Thoughts on 1.60 beta patch

[operating]

NO, I was not expecting to have concrete bunkers on mountain hexes, pillboxes is another story, yes, they commonly thought of as being concrete, however they are very often timber, or composed of native rocks (in abundance on mountains), or a combination of both. Many mountains on the map are in arid regions, that may or may not ever have snow (lower elevations), in (some/many) cases seasonally. With these thoughts in mind, is why I would consider it likely to have a level 2 entrenchment on mountain hexes, than unlikely. Hmmm! Maybe there is a history of pillboxes through pictures or articles can be produced to back this up, will have to look into this.

[Hellfirejet]

I have increased Serbia's PPs + Shell capacity,I have also given them another 2 Garrison units positioned near Skopje,the Entrenchment level as per different terrain has been increased slightly.

Mountain Entrenchment increased from 1 too 3

[suprass81]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have increased Serbia's PPs + Shell capacity,I have also given them another 2 Garrison units positioned near Skopje,the Entrenchment level as per different terrain has been increased slightly.

Mountain Entrenchment increased from 1 too 3

Instead increaseing Serbia's PPs maybe you should just "move" some prodaction from Belgrade to Skopie. Let's say about 7 PP. This will prevent quick downing of the Serbia's prodaction. Increaseing Serbia's prodaction can make them to hard to kill. Just make sure tht after destroying Belgrade and Krlajevo Serbs can have at last 5 PP income and army that can build a one row defensive line. What do you think guys?

[Reanimator]

Hi I've played two games with the beta patch and I have experienced slow downs as well in both them. Somewhere around turn 17.

[operating]

Hi Kirk!

Thanks for responding.. Your suggestion does not seem radical, if anything more towards appropriate. If we could get a look at your proposed production window would be nice. The 2 new garrisons is OK from what I can see for "now", however they suck up 4 PP per turn (option would be: to disband to gain PP and also to lower upkeep costs), which would soon turn Serbia's PP to the negative. The uptick of 24 PP at the start is a positive, is that the true # after initial assaults? Your SS does not reveal any changes to individual city produced PP. Suprass's idea of transferring PP from Belgrade to Skopje has merit, could it be done without upsetting the balance of the game? I have a tendency to think not... Most players RR East Front German artillery and fighters to the Serbian Front ASAP and if I am not mistaken: The AI directs German units to that sector also, not necessarily the same units. Making the Serb artillery more relevant is a plus

Personally I'm more for building of level 2 entrenching on mountain hexes instead of increasing the natural terrain entrenching feature to 3, or what "might be" of greater appeal, a combination of both. The only reason I would justify a level 2 entrenching by units, is in the case of the hex being captured after a long stay by the previous occupants (providing they had the proper entrenching tech level). So that the new occupants (captors) would at least have level 1 entrenching plus natural terrain. So in other words: even if a side has all 3 entrenching techs, the most a unit would be able to entrench on a mountain hex, would be a level 2. So that no hex on the map would have a "total" no greater than the entrenching capacity of 5, combined from unit entrenching plus natural terrain.

If anybody has an opinion about this, please jump in! The more ideas, the better...

Thanks, Bob

[Hellfirejet]

In Suprass81 initial post,one of the first things he did was to disband his Artillery? I did not give Serbia Artillery in game, just to have players disband them.So if players feel that Serbia lacks PPs etc,then my only option is to increase City PPs and the Countries manpower as a whole,and at the same time,try not to make Serbia to powerful an opponent.The settings in the following 2 screen shots,give Serbia enough strength, without having to resort to disbanding her Artillery,So Serbia now has more PPs,Manpower & Shells at the start of the war.[;)]


Can I please ask gamers,to try and not disband Artillery,the Artillery unit in game plays a vital role,in defending your Country.

[Hellfirejet]

Turn 1 Serbia management screen.

[operating]

Kirk,

Not to sound like a broken record: Minor countries do not get Commanders. I'm all for getting Commanders (as it is) into the game ASAP, for they add dimension to the action. Yes, I am aware of some copyright issue, art issue that has gotten in the way of increasing the Commanders' pool, in the meantime, has there been any progress towards implementing a variety of new Commanders? Commanders, has a distinct advantage over minor nations that are not allowed such an asset. Maybe a compromise could be made that a given side's Commander also have it's quality rating, to have an effect on minor like sided country.. This would not affect copyrights (in my mind) that are already included in the game. If copyrighting is limiting the scope of the game, then just adjust/expand to what is legally permitted in the game now. What I am driving at is: Let's say that either a French or English ground unit (with commander) in Serbia (or like country), would have Command over all Entente units within it's sphere of command. Due to the lack of being able to produce native commanders. I really cannot give a historical argument against such a development, whereas, the game is hamstrung from doing otherwise.

Sincerely, Bob

[Tomokatu]

Maybe there is a history of pillboxes through pictures or articles can be produced to back this up, will have to look into this.

Suggest also a search on "sangars" which is the name given (on the North West Frontier) to shelters assembled without mortar from local native rocks. (Lots of those up the Khyber Pass)Were these what you were thinking of on the Isonzo front?

[suprass81]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

In Suprass81 initial post,one of the first things he did was to disband his Artillery? I did not give Serbia Artillery in game, just to have players disband them.So if players feel that Serbia lacks PPs etc,then my only option is to increase City PPs and the Countries manpower as a whole,and at the same time,try not to make Serbia to powerful an opponent.The settings in the following 2 screen shots,give Serbia enough strength, without having to resort to disbanding her Artillery,So Serbia now has more PPs,Manpower & Shells at the start of the war.[;)]


Can I please ask gamers,to try and not disband Artillery,the Artillery unit in game plays a vital role,in defending your Country.

Kirk- for me arty with ammo production 2 is still usless. I propose to increase ammo prod to 4 for Serbia and 2 for ammo stock at the begining of war. This mean that arty can fire first time in 3rd turn and from then it will be shooting 2 times in 5 turns. This is what will make arty a good unit to have. Please do not add new units- just remove at last 4 PP from Belgrade to Skopije. It will allow to keep 2 garrisons or one corps more after Belgrade is capture- this units with arty can hold some more (maybe enough for France and GB to come with aid). It is easy to make Serbia overpowered. For the first time I think that we are very close to make this game ballanced. In 1.60 you have some options to take at the begining of war- CP can attack Russia or France or finnish Serbia first. Don't make this one like other patches (in MP games) - "you must kill Serbia fast or Entente will kill you". For me CP should be able to kill Serbia even in 1914 but with the cost oif France and Russia campain.
This is my personal opinion- I hope to know yours.
Sorry for my bad english.

[operating]

Tomokatu,

Sangar (fortification)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sangar from the Western Sahara conflict probably dating from the 1980s.
A Sangar (or sanger) (Persian: Óä?Ñý) is a temporary fortified position with a breastwork originally constructed of stones,[1] and now built of sandbags and similar materials.[2] Sangars are normally constructed in terrain where the digging of trenches would not be practicable. The term is still frequently used by the British Army.

The word was adopted from Hindi and Pashto and derives originally from the Persian word sang, "stone".[3] Its first appearance in English (as recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary) is in the form sunga, and dates from 1841.[4]

Dug into what you said, At anytime in history, a Sangar would be considered field entrenchments, it's just a modern day term used. Mind you not all mountains are completely hard rock, there are many mountains that have alluvial soil, more so at lower elevations as a result of erosion, and rock degradation, certainly ground that could be entrenched.

Bob

[operating]

Hello Kirk,

Below are 3 SS concerning Serbia. The first 2 have to do with the amount of turns for Serbia to even achieve "Wire" entrench tech (12 to 13 turns, take your pick). The third SS in SP illustrates Serbia's position on turn 13.

Chao, Bob

[operating]

ORIGINAL: operating

Hello Kirk,

Below are 3 SS concerning Serbia. The first 2 have to do with the amount of turns for Serbia to even achieve "Wire" entrench tech (12 to 13 turns, take your pick). The third SS in SP illustrates Serbia's position on turn 13.

Chao, Bob

[operating]

I'm sure in the previous SS you noticed how many turns it would take just to get "wire" 12 to 13 turns, never mind getting "industrial warfare", which could take between 19 to 23 turns. Certainly I have experience at playing this game to get the below SS on turn 13. Many others in SP probably have the same or similar results. Fact is: Serbia almost never get's a chance to upgrade, by the time it does (if it survives), it will more than likely be so broke it cannot produce enough PP to implement upgrades. So to me: Keeping a lab the whole time is a waste. I have no suggestions at the moment, in time they will be forthcoming, have AH to consider too.

[operating]

ORIGINAL: operating

Tomokatu,

Sangar (fortification)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sangar from the Western Sahara conflict probably dating from the 1980s.
A Sangar (or sanger) (Persian: Óä?Ñý) is a temporary fortified position with a breastwork originally constructed of stones,[1] and now built of sandbags and similar materials.[2] Sangars are normally constructed in terrain where the digging of trenches would not be practicable. The term is still frequently used by the British Army.

The word was adopted from Hindi and Pashto and derives originally from the Persian word sang, "stone".[3] Its first appearance in English (as recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary) is in the form sunga, and dates from 1841.[4]

Dug into what you said, At anytime in history, a Sangar would be considered field entrenchments, it's just a modern day term used. Mind you not all mountains are completely hard rock, there are many mountains that have alluvial soil, more so at lower elevations as a result of erosion, and rock degradation, certainly ground that could be entrenched.

Bob

Below is a mountain terrain hex picture: What do you see in the picture? ans: Trees lines and rocky peaks, Warspite might see an Australian Beauty sunbathing at a ski resort, certainly a mixture of soil types.

[operating]

This was a nice surprise, that popped up yesterday in a MP match. This ANZAC memo/event included a free English infantry unit, don't know what triggers this event, however it is certainly "Welcomed"!

[operating]

Some food for thought; Barbed Wire was used in previous wars before WW1 (during the Second Boer War), why is it taking so long to be used in WW1?
Wire obstacle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Double apron fence
In the military science of fortification, wire obstacles are defensive obstacles made from barbed wire, barbed tape or concertina wire. They are designed to disrupt, delay and generally slow down an attacking enemy. During the time that the attackers are slowed down by the wire obstacle (or possibly deliberately channelled into killing zones) they are easy to target with machinegun and artillery fire. Depending on the requirements and available resources, wire obstacles may range from a simple barbed wire fence in front of a defensive position, to elaborate patterns of fences, concertinas, "dragon's teeth" and minefields hundreds of metres thick.

One example is "low wire entanglement", which consists of irregularly placed stakes that have been driven into the ground with only some 15 cm (six inches) showing. The barbed wire is then wrapped and tightened on to these. An enemy combatant running through the barrier, which is difficult to see, is apt to trip and get caught.

Wire obstacles may have originated with Union General Ambrose Burnside during the American Civil War Battle of Fort Sanders in the Knoxville Campaign, when telegraph wire was strung between tree stumps 30 to 80 yards in front of one part of the Union line. They first saw significant military use during the Second Boer War, and reached their pinnacle during World War I where, together with machine guns, they were responsible for many casualties in the trench warfare that dominated that conflict and gave the defending side substantial advantage.

[operating]

Hi Kirk!

Found this Franco-Prussian War read with a reference to Barbed Wire. Trying to get my head around the Barbed Wire tech approach to the game, for the game makes like Barbed Wire just got invented. Could not copy article, a page in a book that I do know how to retrieve except through this site.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XdgLAQ ... ar&f=false

Thanks, Bob

[operating]

Hi Kirk,

To date I have noticed 5 German supply fleets having a"10" count arriving on the map by turn 11. 1 from Norway, 2 from Sweden, plus the 2 from the South Atlantic, 500 PP all total. Compared to past versions that's next gain of approximately 370 supply points (PP). In a way I like this vast increase of PP playing as CP, for once Russia is knocked out, Germany would be unstoppable (Baltic would be all red dots to Entente subs). Any captured cities PP in Russia would also be added to the CP column. Combined "10" count supply ships plus additional PP from captured cities presents a huge advantage to CP in the long run. Granted, initially not all the supply ships survive their journeys, however 3 out of the 5 fleets have a relatively short run from A to B. As much as I like this as CP, I have to be honest it gives CP too much of an edge. I can understand the South Atlantic German convoys being a "10", for they most certainly will be attacked and will not be easily sunk. Please consider lowering northern German convoy points (to a 5 or so) or frequency of the northern convoys.

Have not played a full Entente game yet.

On the Entente side of the convoy ledger: By turn 11, 4 to 5 convoys enter game 1 French, 3 to 4 English, all of which have long voyages to get to their destinations. Starting with English convoy west of Iqeluit, 1 in South Atlantic, another Red Sea (?), then finally a French convoy near the USA. In other words, there seems to be no changes to the supply convoys from previous versions. Have not played enough to see if there has been any changes to frequency of future convoys.

Just thinking, Bob

[Hellfirejet]

I have given Germany the same Convoy PPs strength as British & French convoys,in an attempt to make the naval game much more interesting,all the major powers now have much more naval capability,so it is up to Britain mainly to attack the Convoy from Norway to Germany,Britain has more Dreadnoughts and Cruisers at her disposal,to accomplish this task for the duration of the war,if she fails to stop the German convoy's,then the fault lies with the Entente player,and to counter the Entente aggression,Germany only needs to build up her Submarine force,to inflict losses on the British naval strength.[;)]