Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Will, thank you for your comment. Hi acrashb, Is this your Explanation or can I read this somewhere in the manual? You are right when the mine is symbolizing just a mine (or an oilfiled just an oilfield). But there are many areas on the card where the mine doesn't just stand for the mine itself but even for a town or city build around the mine (for example the Ruhr-Area which doesn't only consist of Düsseldorf and Essen but also of Duisburg, Bochum and many other cities, but on the map there are just mines, where the other cities had to be...). In other areas (for example the oilfields in mesopotamia there is nothing else than the oilfiled and it is consistent that this doesn't give any supply... If it is fact, that mines may not give any supply I can accept this (even if it would make sense to give at least a supply-level of a Town [5] which is almost always near a mine) but then i would remove the information "supply level 10" out of the information box of a mine because it's confusing. Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, another point I noticed: I always thouht, that supply is not only "produced" by cities and towns but also from other objects like mines, oilfields etc... (please correct me if i'm wrong). I now noticed, that this seems not to be so. At least in the Ostaufmarsch-Szenario (but I think also in call to arms, not shure how it is in other szenarios) mines do not deliver any supply (for example the tiles of the mines near Düsseldorf have supply-level 9 (from the city of Düsseldorf nearby) but not ten like they should have. Even so the silesian mines and even others. For me most confusing is, that if I click on the mine-tiles I get the information: Supply-Level 10.... Did I missunderstand something...? Furchtlosundtrew P.S. What about a supply-Card neglecting supply from HQs and showing only the "original" Supply by towns and cities? It would make it much easier to plan where to march the HQ to when the Supply-Map was not interferred by actual HQ Supply...

Thanks Bill for your comment, glad I found something to make the game even better. Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Cfant glad i was able to help you at this point. SC is a complex game and the sollutions for problems are often not easy to find (but sometimes they are) On which difficulty-level do you play? Maybe there could be a reason for the mighty AI? Furchtlosundtrew P.S. look at your PM

One question abaout the harbours of Dubrovnik and Cattaro: Is it intended, that the harbours are not linked with the road parallel to the adriatic coast? Other harbours are mostly linked with the towns nearby, so when the other ports have a supply-level of ten, a town on the next tile has a supply-level of nine and so on. In Cattaro (and Dubrovnik the same) the harbour has a supply level of ten, but on the road (the next tile) the level is just 6 (because of the mountain penalty). If you look exactly at the map, cattaro is linked with the road by a railroad track (but not a road). And The Dubrovnik harbour is adjacent directly to the town of Dubrovnik. So is supply 6 intended for them or is it a mistake? Furchtlosundtrew

Thank you gentlemen, you hit some points. Its new for me, that research even increases my chances for a diplo hit. Is it one point per int-Level or ist it one point per int-level multiplicated with the ivested diplo-Chits? Id didn't know either, that Gb has already one chit investet in intelligence, which changes my sight slightly because that means a relatively early hit on Intel for the entente. I made al little summarizing estimate of the effect of Intel/vs. no Intel: If you have no intel-Steps you reserach with 3-9 % progression/turn so averaged with 6 %. You need 16 turns to reach 100 % and 7,5 turns to reach the breakthrough threshold of 45 % (i think it was raised up to 45 % instead of 30 % wasn't it?). If you have 1 step in intel the numbers are 4 - 10 %, averaged 7 %. That means 14turns for 100 % and 6,4 for the threshold. With two intel steps: 5 - 11 %, averaged 8 %. 12,5 turns for 100 % and 5,6 for the threshold. Because of the increased breakthrough chance with intel-Steps (1 % extra Chance/Chit) the chances for a breakthrough are ca: Without intel: 14,3 % after ten turns; 24,3 % after 12 turns; 32,1 % after 14 turns. with 1 step intel: 23,4 % after ten turns; 37,6 % after 12 turns with 2 step intel: 36,8 % after ten turns; 46,5 % after 12 turns (For explanation: I calculatetd the statistical probability for getting no breakthrough after 10/12/14 turns and concluded from that to the probability of getting a hit at least in the 10th/12th/14th turn). You can say, these are great differences in having intel researched or you can say they are not. I think, the difference between having two steps of intel are remarkable, while the difference of one point is not that bad, especially if you have in mind, that there is a very big influence of random numbers in the hole reserach system. Probably it depends of the situation in the game and as Strategiclayabout said on your strategy. One point that makes me think over intelligance as Central-Power-Player is the already investet british chit (because an early invested and achieved second step for the british could be expensive for CPs). On the other hand as said before: If you not research intel: At the point, when the effect beginns, you will probably have achieved or almost achieved the first step in other research areas, so the effect will mostly happen on the second (and maybe third) step of any area, which means in middle/late 1916 or so... So I doubt a little bit over my previous reserach strategy but i'm not fully convinced of the contrary:) Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Cfant - I think, you should be able, to use the operate-option to bring your planes down to egypt. - I don't know, if there are combat-Bonusses for the AI, but you can optimize your chances: Use your units only in good supply, good readiness and morale. If possible attache your units to an HQ. This is possible even for air units and very usefull. I just played SOE one time as the axis. It costed some time, but I was able to bring my Fighters up to one star and after using this one elite step for elite reinforcement even more by consequently adding them to a good HQ, just let them intercept, keeping them out of range of direct attacks by the RAF and ever reinforcing afer taking casualities... Furchtlosundtrew

One point that i want to discuss: Is ist wise, to invest chits in intelligence research? Ash did it in the beginning of the game (at least to chits) and even Strategiclayabout discusses it. Clearly is: When you do so, you have to do it early in the game because only then you can have the full benefit from a faster research. But if you do it early, i'm not shure wether you won't miss the investment in other research areas. I belive you can reserach your intelligence in the WW1 Campaign only to a maximum of two (maybe i am wrong and it are three but not more) steps. So even if you reserach intelligence up to the maxiumum, the effect is not that strong as in the storm over europe campaign. Furthermore the campaign is mutch shorter than the SOE Campaign so you have less time to use your faster research... I think most players would agree, that investment in industrie (at least two chits = 250 MPP), infanterie warfare (maximum of one chit = 125 MPP) and trench warfare (at least three chits, some player would say even four or five chits = 150 - 250 MPP) should be done asap. So there are imperative investments of 525 - to 625 MPP, even more if you wanna invest more chits in industrie. These MPP are (especially in the beginning of the game, the first ten turns) not simple to save while you have to replace losses of units etc... So lets say you are able to invest in intelligence in about the sixth or seventh turn (which would be rather early but not impossible to the cost of other investments). If you are lucky you can have a research breakthroug hit after maybe five or six turns (if you are unlucky and have to research the full 100 % it may last 10 - 15 turns...). So the probably earliest point, the effect of your step one intelligence starts is after 11/12 turns (and only if you make an early investment and are very lucky). At this point, when you start to research a little bit faster than the other nations, the other nations will have yet made significant progresses in their own research and will have the first step (or are very close to) in their preferred research areas. So you can only slow down the later steps of your enemies but will loose a 100 MPP investment early in the game in important areas. I think an early investment maybe in gas/shell for 100 MPP will pan out much more than an intelligence investment What do you mean? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Will and Ash, first of all: Great AAR from you! After the beginning and after starting of the great entente Offensive in Belgium in 1915/1916 i thouht it would be a fast end for the central powers. But Ash striked back and and did a great job in making the game very close and thrilling in the end. Congratulations Will for a deserved victory and congratulations Ash for nearly making the impossible possible! Some comments: - The command-bug happened to me many times. Indead it is a little annoying. Sometimes a Commander looses his command over a unit after moving/swapping this unit. Sometimes without any action. And then - like you described - it is impossible to add this unit or another unit again to the commander. My sollution is to put the settings on auto again, than the commander has (after the next turn) five units again, than settings back on manual and i can chose five units again. But I loose the fighting bonus for at least two turns, so it would be good, to find another sollution... - To The USA-War-Entry-Problem: The question is, wether the USA would have gone to War without an unrestricted U-Boat War by Germany (and the sinking of several ships with US-Passengers) or wether they would not. It can't realy be answered. The game mechanics as described by ash say: They would have declared war on germany too, maybe a bit later. In my opinion it would have depended on the course of the war on other fronts. When (hypothetically) the Central Powers would have been faster in defeating Russia (let's say end 1916/ beginning 1917) and would have started the great offense in the west one year earlier and with a little more effect, the USA would not have entered the war because no one joins the clearly inferior side or the side that seems to be clearly inferior and seems already loosing the war. Maybe the defeat of Russia ist not the perfect trigger for the preparedness movement event (but i don't know a better one). In the end I would as CP (as long as the mechanics are like they are in the moment) never give up the advantages of the unrestrictetd u-boat war for the benefit of an US War entry few months later than in reality. The possible great MPP and NM losses for England and the great NM-Gains for Germany are worth even an earlier US War entry. I think you have won or lost the war before the US Troops can be decisive and in the AAR of will and ash it was just the NM that lost the war for the CP (and the NM was probably lost in Belgium/northern France). - This leads to the next point: The end of the AAR. Ash (and especially germaný) lost the war because of the NM. In the field he mastered it to turn the tide and defeat the entente. Some more turns and the whole western front would have gone on to Paris. So in the AAR there happend realy a stab in the back. In reality the German army was not yet finally beaten in autumn 1918 but ist was clear that germany will loose the war at the latest in 1919 or 1920. There was no longer a hope for winning the war. This was one of the main reasons for the armistace and the end of the war. There where no serious riots in Germany (that ended the war too), as long, as it looked like Germany would win the war by the offense in spring 1918. Just after the great defeats and retreats in late summer 1918 it started. So the End of the AAR is quite unrealistic. But I think the NM-Modell in the game is a great idea and i have not realy an idea how you could avoid such results. When you describe it as lack of Manpower (for every casuality you get a nm hit) and of food (represented through the hits because of the blockade) the outcomuing of the war is right even if the occurence is odd. So far my thoughts, hoping on another great AAR by Will and Ash (or other ones). Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Bill, ad 1.) OK, I think I understand the system. Thank you. In my example the anomaly is, that the unknown unit is a non-combat unit, so it can do no attack after the surprise contact, I can suffer no casualities. Maybe it would make sense, that only combat-units have a zone of control? Wouldnt't it make sense, to give naval units (at least battle-Ships and modernized Cruisers) a Zone of control too? In reality after a Sighting by one of these ships just a very fast ship would have been able to avoid a fight... ad 2.) OK, it does work. Thank you. ad 3.) I would be interested in other opinion at this point too. Or is it just me, who'd like to have a slight change of rules for forcemarching? Furchtlosundtrew

Hi Bill, thanks for your answer. ad 1.) OK. Can you explain me how exactly the zone of controll works? How many action points do I need t walk throug it? I belive the reason for this zone is, to prevent fast movement throug enemy lines isn't it? In my example it prevents already the approaching to an enemy line. Wouldn't it be better, to change the mechancis of this zone to the following: No extra costs to move into this zone but no possibility to move out of the zone again in the same turn (so an automatic stop while passing through the zone). In my opinion it would be a possibility... In this context I had a strange incident yesterday: Again the serbian front. My austrian cavallery unit in full supply stood in Temeschburg. The Mines in the north of Nisch where in serbian Hand but without a serbian unit. I was able to move my cavallerie there. But before I did, I used my recon bombers to scout the surroundig area and discovered the serbian HQ in Nisch. After knowing of this unit I could not longer move my cavallery into the mines (I think of the same reason, the zone of control). I reloaded the game to be shure and this time I moved my cavallery into the mines without scouting before and I reached it. So the zone of control has in this example only an effect, when I know it. May be it would be a possibility, that not every unit has a zone of control but only fighting units (detachements, corpses and Partisans on land but not HQs, air units and so on; every ship on the sea exceptional of transports and amphibious transports)? ad 2.) Thank you for your tip. I will test in the evening, how it works. ad 3.) I agree, that you could use forcemarching into enemy territorry as an exploit. But maybe there could be a compromise? An Idea would be, to limit forcemarching on enemy territory to the maximum of one enemy Tile. This would hinder to exploit it to deep brakethrougs but it would allow to handle the most problems especially the occupying of single tiles surrounded by own territory. Furchtlosundtrew

Hi there, some questions/suggestions regarding marching of units. 1. I often have the problem, that I defeat and destroy an enemy land unit, but can`t march into the tile, the enemy unit was before. The problem are not the action points. Let's make an example: I have three austrian corpses in Valjevo (serbia) and the tiles directly north-east and south-west of valjevo. One serbian corps stands directly adjacent in the hills in the south-east of Valjevo. The next serbian units are one tile behind in a line from Uzice to Kragujevac. Now I attack the first serbian corps with two of my three corpses to weaken it. With my last corps I destroy it. After the attack my corps hast remaining three action points. To move in the hill-tile where I destroyed the unit would cost me two points. Nevertheless I am not able to occupy the tile. What exactly is the reason for this??? 2. Is there any possibility to define the exact marching route of a unit? What i mean: If there is an unstaffend enemy city (town/mine/what ever) in front of a unit I often have to stop my march in the city or set the march in another direction i would normally do because otherwise my units don't marches throug city and doesn't occupy it. Often the way throug the city would not cost more action points... 3. A suggestion regarding forcemarching: would it make sense to allow forcemarching into enemy territory? You could sanction abuses (for example cavallery raids deep in unknown enemy territory) with very (!) bad combat penalties if you face an unexpected enemy unit. At least in some situations force marching into enemy territory would make sense. Imagine an enemy city, far behind the own lines surrounded by your troops. Now you destroy the unit holding the city. Every of your units around the city has spent all action points in fighting. But you have another corps five tiles away from the city. It would make sense to allow this corps a forcemarch into the free enemy city in my oppinion. What do you mean

Hi, The last days i was thinking over serbia. In my opinion, it is shaped a little bit too strong. In every game i play as the central powers, i have enormous problems, to defeat them in an acceptable time. In my actual game I choosed (like mostly) the unhistoric deployment of the Austrian second Army against Serbia so I have two HQs, eight or nine Corpses, a Cavallery Unit, that I forcedmarched from the russian Front and after the third Turn the German artillery Unit for breaking trenches. Despite of this massive Army, a fast victory is immposible. With the cavallery unit i'm able to occupy the mines near Nish very early (about 4th turn) and i can occupy Belgrad and the next City in the west of Belgrad. After these initial successes further steps are very slow and it will become a nearby historic end for serbia not much earlier than autumn 1915. The problems are not so much bad supply (because of my two HQs) but the great number of the serbian forces and their ability to replace their losses and the missing ability of austrian corpses to cause heavy casualities to the enemy in attack (so i often need six or seven attacks of my corpses [and they are all in good supply, have an HQ, have enough readiness and are at strength nine or ten when i attack] to destroy a serbian Corps). When i was playing with the historic deployment of austrian forces of the second army in Galicia, it lasts normaly at least until end of 1915 or Spring of 1916 until they are defeatet. In the best case (and when i avoid the mistakes of Potiorek) i could only just reach the historic outcome. So I think, Serbia is - compared with history - overpowered. In reality, the serbs had an armee of 400.000 until 500.000 men. Because of the Balkan wars in 1913 they where well experienced and well leaded. So they could defeat the approximately equipollent austrian forces in three battles in 1914 and keep them out of their territory. I think the most importent reasons for this victory was the fact, that the austrian troops where meanly in very bad supply and had a bad leader with Potiorek, who underestimated the serbian army each time he attacked. But these victories where expensive because the Serbs had a great number of losses too and they could not replace their losses. They where additionally weakend in Winter 1914/1915 by a heavy typhus epidemic [i saw these modelled as an event but i could not see any effect of these events like losses of units...?]. Serbia had even great supply problems especially regarding artillery shells because they where not able to produce them by themselves and imports where difficult in this time...So in 1915 they suffered a lot of problems and where defeated relative easily. So back to the game. I think when i deploy the second army against serbia I sould clearly outnumber them. So Serbia has too many units in the beginning or they are able to build some more units short after. I think they especially have a bit too many corpses instead of detachements. Above all they should not be able to replace their losses in that speed, like they do. A slightly reduction of their troops should make it possible to achive an unhistoric early victory in Spring 1915 or [when you are very lucky withe your casualities] even January 1915. I would even reduce their force-pool so that in in the beginning of the war they have a greater number of Troops in the field as their force pool is. So they wouldn't be able to rebuild troops after losses because oft the build limit. Another Idea would be, to modell Serbia not as a minor but as a major. This would habe the great advantage, that they had to use their own income to refresh crippled units and had not the full income of their major (what they could use in an extreme case at the moment). This income would be only from the mine, from Belgrad as an producing city and from an newly created event what gives them for example 50 or 60 Mpp/Turn. I Think this would modell the declining strength of serbia during the war. What do you think about Serbia?

Hi Bill, thank you for the answer. I think, that's a practicable sollution for the problem. A general question. If you discuss such problems with us, how do you implement the discussed changes in the game? Will it happen with the next patch or in another way? Kind regards Furchtlosundtrew P.S. I wanna gratulate you, Hubert and the other guys in your team for creating this game! A lot of fun and even the most accurate implementation of the historical processes of the first world war, i have seen in a game so far!

I realised, that it's not possible to attach or detach a unit to an HQ after moving. I think, i can move the HQ and than attach unmoved units but i can't move a unit and than attach it to an HQ. Do I make any mistake or ist it true? I think, it´s a little bit unmanageable because of the following reasons: - When I attach a Unit in the beginnig of a turn before moving, then the benefits of the newly attached HQ will not work before the beginning of the following turn, do they? And the benefits of another HQ, the unit was attached to before will be lost for the current turn, when i detach it and attach it to the second one. That does not fit in my opinion... - Of course I can plan my turns and therefore attach my units before moving, but my plans can go wrong (for example bad luck in casualities) and that can force me, to vary my originally plan and to move units in a completely other direction then planned. So the HQ, attached in the beginnig of the turn, may be worthless in the future because of distance or so. - Even if i move a unit planfully out of the distance of an HQ, which it is attached to, i have no possibility to attach it to a new HQ, even ift the new one is only one tile away. Are there any compelling reasons to rule it in that way? I Think in history there were several examples for divisions or corpses which were seperated from their beginnig field army command and subordinated under a new Field army command before, immideatly after or even while an military operation. And the game ist based on turns, which last weeks or (in the winter months), in my eyes enough time, to organise a new commad and supply chain...

Hi there, i'm reading in this forum for long time and now was the point, to register myself. I think akmatov's question here is a good point. It doesn't make sense, that you - and this is how i undestand the research rules - get a research bonus, if an enemy nation is ahead you in a research section. But that you dont't get a research bonus, if an allied nation is ahead in a research section. In reality, the entente-Nations had a benefit from the developments of other nations (for example the US-troops, which got the main part of their planes from france to equip their air-squadrons). And even so the central-powers (for example german officers and artillery-pieces for the Ottoman army or the austrian skoda-Mortars with operating-crews for the german troops that assaulted Liege in the beginning of the war). So i Think a research bonus for allied nations (and a bigger one that the bonus you get from enemy nation's reserach advance) would make sense. What do you mean?