybe you could modell it similar to the russian winter event in SOE, random casualities (1 - 3 steps maybe) to the units including the HQ, which would automatically even lover the readiness and moral of the serbian troops like in reality. - The shell shortage effected more ore less every nation in the beginning of the war. Here I don't really have a good idea how to modell it. MPP-Penalties would not be the right way i think (at least not as only effect). Maybe a malus on readiness for every combat unit as long, as the shell shortage holds on??? Furchtlosundtrew

Thank you for your comments -I admit, Bill, that of course neutral states should have some insights about the military actions around them. Of Course - at least the major nations - had all a system of military reconnaissance and knew about troop movements at their border or in the adjacent sea. -But I don't agree (spoken for italy) that from the beginning the entente has full knowledge of these insights. It was not predeterminated, that italy would go in the war on side of the entente. At least it was not in Summer 1914. At this time italy was neutral. So no side should have the knowledge of italian sightings or both (you can say the system of military attaches at the embassys of the CPs was full in work too at this time and informations from merchant ships or trawlers could even go to Spys of the CPs). So in my opinion, up to a certain level of preparedness (maybe 30 % or 50 %) there should be informations for both or no side. From this point only to the side, the nation leans to. -The same for the point Strategiclayabout pointed out: Movement and preparations of majors befor war entry. Of course they could move their units before war entry. But why should they move and prepare attacking (or defending) positions before the decision of a war entry is made or at least will be probably wade. The problem here is, that the player knows that a nation will go to war and knows aproximately when it will happen. The leaders of the nations did not (that early). So in reality there where no sense for example for italy to move its units in place for an attack on austria in August - November 1914. The sollution could be the same like above: You can move units of a major, that will go to war on your side but you should not be able to do that until a certain degree of preparedness. -I think, that at least xwormwood is right, when he says there should be some exceptions of visibility of submarines for neutral nations. -Another question is wether it makes sense, that these nations can accumulate MPPs before they enter the war. I think the accumulation represents the concentration of an economy on war efforts. Most majors have no MPP, when (lets say the call to arms) campaign starts (except for great britain). They could see the war coming latest on 23. Juli 1914 with the ultimatum of austria to serbia. Why dont't they have accumulatetd mpps but majors who enter the war later do? They have to make an mobilisation of their troops which cost mpp too, but it is not representated by MPP costs isn`t it? - a last question: wouldn't it make sense, to allow the movement of troops and the use of insights for minor nations as well before the war entry? You can say: The minors are much more under the influence of the major they belong to in comparison with other majors...? What do you think?

Hi there, one point I noticed in a pbem (thanks xwormwood): In 1914 Italy is not yet in the war but can play a decisive role in naval warfare in the adriatic sea. Italian ports discover austrian units and the entente player knows what italy knows. I don't know, if it makes sense. Italy was formal an ally of the central powers (even if I know, that this pact had no real worth and italy declared itself neutral in the beginning of the war). Maybe it would be more realistic, if in the beginning of the war such informations cannot be gained from italy and just when it begins to lean more to the entente (end 1914 starting 1915) the entente player sees, what italy sees. The same is for the ottoman empire and the USA, but the effect of italy is more important because at the ottoman coast there are normally no naval combats in August/September 1914 before the ottoman war entry and the same for the us-coast. what do you mean?

Hi Hubert, save-files have been sent to you. Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Hubert, it would make sense, if the detected unit would recognise the detection. I would think most submarine-crews (like the crews of any other ship) did notice, when a Zeppelin or a seaplane flew over them. Of course this should not result in knowing where the plane/Zeppelin etc. came from. Ideas would be: - Some presentation on the replay of the enemy turn (maybe a red circle around the detected unit and the typical noise of the detecting unit) - and/or a little symbol beside the unit after the enemy turn - and/or (my favorite sollution) a Message in the message box at the beginning of the turn (maybe something like this: "U 10, Tile 101/13, was detected by a seaplane/Airship/Recon-Bomber."). With this sollution you would know, that there are enemy units so you have to be carefull (i.e. put the silent-Mode on and dive) but you would not know where the enemy came from.

Hi Hubert, thank you, I will look after any save-files. When I find them, how can I send them to you? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, another point i noticed playing the ostaufmarsch (maybe, this applies in other scenarios too). The AI makes some serious mistakes which shouldn't happen: The most important two: - The french AI places new purchased artillery directly ahead of my infanterie corpses: We had a frontline between the swiss border and the area of luxemburg with one tile space between the lines. In this no man land the ai places in 1915 and 1916 at least three (maybe even four) guns so that i could destroy them easily with no losses. Result: No serious offensive by the french because of the lack of artillery. Even the russian Ai places new guns often in the spotting range of german corpses in situation, in which it should "know", that there are german units... - Trenches are often placed in the "wrong" direction. I know you can often discuss, which is the best direction for trenches, but in some cases the AI handles ridiculous: For example italy: I made an austrian offensive through the area of parma. behind parma the italians build a new front around bologna. The trenches had the direction south-west/south/south-east while my troops came mainly from the east and north east... Maybe the direction was choosed because of the rivers which covered the italian from my attacks but the choosed direction makes absoultely no sense. I could never be able to sneak through the lines... Even russian trenches and sometimes trenches on the western front are not adjusted ideally. I must admit i have no idea, what it means to programm a complex AI (and mostly the AI does very well!), but maybe these two mistakes could be corrected with little effort? Just: "Never put a new purchased artillery adjacent to enemy units" And if the trenches are difficult then maybe better give each nation a favored direction for trenches. For example for italy is north-east/east/south-east almost always right... Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Hubert, thanks for your answer. I Think you got me:) I didn't know about the greater spotting range in expert level. This could explain, why the British ships could see one or two of my boats near the blockade line and by moving and attacking them even the other boats got in the greater spotting range of the attacking ships. Sorry for the false alarm:o Just to get shure: If there is an air detection (by zeppelin, Carrier or tactical bomber), the detected player should remarke it shouldn't he? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, just playing the CPs in the Ostaufmarsch-Scenario vs. the AI. I Don't know, wether it is just in this scenario or even in other scenarios, but i have a problem with the visibility of my submarines. I think the AI can "see" my submarines when i don't move them in the "Silent-Modus". I was moving a pack of u-Boats from the german coast into the north sea in the hunt-Modus (which means greater range ov movement). They stopped somewhere south of the Blockade-Line near (but not adjacent) to the norwegian coast. No british ship in sight. In the AI turn, the AI moved several cruisers and destroyers and attacked my boats. There was no surprise contact. It was not only one boat, the AI knew all positions. My boats where placed with some space between them, what means, the detection of one boat and the fightings around it doesn't lead automatically to the detection of other boats and there was no surprise contact although the AI attacked three or four boats... Then i reloaded and tried again with movement in "silent-modus". This time the AI didn't detect my boats. This was in early 1915 but i tried again in summer of 1916 and it was the same. British ships knew the position of my boats when not moved in the silent modus... This applies at least for the north sea, wether it is the same in the atlantic ocean or the mediterranien sea I don't know. Is it a bug or did i missunderstand the naval rules? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Hubert, thank you for the information. Thought i read the opposite somewhere, but now i know:) What about my other suggestion, a modified supply map? Furchtlosundtrew