Problems with 1.30F

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: hjaco


...but also keep in mind (as Frank himself pointed out) that the allies can now transfer resources overland through the Balkans and into Russia.

But only through Entente controlled hexes [;)]


And in addition to that they need to ship to Salonika on dedicated sea transports.

In our game the TE is not even close to being in a position to ship food or IPs to Russia and we are now at the end of 1916. The fear that the new transfers rules would result in a flood of IPs and food arriving in Russia from Britain seem to have been unfounded.

[FM WarB]

ORIGINAL: Lascar
In our game the TE is not even close to being in a position to ship food or IPs to Russia and we are now at the end of 1916. The fear that the new transfers rules would result in a flood of IPs and food arriving in Russia from Britain seem to have been unfounded.

What happened to the North Sea to Archangel sea route?

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

ORIGINAL: Lascar
In our game the TE is not even close to being in a position to ship food or IPs to Russia and we are now at the end of 1916. The fear that the new transfers rules would result in a flood of IPs and food arriving in Russia from Britain seem to have been unfounded.

What happened to the North Sea to Archangel sea route?

There is a North Sea--Baltic Sea--Petrogard route but I don't see a North Sea--Archangel route.

[BK6583]

Ok - I recognize that there comes a point where a game's been tweaked as far as is reasonable. That said, I believe we're not there yet. Playing CP against AI and even though I've not used unrestricted sub warfare and have invested from turn 1 Diplomatic 'Overtures' with the USA (and getting 'appreciated' messages almost every turn) the friggin USA entered Nov 1916!! Yes, France first strategy declarations on Belgium and Luxemburg should be a factor, and yes, I did declare war on Italy and Romania during the course of this game, but I never got one of those "America is concerned" messages for those two latter declarations. Frank, please reexamine the USA entry parameters.

Regards,

Bob

[Kaliber]

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

ORIGINAL: Kaliber






May I also suggest adding a few (2 or 3) austrian B corps at setup? I don't think this would hurt general play balance (on the contrary) and it might provide an efficient counter to the russian "drive for Vienna" setup.

Add two Austrian "corps" and one "HQ" and you'd get initial Austrian forces about right.

Good to see I'm not the only one who has been thinking about this.

Actually, I think the austrian army is too small compared to their resources. If my count is correct, Austria has 21 corps to Germanys 60. France, who had a population comparable to the KuK Monarchy, fields about 40 corps. As a result, unless the austrian army was mauled in the opening turns, after the fighting bogs down on the eastern front, they start building subs in the med, planes or offensive points for the germans.

In addition to adding two or three austrian corps at start (I'm more sceptical about an additional HQ, I feel the allocation is well balanced), I suggest adding 3-5 austrian corps in late 1915 - early 1916. To compensate, the germans could receive 2-4 corps less. The germans never have the resources to replenish their corps anyway.

Thoughts and remarks on this topic would be appreciated.

[FM WarB]

Austria maxed out at 26 Korps and Germany 65. More than this can be built in the game, but a "corps" in the game is not the same as a historical Korps. What exactly it is, I'm still not sure.

[FM WarB]

Slight update to previous post of mine:

German Korps West Front, August 1914
1.Armee: Gd, II, III, IV, IX, III.Res, IV.Res. II.Kav
2.Armee: VII, X, Gd.Res, VII.Res, X.Res
3.Armee: XII. XII, XIX, XII.Res I.Kav
4.Armee: VI, VIII, XVIII, VI.Res, XVII.Res
5.Armee: V, XIII, XVI, V.Res, VI.Res IV.Kav
6.Armee: I.Bav, II.Bav, III.Bav, XXI, I.Bav.Res, XIV.Res, III.Kav
7.Armee: XIV, XV, XIV.Res
in Schleswig-Hosltein: IX.Res
in Würzburg: II.Bav.Res
German Korps East Front, August 1914
8.Armee: I, XVII, XX, I.Res
West Prussia/Danzig: XVII.Res
Landwehr Korps
Totals: 25 1st line Korps, 17 reserve Korps, one Landwehr Corps 4 Kav Korps (some split between armies)
43 total inf Korps
Austrian Korps Russian Front, August, 1914 (accounting for Conrad's indecision*)
1.Armee: I, V, X 3, 9. Kav Divs
2.Armee: III, IV*, VII*, XII 1, 5, 8. Kav Divs
3.Armee: XI, XIV 2, 4,11. Kav Divs
4.Armee: II, VI, IX 6, 10* Kav Divs
Austrian Korps Serbian Front, August 1914
5.Armee: VIII, XIII
6.Armee: XV, XVI
Res. Kummer (2 Landsturm divs) 7.Kav div
Totals: At start: 16 Korps and 11 Kav Divs. 17 if you count Gruppe Kummer.
Korps were not "standard", and 8 out of 46 inf divs are listed at Army, not Korps level.
XVII Korps, formed 20 Aug, 1914

Web sources:
http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/
http://home.comcast.net/~jcviser/index.htm/

Print souces continue to roll in

[Sieben_slith]

Is this game ever going to get a stable patch? I bought it almost a year ago and have never played it through to the end, because every time I start, a new patch comes along. I have 1.23; 1.24 and 1.25 died aborning and 1.30 is now at version F with no end in sight. I don't want to join the ranks of the grognards arguing about how many rail points Austria gets or how to transfer supplies to Russia, I just want to play an accurate and instructive strategic simulation of WWI.[>:]

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: Sieben Elfriend

Is this game ever going to get a stable patch? I bought it almost a year ago and have never played it through to the end, because every time I start, a new patch comes along. I have 1.23; 1.24 and 1.25 died aborning and 1.30 is now at version F with no end in sight. I don't want to join the ranks of the grognards arguing about how many rail points Austria gets or how to transfer supplies to Russia, I just want to play an accurate and instructive strategic simulation of WWI.[>:]

Many of the grognards have been playing this since it came out and have been able to identify many bugs and suggested improvements that Frank was willing to implement. It has become a more accurate and instructive simulation because of the efforts of the grognards and Frank so that both the grognards and persons like yourself can eventually reap the benefits of those efforts.

[boogada]

If I remember correctly almost all version were stable. Bugs occurred now and then, which is not a good thing, but often those did not kill the game. And over time the game has improved steadily. I think its a great game that's worth the struggle with the patches.

[FM WarB]

I'd like to struggle with new patch that has the U.S. entering later. Haven't heard from Frank lately; maybe he's working on it.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: BK6583

Ok - I recognize that there comes a point where a game's been tweaked as far as is reasonable. That said, I believe we're not there yet. Playing CP against AI and even though I've not used unrestricted sub warfare and have invested from turn 1 Diplomatic 'Overtures' with the USA (and getting 'appreciated' messages almost every turn) the friggin USA entered Nov 1916!! Yes, France first strategy declarations on Belgium and Luxemburg should be a factor, and yes, I did declare war on Italy and Romania during the course of this game, but I never got one of those "America is concerned" messages for those two latter declarations. Frank, please reexamine the USA entry parameters.

Regards,

Bob

Maybe the "America is concerned" messages are missing. IMO there should be a harsh penalty for the CP DoWing Italy and Rumania.

[hjaco]

Why should America have been concerned about some backwater Balcan country?

But I concur there is a flaw in CP DOW on Italy which I feel should not be possible in the first place.

I really lack a two way entry system for Italy like that in Fatal Alliances. That is each side would have an different entry for Italy towards entering war with precise status unknown for the other side. This could then be influenced by DOW on other neutrals and your diplomatic points would only influence your own entry for Italy. Italy should of course be biased towards the Entente from the onset and enter on their side on average but it should not be a given thing.

[Kaliber]

We're now in 1916 with the new 1.3 f patch. It turns out that Turkey also has to send her resources to Germany on her own rps.

[justaguy93]

Not sure if anyone else has run into this, but the latest game I played Great Britain surrendered and then all hexes in Egypt returned to British control.  Virtually the entire Turkish army was stuck in Egypt with no possibility of movement to friendly ground.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

Why should America have been concerned about some backwater Balcan country?

But I concur there is a flaw in CP DOW on Italy which I feel should not be possible in the first place.

I really lack a two way entry system for Italy like that in Fatal Alliances. That is each side would have an different entry for Italy towards entering war with precise status unknown for the other side. This could then be influenced by DOW on other neutrals and your diplomatic points would only influence your own entry for Italy. Italy should of course be biased towards the Entente from the onset and enter on their side on average but it should not be a given thing.

You're assuming Americans back then would have known the difference between Belgium and Rumania. [;)] I should have differentiated between the two. Penalties for invading minor neutrals should be about the same. IMHO attacking yet another neutral would have been more evidence to Wilson of 'warmongering' by the CP. Scattershooting, anyone know what he thought of Rumania DoWing the CP in 1916?

Italy should be treated differently, as you state. AH's GoA system wasn't that bad in determining how Italy would enter the war. It wasn't a given that Italy would join the Entente, but it was likely.

[hjaco]

Huh - where did Belgium come into the picture [8|]

But I agree with you that penalties for minors should be the same with regard to America [8D]

[Kaliber]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: hjaco

Why should America have been concerned about some backwater Balcan country?

But I concur there is a flaw in CP DOW on Italy which I feel should not be possible in the first place.

I really lack a two way entry system for Italy like that in Fatal Alliances. That is each side would have an different entry for Italy towards entering war with precise status unknown for the other side. This could then be influenced by DOW on other neutrals and your diplomatic points would only influence your own entry for Italy. Italy should of course be biased towards the Entente from the onset and enter on their side on average but it should not be a given thing.

Italy should be treated differently, as you state. AH's GoA system wasn't that bad in determining how Italy would enter the war. It wasn't a given that Italy would join the Entente, but it was likely.

Historicaly, there is maybe some hypothetical truth to this. I, however, doubt it. AH was not ready to cede any territory to Italy, as they asked for. The french on the other hand, promised Italy and Serbia the same territory. Serbia (or rather, the kingdom og Yugoslavia) was finally granted the disputed land during the post-war peace-settlement, thus infuriating the italians who pulled back from the Versailles peace conference. Morally, considering the incredible suffering of the serbs during the war, it was difficult not to give in to their demands

In his brillant essay published in 1920 ("les conséquences politiques de la paix" - the political consequences of peace), the french journalist Jacques Bainville accurately predicted the consequences of the peace settlement right up to the second world war. Instead of having Italy firmly on the side of those interested in upholding the status-quo, France was the sole major power left on the continent with an interest in upholding the peace-settlement. Bainville notes that this required her to upkeep an army on war-time footing at all times, which she didn't have the political will to do in the long run. Just tought I should do some PR for a non-english book that most americans probably don't know of, but which is really superbly written and incredibly premonitory. Bainville very accurately predicts the diplomatic events of the next 20 years. It's all in there - from Hungary and Italys alliance with Germany, to the dissolution of Tschekoslovakia right up to the German-Soviet alliance. I'm quite certain it has been translated to english.

On a more prosaic note: Gamewise, if Italy joins the CP its pretty much game over for the TE, at least before 1916. It would simply give the CP to many garrison units. Alternatively, it could maybe be compensated by a severe morale loss for AH.

[Sieben_slith]

ORIGINAL: Lascar


[Many of the grognards have been playing this since it came out and have been able to identify many bugs and suggested improvements that Frank was willing to implement. It has become a more accurate and instructive simulation because of the efforts of the grognards and Frank so that both the grognards and persons like yourself can eventually reap the benefits of those efforts.

I appreciate the effort that the author and a coterie of dedicated players have put into a game on a neglected part of history, but after a year it has still not reached stability in terms of rules (I didn't mean code stability, boodaga; no, it doesn't crash to desktop). My point is that I paid $50 for a game that still has many ongoing bugs as a simulation (as witnessed by this very thread) and I am unwilling to put my precious gaming time into it while that is true. I play wargames (and I've been playing them since Avalon Hill published Tactic II) as much to educate myself as for entertainment, since I have found that playing out "what ifs" can help me understand the actual course of history. While I've read general and some specific histories, I don't know a lot about WW1. That's why I bought the game.

I apologize if my earlier post offended anyone. I'll come back in six months or so. After all, the game will still be new to me.

[Kaliber]

ORIGINAL: Sieben Elfriend

ORIGINAL: Lascar


[Many of the grognards have been playing this since it came out and have been able to identify many bugs and suggested improvements that Frank was willing to implement. It has become a more accurate and instructive simulation because of the efforts of the grognards and Frank so that both the grognards and persons like yourself can eventually reap the benefits of those efforts.

I appreciate the effort that the author and a coterie of dedicated players have put into a game on a neglected part of history, but after a year it has still not reached stability in terms of rules (I didn't mean code stability, boodaga; no, it doesn't crash to desktop). My point is that I paid $50 for a game that still has many ongoing bugs as a simulation (as witnessed by this very thread) and I am unwilling to put my precious gaming time into it while that is true. I play wargames (and I've been playing them since Avalon Hill published Tactic II) as much to educate myself as for entertainment, since I have found that playing out "what ifs" can help me understand the actual course of history. While I've read general and some specific histories, I don't know a lot about WW1. That's why I bought the game.

I apologize if my earlier post offended anyone. I'll come back in six months or so. After all, the game will still be new to me.

Hi,

I don't think anyone is offended by your post. It's simply a matter of understanding how the development of these games work. If there hadn't been a dedicated group of gamers tracking down bugs and fine tuning in terms of play balance, these games would have been way to pricey. Can you imagine Frank and Matrixgames hiring 5-10 people to play part-time?

The reason these games work is that there are dedicated gamers like Lascar who've been there right from the beginning tracking down bugs and making various suggestions to increase play balance and make GOA a better game. The most dedicated gamers are also generaly those who play most competitively, simply because they find it more entertaining. That's why we're debating about rail point costs and what not. And as long as you have the same version number, the different betas are compatible.

Everyone can of course be a "free rider" for as long as he wants. I, for example, have had EiA installed on my computer for a year, but still haven't played any PBEM, simply because the game still doesn't work very well. In time, I'll be there. I leave it to others to play the buggy versions.

Every strategy game has these issues - particularly those small-budget games like GOA who only appeal to a niche market. It would be interesting to see how many copies Matrix has sold. Of course, they won't disclose those figures, but in my opinion it doesn't allow them to have more than one man on the project.

Of course, there comes a time when it simply takes too long to get a final product. That's usually because it's a flawed game from the outset. I don't think it's the case for GOA. On the contrary, it's an excellent and very enjoyable game. It is of course a nuisance when there comes a new patch not compatible with the older patches, but then we just have to finish ongoing games before upgrading. It should a matter of two weeks at most.