Suggestions for improving this game.

[Adm. Ahab]

After playing several games I have come up with some suggestions to improve this game.

Don’t give players all the HQ:s at the beginning of the game. I would put some starting HQ:s in reinforcement queue. Why? Because at the moment in most of the games you can easily say who is the winner by year 16. In my games I have usually used most of the CP activation points in mid 15 but Entente usually has most of its points left at that time. Because of this Entente can attack but CP can’t counterattack, this leads to worsening position for the CP until the Entente has used its starting HQ points and must produce more.

Next suggestion is to reduce the amount of barrages produced. I think that at the moment you can use your artillery too often you don’t have to stockpile your barrages for your coming offensives for several strategic impulses. At the moment artillery is too cost efficient. I mean by this that if you have 1 industrial point you can produce 7 arm points or 3 barrages as CP and you can be certain that those 3 barrages will cause more casualties to the enemy than the 7 arm points you produced so there is too much incentive to just mass produce artillery barrages to batter your enemy into oblivion. I think that this needs balancing in the future.

Final suggestion is to increase the ability to entrench to 2 per strategic phase. Why? Because I think that at the moment war in the west is too mobile. So giving players change to entrench to 2 from 0 is going to take some of that mobility away.

Feel free to comment or add more suggestions to improve this great game [:)].

[hjaco]

Here is my input Ahab:

1) I disagree.

First offensive points symbolizes stockpiles of supply gathered for the eventuality of war. Why should they come later in the war then. Furthermore i think you must burn too many OP as CP in your games if they are all gone by mid 15 [X(]

In my games Germany typically uses 1 to 2 offensive points in France a turn (3 if the going is really hot) which forces Russia in the offensive using OP and France to make the odd counterattack as well. My point is OP lasts longer for the CP if used more cost effective and that the Entente must use some of theirs if able to survive a determined CP offensive.

2) I agree with this one.

Artillery is too cost effective although you have to take into consideration that effectiveness is reduced with better trenches and defending in more difficult terrain as well as keeping lower stacking points and not to say denying your opponent the lethality of air support. All this taken into consideration artillery is still a bit to cost effective as it is now.

3) I must disagree and think you contradict yourself with no. 1.

Warfare is mobile in the beginning until Germany is too exhausted.

Entrench each and every turn and you will slowly accumulate entrenchment points. A trick is to use battered units in rest areas behind the front and entrenching them at every opportunity. So if your front line is hammered away retreat to a fully entrenched second line.

Germany should be able to delay a sustained major Entente offensive with high tech artillery and air support until the appearance of tanks and assault troops makes the front unstable. If not being able to do this Germany has overextended itself and should have gone to the defensive earlier !

[Adm. Ahab]

Regarding my first point I think that those HQ:s should come later in the war, because this should represent the mobilisation of the economy to the war. Now you have all those points ready in first turn.

Regarding entrenching I think that because you can only start entrenching at the third strategic phase this should allow enough mobility at the beginning for the great German push against France. Now when you only can entrench 1 per turn this entrenchment Isn’t enough deterrent against continuing attacks against France. So CP player has an incentive to keep on pushing against France so that they don’t have time to entrench and prepare good defensive positions.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: Adm. Ahab

Regarding entrenching I think that because you can only start entrenching at the third strategic phase this should allow enough mobility at the beginning for the great German push against France. Now when you only can entrench 1 per turn this entrenchment Isn’t enough deterrent against continuing attacks against France. So CP player has an incentive to keep on pushing against France so that they don’t have time to entrench and prepare good defensive positions.

True but the short winter turns will put a limit to the number of total attacks.

Furthermore you should approach a moment in the campaign where resistance is stiffening thereby increasing CP losses so that's a trade off for the CP.

[boogada]

I don't know if I really agree with Ahab here, but I've seen what his guns can do to my troops. There was ONE artillery unit firing and it took out an entire corps?

[SteveD64]

wow

[ojnab_bob]

I do agree that artillery seems a bit too lethal... has it's been mentioned, 1 industrial point invested in 3 barrages can cause 15-25 casualties, as opposed to only 6-7 arms.  I'd suggest a larger reduction in readiness (is there any from barrages?  it only seems to cause casualties) and a lesser reduction in strength.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: ojnab_bob

I do agree that artillery seems a bit too lethal... has it's been mentioned, 1 industrial point invested in 3 barrages can cause 15-25 casualties, as opposed to only 6-7 arms.  I'd suggest a larger reduction in readiness (is there any from barrages?  it only seems to cause casualties) and a lesser reduction in strength.

That seems to make sense. Readiness and trench reduction should be what artillery does the most damage to.
The highest loss from artillery I've ever seen was 8 sp's causing 32 losses. 64,000 troops lost from artillery seems way out of line!

[SteveD64]

Could just get rid of artillery combat factors and make barrage points the strength of a barrage.  So, to get an artillery combat factor of three would require three barrage points. 

[SMK-at-work]

I've been hit by 12 point barrages that don't cause that much damage, and have managed to hit people with 15 and 18 point barrages that I hope did!!
 
Were you overstacked when that happened?
 
As far as I have seen 2-3 point barrages cause 0-3 point damage unsighted, and up to 7 or 8 sighted.  A single example of doing 21 is exceptinoal!!

[SteveD64]

I would've gotten rid of artillery units altogether, kept the barrage points and let HQ units barrage.  You figure corps level units have their own built in artillery.  The barrage points represent the big effort.

[boogada]

ok it was overstacked!

[boogada]

Some sources say that up to 70% of all casualties were done by artillery fire,

[size="-1"]during the Great War, losses due to artillery fire rose to 67% of total casualties

http://www.art-ww1.com/gb/guide/4guide.html[/size]

Perhaps up to 70% of all deaths on the battlefield were caused by artillery

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CRISIS/WWI.HTM

[SMK-at-work]

see http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/Artillery.html for Australian artillery organisation in some detail - corps artillery brigade had 2 battery of 9.2" guns, 2 of 8", 4 of captured German 10.5cm, and 1 of 9.45" mortars - so it's not really all that numerous in the heavy gun dept

For a contrast see a list of Royal Garrison Artilleyr siege batteries at http://www.1914-1918.net/rga_siege.htm

Heavy artillery was gradually pulled up the command chain in WW1 - starting as divisional troops it became a corps assett but in the British army by the end of the war it was usually an army assett - eg see http://www.1914-1918.net/rga.htm

moreover the artillery would be attached for a push....then not be able to follow up and support any advance. and it would be attached to other units for other pushes....no...IMO some form of seperate artillery is a necessity.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

As far as I have seen 2-3 point barrages cause 0-3 point damage unsighted, and up to 7 or 8 sighted. A single example of doing 21 is exceptinoal!!

Also depends heavily on the research level of artillery.

Artillery is fine. Folks don't like it, they should buy trenches or aircraft to counter its effectiveness.

Ray (alias Lava)

[SMK-at-work]

typical British army level artillery attachments: (from http://www.1914-1918.net/whatarmy.htm)
 
[*][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]2-4 Mobile Brigades of Heavy and Medium Artillery[/font]
[*][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]1-6 Mixed Brigades of Heavy and Medium Artillery [/font]
[*][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]3-5 Brigades of 8-inch Howitzers[/font]
[*][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]2-6 Brigades of 9.2-inch Howitzers[/font]
[*][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]1-3 Army Brigades of the Royal Garrison Artillery[/font]
[*][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]4-10 Batteries of 6-inch guns[/font]
[*][font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]6-11 Batteries of heavier guns[/font]

[SteveD64]

ok it was overstacked!

 
[:D]

[boogada]

it was overstacked, but also entrenched (level 1, were still in 1914)

[Raynald]

I agree with the 3 suggestions mentionned in the first post.

France has far too many HQ point. Right now, they aren't forced to buy some until very late in the war. Even Germany has far too many in my opinion. Really, I think there should be far less HQ point at the beginning and make them lest costly (2 BP).

Artillery is really too cost effective. There was constant shelling during WWI, but it was at a lower level (i.e divisionnal and corps level). The artillery unit of this game (heavy artillery) is really something that should be used only to support an offensive or counter-offensive, not something you fire just to cause losses, whether you attack or not.

But there is actually more than one pb with artillery. France didn't have a suitable heavy artillery until 1916 (remember, the 75 mm is in the fighting power of the corps, not the artillery unit of the game), and GB not until 1917. Right now, France has a descent artillery in 1914 (I have seen 32 losses in one 9 point barrage with air support in August 14 against Metz !!), and everyone can quickly buy one.

It seems that the more you stack, the more artillery is effective. This is not really consistent with the scale of the game. In reality, this was related to doctrine, not to stacking. The real "overstacking" that increase the losses due to artillery is the "overstacking" in the first 5 km of the front, hardly relative to how many corps you have in a hex. There's no way to represent this easily in the game. Well, yes, there's one : increase the efficacity of trench (high level of trench also means you have a deep front organisation).

The easiest way to solve all of this is too increase the cost of barrage (i.e 1 BP for 1 barrage in 14, 1 BP for 2 barrage later on) or even better, only authorise activated artillery to fire (i.e artillery in range of an activated HQ). This last solution as the advantage to force the French to use their HQ point if they want to heavilly shell the advancing Germans (French stocks of everything were as low as the German one in the automn of 14). 

So, because of stacking limit and trench, heavy artillery would still be a important part of a successfull attack, but it would be rare to see a heavy barrage on an otherwise quiet sector just to cause losses (that almost NEVER happened in WWI, or WWII mind you).

As someone suggested, another solution would be to increased the effect against readiness (very effective if you attack) and decrease the manpower losses.

In summary : decrease the cost of HQ point but make them necessary to fire artillery and/or increase the cost of artillery barage and balance the effect on readyness/manpower.

[Hanal]

Sorry, but most of the suggestions here would undo the fine balance that this game has.......