Icarus Mod, Versions 6 and 7 in Preliminary Release

[shri]

So, my views-
1. Torpedo boats, maybe reduce it to 1 for all except UK and Ger.

2. Keep entrenchment as it is, Russia with level 5 trenches is a-historical, historically entire Fortress Poland fell extremely easily, was almost a cakewalk as compared to the supposed 3 layered defensive labyrinth. Russia should be brittle and keep leaking men/corps.

3. Keep the level 3 HQs as it is. As it is, CP has only 1 attacker faction - Germany, the Entente has 3, though UK takes time to pick steam and Russia loses it by then (or France is losing by then), so theoretically 2.

4. Get Storm Troopers in 4 waves in 1916 (1 wave) and 1917 (2 waves) and final wave in start of 1918, in Berlin (and surrounding hexes) by decisions. Fully upgraded. But just 2 Corps in each wave, for a total of 8 corps. They should start with level 2 (irrespective of research and with at least 2 extra attack and 1 extra defense as compared to normal corps and with 2 experience pips) and at 11 strength, but once destroyed, not being able to rebuild.
These were literally irreplaceable troops and shouldn't be rebuildable if fully destroyed but should start out very strong. They should cost a lot to build. Maybe 300 MPPs per corp, so 600 MPPs, spread over 4 turns. That's substantial investments for something which is unable to bought back.
Reinforcements should also cost more (comes back to being irreplaceable).
This should allow a German attack starting from mid/late 1916 onwards using these weapons.

5. Do push both Serbian detachments to 10 at start, Belgrade shouldn't fall. But remove the Serbian research to compensate. Serbia being able to research anything is too humorous, they lacked uniforms in the real war. Serbia infact needs to lose more men in Typhus 1914 Winter. It destroyed the Serbian army more than any offensive (pre Mackensen offensive).

6. Austria shouldn't have those desertion waves before 1917, it is a-historical, only after Franz Joseph died in winter of 1916 did the Hapsburg armies turn into memes, earlier they weren't bad.

7. Italy shouldn't get an Artillery and definitely not at the start, historically Italy performed terribly. No need to buff them up at all. They need to leak MPPs and should be a drag on the Entente not a boost.

8. France and UK should get their artillery earlier, maybe in Winter of 1914, to be in position for a spring 1915 all out attack. Infact the spring and summer French offensive would see more French deaths (in each campaign) than even 1914 Battle of Frontiers. France was bled white in 1915 doing futile attacks, is the reason why Falkenhyn felt so confident attacking them in 1916.

[Taaff]

There apparently was a Czech Legion in Italy. It only formed for active service in spring 1918, and its numbers were formed into 2 divisions, with roughly 25,000 men total.

So it should form later, in spring 1918. Authorized in January 1918 and effective from April-May 1918.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

So, my views-
1. Torpedo boats, maybe reduce it to 1 for all except UK and Ger.

2. Keep entrenchment as it is, Russia with level 5 trenches is a-historical, historically entire Fortress Poland fell extremely easily, was almost a cakewalk as compared to the supposed 3 layered defensive labyrinth. Russia should be brittle and keep leaking men/corps.

3. Keep the level 3 HQs as it is. As it is, CP has only 1 attacker faction - Germany, the Entente has 3, though UK takes time to pick steam and Russia loses it by then (or France is losing by then), so theoretically 2.

4. Get Storm Troopers in 4 waves in 1916 (1 wave) and 1917 (2 waves) and final wave in start of 1918, in Berlin (and surrounding hexes) by decisions. Fully upgraded. But just 2 Corps in each wave, for a total of 8 corps. They should start with level 2 (irrespective of research and with at least 2 extra attack and 1 extra defense as compared to normal corps and with 2 experience pips) and at 11 strength, but once destroyed, not being able to rebuild.
These were literally irreplaceable troops and shouldn't be rebuildable if fully destroyed but should start out very strong. They should cost a lot to build. Maybe 300 MPPs per corp, so 600 MPPs, spread over 4 turns. That's substantial investments for something which is unable to bought back.
Reinforcements should also cost more (comes back to being irreplaceable).
This should allow a German attack starting from mid/late 1916 onwards using these weapons.

5. Do push both Serbian detachments to 10 at start, Belgrade shouldn't fall. But remove the Serbian research to compensate. Serbia being able to research anything is too humorous, they lacked uniforms in the real war. Serbia infact needs to lose more men in Typhus 1914 Winter. It destroyed the Serbian army more than any offensive (pre Mackensen offensive).

6. Austria shouldn't have those desertion waves before 1917, it is a-historical, only after Franz Joseph died in winter of 1916 did the Hapsburg armies turn into memes, earlier they weren't bad.

7. Italy shouldn't get an Artillery and definitely not at the start, historically Italy performed terribly. No need to buff them up at all. They need to leak MPPs and should be a drag on the Entente not a boost.

8. France and UK should get their artillery earlier, maybe in Winter of 1914, to be in position for a spring 1915 all out attack. Infact the spring and summer French offensive would see more French deaths (in each campaign) than even 1914 Battle of Frontiers. France was bled white in 1915 doing futile attacks, is the reason why Falkenhyn felt so confident attacking them in 1916.

Agree with the above except 1 and 7

1: Torpedo boats. If you restrict nations like France and Italy to 1, the Entente will be hard pressed to take on the CP U-boat menace. As it is, Italy and France will be hard pressed to find the MPPs to do ASW and buy those boats. Restriction to 1 takes away player agency to make the hard choice to indeed buy the others. U-boats handled correctly by the CP can absolutely cripple the Entente.

7: Italy with its poor economy definitely needs a field artillery upon war entry. Even with it, the Italians will be extremely hard-pressed. So this change is for balance reasons.

[hannaj]

2. Keep entrenchment as it is, Russia with level 5 trenches is a-historical, historically entire Fortress Poland fell extremely easily, was almost a cakewalk as compared to the supposed 3 layered defensive labyrinth. Russia should be brittle and keep leaking men/corps.

Right now Russian and Ottoman entrenchment is lvl 3, German is lvl 5, everyone else is lvl 4 in Icarus.

This means that at least on plain fields and with a lvl 2 German general you can still take out fully entrenched Russians corps _without any artillery_
and with a positive kill ratio. At least after some standard NM disparity because the fall of Serbia and Warsaw (which will happen anyhow quite easily
before max entrenchment is reached).

I think this is very a-historical. The eastern frontier was less static because of maneuver, not because the Germans could attack Russian trenches
head-on loosing less attackers than defenders.


Thus, my plea is to increase Ottoman and Russian entrenchment to lvl 4.

hannaj

[teletabicus]

I think that throughout the SC series, some heavy field artillery is also factored into the corps. The artillery groups present in the game are not just additional, heavier artillery pieces, but also represent the direction and organization of fire and bombardment distribution, as well as the provision and use of ammunition at the army group level. It's reasonable that three German corps could break through an entrenched Russian corps, given the vastness of the front, a much lower density of men and a trench system that had to defend much more space compared to other fronts (except probably the Middle East and Mesopotamia), plus the Stavka's difficulty in coherently managing reserves.

I would agree with shri's point 5, but I fear that in terms of gameplay, the AH will simply end up not attempting any attacks in Serbia and waiting for its German cousin (which already happens quite a bit).

Regarding the Italians (point 7), not because I am Italian but because I have access to many national sources, I can say that the Italian army's performance until the autumn of 1917 was abysmal from the point of view of command and operational capacity. However, from a strictly military standpoint, Italy maintained almost constant offensive operations for two and a half years, repelled an AH counteroffensive in Trentino, and conquered Gorizia (during the same period on the Western Front, for example, the British conducted a disastrous campaign on the Somme, in more favorable terrain than the Italian front on the so-called Carso). What happened at Caporetto in October 1917 was a sort of moral collapse, a sort of 'strike' by the troops against the command. For this reason, I believe that Italy's poor performance in the late stages of the war should be simulated in terms of gameplay, more with DE than with interventions on strength and order of battle. I'm working on it.

[hannaj]

I think that throughout the SC series, some heavy field artillery is also factored into the corps. The artillery groups present in the game are not just additional, heavier artillery pieces, but also represent the direction and organization of fire and bombardment distribution, as well as the provision and use of ammunition at the army group level.

O.k., my take is similar but still somewhat different. Namely, that corps have factored in -as you wrote- field artillery which in the German case was 7.7 and 10.5 cm, but not the heavier foot artillery which was not available in sufficient quantities at the start of the war but is needed for attacking entrechments. "Heavy field artillery" is a bit of an oxymoron to my understanding. I thought the available foot artillery at the beginning of the war is represented by the 5 strength artillery unit the Germans have at the beginning of the war. The field artillery callibers also match quite nicely with corps not being able to easily take out heavily entrenched troops (but the Russians cannot heavily entrench in Icarus).

It's reasonable that three German corps could break through an entrenched Russian corps,

I agree that with 3 corps in attack preparation (no moving) plus maybe moving in 1-2 more to subsequently attack you should be able to kill an entrenched Russian corps (and you can with Russian lvl 4 entrenchment) but you shouldn't be able to do so with a positive kill ratio (as it is for lvl 3 entrenchment after only the first NM reductions with Warsaw and Serbia, not a complete breakdown of NM yet).

given the vastness of the front, a much lower density of men and a trench system that had to defend much more space compared to other fronts (except probably the Middle East and Mesopotamia), plus the Stavka's difficulty in coherently managing reserves.

I don't understand: one corps in the west and east represent the same amount of troops, more space just corresponds to the longer frontier, given by the map. Because of the longer frontier you cannot have multiple layers of troops (as you can have in the west. And if you had, you could counter attack breakthroughs in the west as is historical. But, players then often prefer to move their excess German troops against Russia and English against Ottomans/to Greece which strategically makes sense).
BTW, why is that asymmetric so that the Germans don't suffer from this argument?

Additionally, I would like to add that I do not believing in extreme disparities (economics aside) between the different sides on the long run. If a war drags on, all countries will be able and have been historically able to learn from the other side, and adapt to a similar level of such a basic thing as entrenchment. That the Russians didn't entrench so deep was 8and is) more because of the fluidity of the frontier. also with entrenchment lvl 4, the CPs can keep it fluid enough to advance toward one Russian NM center after the other and then rail in some artillery to conquer it. If the frontier can be stabilized in some parts, there is no reason the Russians cannot properly entrench if they go for it.

Having said that, let me emphasize that my main reason for suggesting lvl 4 entrenchment for Russia and Ottomans is gameplay and balance.

[teletabicus]

I don't know if in SCWW1 a corps in the West and East represent the same amount of troops. Personally, I've always thought that the Russian corps had more men than their German, AH, and French counterparts. We should ask Bill Runacre, but if each SP represented a fixed parameter for each nation, for example, 10,000 men, then Russia should have had more corps at the beginning. Numerically, its army was much larger than the German and AH combined.
However, I believe that the question of the level of Russian entrenchment should be thought of more in the light of the idea that for historical reasons and playability, Russia cannot consider a defensive strategy too convenient.
The beauty of Icarus however is that it is a work in progress (thanks mdsmall) and we can continuously test and evolve the mod as best as possible.

[hannaj]

However, I believe that the question of the level of Russian entrenchment should be thought of more in the light of the idea that for historical reasons and playability, Russia cannot consider a defensive strategy too convenient.
The beauty of Icarus however is that it is a work in progress (thanks mdsmall) and we can continuously test and evolve the mod as best as possible.

I agree on this. Defensive they need to go after Galicia offensive, but it should not be too convenient/easy.

What we disagree on is our assesement whether the defensive strategy is too easy with entrenchment lvl 4 and fair with lvl 3 (you) or fair with entrenchment lvl 4 and impossibly difficult with entrenchment lvl 3 (me).

[TofkY]

I think it's pretty silly that the "Trench"-Values can't be altered and units can't get bonuses/reductions if they are in a trench. I don't get why this is possbile for EVERY other ressource but not for the trench. Sems like something the devs should fix imo.

IF one coudl alter trnch values in the attached menu, then units in trenches could get a reduction in AP (maybe 2) and or bonus to defence, which would greatly enhance the western front actually being static but still brutal. This would also make it a meaningful choice to entrench and not something thats always good, when you have one AP left.

[mdsmall]

I think it's pretty silly that the "Trench"-Values can't be altered and units can't get bonuses/reductions if they are in a trench. I don't get why this is possbile for EVERY other ressource but not for the trench. Sems like something the devs should fix imo.

IF one coudl alter trnch values in the attached menu, then units in trenches could get a reduction in AP (maybe 2) and or bonus to defence, which would greatly enhance the western front actually being static but still brutal. This would also make it a meaningful choice to entrench and not something thats always good, when you have one AP left.

I fully agree and I have made this exactly this suggestion to the devs in the past. There may be a game engine reason for this (given that trenches are the only resource that can be constructed by units during a move). But if were possible to modify the benefit of trenches on combat and movement, it would open up a lot of interesting new possibilities. In the meantime, we work with what we have!

[TofkY]

I fully agree and I have made this exactly this suggestion to the devs in the past. There may be a game engine reason for this (given that trenches are the only resource that can be constructed by units during a move). But if were possible to modify the benefit of trenches on combat and movement, it would open up a lot of interesting new possibilities. In the meantime, we work with what we have!

Mhm maybe there are engine limitations, but fortifications can be constructed too in a similar way and those can be altered. Odd. Another thing I wondered about, while watching the match between you and OCB, was whether it's a bit powerful to have artillery both deentrench and demoralise. It seems that way the bombarded unit has almost no way to fight back and dies very easily. I only watched parts of the match though and haven't played the latest version myself yet.

[Beriand]

But fortifications are trenches - no?

I mean it literally, settings for fortifications are settings for trenches, at least in some cases.

[TofkY]

Yes they work pretty similar but they are theretically different buildings in the engine i think , only the "Trench" Building can't be edited for some reason. At least when you edit the fortification settings it doesn't change for trenches and in the right click menu it says Trench for Trenches, not fortification

[mdsmall]

But fortifications are trenches - no?

I mean it literally, settings for fortifications are settings for trenches, at least in some cases.

Hi - I checked it again and Beriand is correct. The settings for Fortifications in Defence Bonus menu not only apply to the few fortifications that start on the map (e.g. next to the Masurian Lakes), but to all trenches too. So you can increase the base maximum entrenchment and defense bonuses of trenches if you wish. Oddly though, fortifications do not appear as a terrain option on the Movement penalty menu, so you can not add a movement cost to cross a trench hex-side.

[mdsmall]

Another thing I wondered about, while watching the match between you and OCB, was whether it's a bit powerful to have artillery both deentrench and demoralise. It seems that way the bombarded unit has almost no way to fight back and dies very easily. I only watched parts of the match though and haven't played the latest version myself yet.

Hi - that is an interesting suggestion. In the vanilla game, artillery weapons tech increases both de-entrenchment and demoralization per shell. In Icarus, I allow artillery to de-entrench without that tech, while increasing the demoralization per shell with each tech increment. I could look into scaling back the demoralization effects. My preference would be to require more than one shell to de-entrench, however is not possible with the game engine. Firing two shells at 0.5 de-entrenchment each does not result in 1 level of de-entrenchment; it results in no de-entrenchment. I looked into all these options in the early design of this mod, but I will take another look it again.

[TofkY]

Hi - I checked it again and Beriand is correct. The settings for Fortifications in Defence Bonus menu not only apply to the few fortifications that start on the map (e.g. next to the Masurian Lakes), but to all trenches too. So you can increase the base maximum entrenchment and defense bonuses of trenches if you wish. Oddly though, fortifications do not appear as a terrain option on the Movement penalty menu, so you can not add a movement cost to cross a trench hex-side.

Interesting, then it applies pretty inconsistantly. I played around with the editor a bit and the bonuses/penalties menu for units stationed in certain ressources. When I gave units in fortifications -2 AP and +2 soft and hard defence, it worked for fortifications in east prussia but not for trenches. Odd way to code it, if the "normal" defence bonuses for fortifications apply to trenches.