Next Patch

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Does the game not have anti-aircraft guns to protect Cities,and if that don't work Mod the Zepplin so that its less effective,historically they were pretty crap slow and unmanouverable,I just bought the game,and I'm going through the manual,to see whats in game and to see what I can add!

warspite1

kirk23 - the developers are aware of this problem but until this is resolved players are trying house rules to prevent Strategic Bombing becoming the war winner of The Great War....

[soldier1]

I'd like to see strikes and the home front expanded upon as others have suggested. Having individual cities strike could cut their production capacity and these uprisings could be quelled by sending in garrisons. If left unchecked strikes could could spread or cause national morale to drop and even effect research. Theres currently little reason to secure the home front at the moment and against the AI i don't leave any units within my national borders. Civil unrest was a real concern for the great powers during WW1 and the national morale feature doesn't quite do it justice

[Naskra]

Zeppelin attacks ought to effect morale, not production. And not much.

[Amaranthus]

Agreed Naskra, and fighters should be more effective at intercepting bombers, especially when the fighter unit is sitting over the target city.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: soldier1

I'd like to see strikes and the home front expanded upon as others have suggested. Having individual cities strike could cut their production capacity and these uprisings could be quelled by sending in garrisons. If left unchecked strikes could could spread or cause national morale to drop and even effect research. Theres currently little reason to secure the home front at the moment and against the AI i don't leave any units within my national borders. Civil unrest was a real concern for the great powers during WW1 and the national morale feature doesn't quite do it justice

warspite1

This could be easily handled; a country HAS to keep a % of its units within its home borders at all times. One of the things I picked up in my first AAR was that Bulgarian troops were sent all over the place - but none were left within Bulgaria - allowing the Romanians to take Sofia easily when the former entered the war.

So, depending on the size of a country - and its commitment to the cause - x number must be maintained or there is a morale dice throw each turn that the required garrison level is not maintained. Players then have the choice as to whether they risk it or not.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

Agreed Naskra, and fighters should be more effective at intercepting bombers, especially when the fighter unit is sitting over the target city.

warspite1

Yes, see post 19.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Naskra

Zeppelin attacks ought to effect morale, not production. And not much.

warspite1

Personally I would like to see all strategic bombing removed from the game - tactical yes, strategic no - but an effect on morale does make sense if you maintain strategic bombing, rather than a production hit.

[Hellfirejet]

Well I normally like to play games as the Germans,but for the last 4 games I have played as the Entente,for 14 - 20 turns into each game as I'm testing settings,anyway what I have discovered is this,I use the Russian Battlefleet to intercept the Swedish iron ore convoy to Germany,and on every occasion I have destroyed it with no sign of the German navy there to protect it!!![&:]

So I decided to look for the missing German Battlefleet,and the AI keeps it sitting twiddling there thumbs in Wilhelmshaven,now this in 1914 but I think the German sailors have already gone on strike![:D]

Anyone else noticed this problem in there games?

[stormbringer3]

There is a problem with that convoy. It is never random in any aspect. You can also send in a British sub and always destroy it. I have made a decision that if I play the Entente I just leave it alone for play balance.

[Hellfirejet]

Does the AI escort and protect any convoys or for that matter does it seek them out and attack,I think that as far as the naval game goes, these should be one of the main reasons for having ships in the first place,I want a game that at least tries to follow history,where would Britain be if during the war they just let the merchant ships fend for themselves,I don't care about play balance war is not balanced,its about winning nothing else![;)]

[Myrddraal]

Yes it does try to escort friendly convoys and hunt for convoys to attack.

[Hellfirejet]

Good to know,just wondering why the German navy does not protect the Baltic convoy in the games I have played so far?

Hows about when a new convoy appears,then a cruiser unit also appears as an escort,maybe you can't have one without the other,sailing side by side across the Atlantic etc,just a thought![;)]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: fodder

GET RID OF THE AMMO CAP!!!!! Sorry for shouting.

Artillery ruled the WWI battlefields, but with the ammo cap you can't field more than two artillery units and have any chance of supplying them for more than a turn or two. This is very unrealistic. This is WWI, I should be able to field four or five artillery units and have stock piled enough ammo to be able to fire them for a month or two at a time.

The armoured train also needs to be looked at, if not removed. Armoured trains are not and never were front line armoured fighting vehicles. At best they were mobile or self propeled artillery or anti aircraft weapons. In game maybe they could be made so they could move and fire or fire and move the same turn as artillery or anti aircraft weapons.

First two years well until 1916 it should be difficult to stock pile arty due to shortages on both sides that hindered 14 and 15..

[Kuz]

Amphibious assults need to be looked at. Just played a game where the British throughout the game launched amphibious assult turn after turn. I'd established a defensive line for the Turks where he'd then flank it from the sea. Great tactic but during this period of history a bit of a stretch. Whats more the Turks really can't respond to this. Same all along the French coast as the Germans advanced into France. As far as I can tell there were 3 amphibious assults in WW1. British invaded German East Africa - failed, Galipoli - failed, and the Germans sea invaded Riga or the islands protecting the harbor which was successful. Maybe amphibious assult points should be added to the game along with Sea Transport points. ST goes from port to port and you have to pay for AT points at a much increased cost in order to invade. Similar to TOF.

Also I sent the High Seas Fleet into the Baltic to stop the British sub and Russains from wiping out the convoy. The minute I did my opponent sent two British cruisers to the north sea end of the Kiel Canal blocking the HSF from returning to Williamhaven. From what I've read this area was highly mined and should be off limits to the Entente.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Kuz

Amphibious assults need to be looked at. Just played a game where the British throughout the game launched amphibious assult turn after turn. I'd established a defensive line for the Turks where he'd then flank it from the sea. Great tactic but during this period of history a bit of a stretch. Whats more the Turks really can't respond to this. Same all along the French coast as the Germans advanced into France. As far as I can tell there were 3 amphibious assults in WW1. British invaded German East Africa - failed, Galipoli - failed, and the Germans sea invaded Riga or the islands protecting the harbor which was successful. Maybe amphibious assult points should be added to the game along with Sea Transport points. ST goes from port to port and you have to pay for AT points at a much increased cost in order to invade. Similar to TOF.

Also I sent the High Seas Fleet into the Baltic to stop the British sub and Russains from wiping out the convoy. The minute I did my opponent sent two British cruisers to the north sea end of the Kiel Canal blocking the HSF from returning to Williamhaven. From what I've read this area was highly mined and should be off limits to the Entente.

warspite1

I didn't realise that was possible in this game. But is, as you say, totally unrealistic. In the Great War the British could not employ their "close-in" blockade because of mines, destroyers and torpedoes - hence they had to blockade from a distance.

The green dots reflect this to an extent, but as mentioned before we need an actual penalty for fleets operating close inshore in certain areas. To the list I gave previously, obviously we need to add the entry/exit to the Kiel canal.

[Hellfirejet]

What was nearly impossible historically,is common place to the game,so naval wise the game is a shambles,British fleet blocking the Kiel canal its priceless, who bothers about little things like mine fields,submarine patrols,destroyer patrols,Fortified positions to name just afew things that should halt these things from happening,but then again the game does not have enough counters naval wise to do two things at once,how can the German Battlefleet be expected to patrol the Baltic and protect the German coast at Wilhelmshaven as well I rest my case,please fix the naval game!!![:(]

[warspite1]

You do not necessarily need counters for this - please seemy suggestion from the Naval Game thread post 29.

Any ships passing through, or operating in, certain defined areas are subject to a dice roll for every turn they are in the affected area. The result of this dice roll will determine either "no effect" or a loss of a strength point to the counter. This simulates coastal batteries, mines, torpedo boats etc

Edit: to make clearer.

[Hellfirejet]

Well if thats the case the deterant is not strong enough,British warships should not be able to get any where near Wilhelmshaven never mind Kiel,without taking heavy severe losses,hence the reason Britain adopted the distant blockade,because any thing else was doomed to failure.

[Kuz]

If your saying that the British Fleet blocking the Kiel Canal should have taken a SP loss, then its broke. Those two cruisers sat there from about the 5th turn into the game to when we quit in 1917 and took not one loss.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Well if thats the case the deterant is not strong enough,British warships should not be able to get any where near Wilhelmshaven never mind Kiel,without taking heavy severe losses,hence the reason Britain adopted the distant blockade,because any thing else was doomed to failure.

warspite1

[&:] That is what I am proposing - there is no deterant in the game at the moment. Fleets can operate in the Gulf of Finland, English Channel, Heligoland, Adriatic etc without problem. This is wrong.