Page 2 of 3
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:33 pm
by operating
İzmir is a city in the western extremity of Anatolia and the third most populous city in Turkey, after Istanbul and Ankara.[1][2] İzmir's metropolitan area extends along the outlying waters of the Gulf of İzmir and inland to the north across Gediz River's of delta, to the east along an alluvial plain created by several small streams and to a slightly more rugged terrain in the south. The ancient city was known as Smyrna (Greek: Σμύρνη Smyrni), and the city was generally referred to as Smyrna in English, until the Turkish Postal Service Law of 28 March 1930 made "İzmir" the internationally recognized name.
The city of İzmir is composed of several metropolitan districts. Of these, Konak district corresponds to historical İzmir, this district's area having constituted the "İzmir Municipality" (Turkish: İzmir Belediyesi) area until 1984, Konak until then having been a name for a central neighborhood around Konak Square, still the core of the city. With the constitution of the "Greater İzmir Metropolitan Municipality" (Turkish: İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi), the city of İzmir became a compound bringing together initially nine, and more recently eleven metropolitan districts, namely Balçova, Bayraklı, Bornova, Buca, Çiğli, Gaziemir, Güzelbahçe, Karabağlar, Karşıyaka, Konak and Narlıdere. Almost all of these settlements are former district centers or neighborhoods which stood on their own, with their own distinct features and temperament. In an ongoing processus, the Mayor of İzmir was also vested with authority over the areas of additional districts reaching from Bergama in the north to Selçuk in the south, bringing the number of districts to be considered as being part of İzmir to twenty-one under the new arrangements, two of these having been administratively included in İzmir only partially.
Might it be historically correct that Ismir (post-1930) be named Smyrna (pre-1930) on the map.....?
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:43 am
by operating
Every once in a while I'll have 2 items in the same tech tree at the same expected completion date (turn), yet only one is released, the other get's stuck in "limbo" for another turn. Take note: In this SS the tech has "0" next to it. Is this a BUG? Oh yeah! I did get Flash Spotting, however I really wanted/needed poison gas the most. Could it be programed to have both techs released on the same turn? or at least have the choice of which one a player would rather have released first? Not only that I'd have to delay upgrading the artillery for 2 turns because of this glitch. The whole damn thing is screw'ee!

RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:11 am
by stockwellpete
ORIGINAL: stockwellpete
I have just finished my first full solo game for perhaps a year or so now. The game played very well and appears stable - and there are a lot of new features to add to the overall interest. I played as Central Powers on the middle level of difficulty and I achieved an ultimate victory by late 1918 (the USA did not enter the war).
Initially I was held by both the French and the Serbs, but I made more progress against the Russians and eventually encircled and destroyed their army in Poland. I then destroyed their fleet as well. The Italians joined the war in 1915 so the western front was fairly well deadlocked, but I continued to make progress against the Russians and finally forced them out of the war in the spring of 1916 after capturing Moscow. The Turks were able to hold the Russians in the Caucasus and once the Russians had surrendered they were able to move units to Palestine. The next breakthrough was against the French in late 1916 and the Germans took Verdun then broke through completely and took Paris. By early 1917 the French surrendered, then the Italians did as well after losing Milan. The Romanians surrendered when facing total encirclement shortly afterwards and the Portuguese capitulated without firing a shot! The war continued against the British who were all alone now - but once Germany began a massive naval building programme they too surrendered in the autumn of 1918 (the Turks, with German assistance, were pushing them back in Palestine too).
I think this was a very plausible alternate history. There were just a few oddities. Both the Russian Revolution special events appeared on the screen even though the Russians had surrendered; an incomplete Goeben warship message appeared when I moved that unit and a fully complete message appeared about two turns later; the Italians appeared to be mass producing artillery but never got any of it into action (perhaps there needs to be limits on how many units a nation can have at any time?).
Overall, very good though - and I shall try again next week on the hardest level.
I played a second solo game as the Central Powers, this time on the hardest level, and again I achieved an ultimate victory (by early 1918). The Russians surrendered at the end of 1916 but the two Russian revolution captions came up again afterwards. There were no other bugs that I could see. My conclusion is that Germany is a bit too strong in terms of its PP production. I won the game comfortably and I knew I would win as early as mid 1915. Maybe the PP available to Germany could be tweaked a bit?
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:14 am
by operating
Noticed the ship icons do not display "Triple Turrets" on both dreadnaughts and light cruisers:

RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:17 am
by operating
ORIGINAL: operating
Noticed the ship icons do not display "Triple Turrets" on both dreadnaughts and light cruisers:
Light cruiser:

RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:13 am
by AdmiralSarek
To solve the Turkey problem, can sea hexes be modified to be territorial waters, you need to declare war to move in to them, just like land hexes.
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:37 am
by TripleCP
ORIGINAL: stockwellpete
I played a second solo game as the Central Powers, this time on the hardest level, and again I achieved an ultimate victory (by early 1918). The Russians surrendered at the end of 1916 but the two Russian revolution captions came up again afterwards. There were no other bugs that I could see. My conclusion is that Germany is a bit too strong in terms of its PP production. I won the game comfortably and I knew I would win as early as mid 1915. Maybe the PP available to Germany could be tweaked a bit?
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from thumping the AI. I just finished my second game in a row playing against a Privileged Central Powers AI in which the Germans never captured Brussels (and lost 3-4 armies that tried to bypass/encircle it), lost Koenigsberg in the autumn of 1914 (Danzig, too, in the second game), and were completely on the defensive on the Eastern and Western Fronts by the Christmas Truce event. In the first game, they surrendered in spring 1916 just before it appeared that the British were going to narrowly beat the Russians to Berlin. In the second, the Russians took Berlin on 15 April 1915 and Germany surrendered later that summer, with Austria following in autumn and the Ottomans in early 1916. Italy was able to walk into Trento and Trieste on their first turn in both games, and Serbia never had to yield any territory beyond the northwestern hex that the Austrians always attack on their opening turn. In my next Entente game, I may help the Germans out by sending the French armies into Alsace rather than towards Belgium
By contrast, I'm 50/50 at best when it comes to taking Paris in 1914 when I play as the Central Powers. Germany's current PP feels about right...though the AI lets too many convoys get through. I wouldn't want to see Germany beefed up any more in the name of artificial "balance", but as it stands the Entente definitely has the advantage in my book. (Maybe the blockade should be in effect by default at the start of the game, with Atlantic shipping only resuming if the naval balance shifts in Germany's favor.)
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:45 am
by operating
ORIGINAL: TripleCP
ORIGINAL: stockwellpete
I played a second solo game as the Central Powers, this time on the hardest level, and again I achieved an ultimate victory (by early 1918). The Russians surrendered at the end of 1916 but the two Russian revolution captions came up again afterwards. There were no other bugs that I could see. My conclusion is that Germany is a bit too strong in terms of its PP production. I won the game comfortably and I knew I would win as early as mid 1915. Maybe the PP available to Germany could be tweaked a bit?
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from thumping the AI. I just finished my second game in a row playing against a Privileged Central Powers AI in which the Germans never captured Brussels (and lost 3-4 armies that tried to bypass/encircle it), lost Koenigsberg in the autumn of 1914 (Danzig, too, in the second game), and were completely on the defensive on the Eastern and Western Fronts by the Christmas Truce event. In the first game, they surrendered in spring 1916 just before it appeared that the British were going to narrowly beat the Russians to Berlin. In the second, the Russians took Berlin on 15 April 1915 and Germany surrendered later that summer, with Austria following in autumn and the Ottomans in early 1916. Italy was able to walk into Trento and Trieste on their first turn in both games, and Serbia never had to yield any territory beyond the northwestern hex that the Austrians always attack on their opening turn. In my next Entente game, I may help the Germans out by sending the French armies into Alsace rather than towards Belgium
By contrast, I'm 50/50 at best when it comes to taking Paris in 1914 when I play as the Central Powers. Germany's current PP feels about right...though the AI lets too many convoys get through. I wouldn't want to see Germany beefed up any more in the name of artificial "balance", but as it stands the Entente definitely has the advantage in my book. (Maybe the blockade should be in effect by default at the start of the game, with Atlantic shipping only resuming if the naval balance shifts in Germany's favor.)
I've said this before and I will say it now: I used to play CTGW "exclusively" in SP, sure enough after awhile (many, many games) I was not getting the satisfaction anymore from the game like I used to. Decided to go MP for the first time "ever"!! Going MP changed my whole appreciation of the game, got my ass kicked, learned that there are other players out there with the same commander skills I have, as well as others who are superior commanders. Some commanders I think are just "naturals" (have a good understanding of the game), whereas others are developing their skills, all-in-all I think everyone in MP has fun with the game, win-lose or draw... I've been playing MP for at least 2 years here, and Ya know: I still lose games (matches in MP), regardless, enjoy every minute of it. So when I read posts (comments) like from the members above, I strongly suggest to go MP if you think you are winning too easily in SP, I will guarantee it will open your eyes up..[;)]
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:43 am
by operating
I get a kick out of Sweden!!! Sweden "does get a RR point" to start with, but there are no railroads in Sweden, however Sweden does have a port, but "no transport points" to start with, seems kind of strange...[&:]
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:01 am
by TripleCP
Yeah, multiplayer offers an altogether different experience, but I don't accept the implicit argument many game makers seem to be making these days that SP is just for learning the ropes before moving on to the "real game" by playing MP. I think it was EA that did a survey a few years ago that found around 85% of their customers never even play MP. Based on some of the AARs, as the game stands now I'd need to agree to some house rules to really enjoy it (such as no disbanding of Small Garrisons).
I haven't tired of playing the AI just yet, but it's got some issues that really should be looked into. I tried to lose a game yesterday by committing the French Army to an all out offensive into Alsace-Lorraine and leaving the way to Paris practically unguarded. I managed to encircle and capture Metz and Strassburg before wheeling north to retake Liege (guarded by a Zeppelin) and cutting off the German forces in Belgium. The Central Powers AI seems to always weaken the Western Front early on in order to help Austria against Serbia, a strategy that's as ill-advised as it is ahistorical.
The Entente AIs biggest problem occurs when Italy enters the war. It would be interesting to see how it would play out on an alternative map with a neutral buffer zone along the Franco-Italian border to prevent the (almost always pointless) back and forth between the two. Maybe Britain could also get a "capital" somewhere along the French northern coast in order to allow direct deployment to the continent. France might actually be able to hold on if they get more British support.
[Central Powers AI unhealthy fixation on Serbia confirmed-I declared war on Italy to see how facing the Triple Alliance would be...all quiet in the French Riviera, but there are Italians starting to show up in the Balkans to further add to the Ausro-German traffic jam.]
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 2:03 am
by TripleCP
ORIGINAL: operating
I get a kick out of Sweden!!! Sweden "does get a RR point" to start with, but there are no railroads in Sweden, however Sweden does have a port, but "no transport points" to start with, seems kind of strange...[&:]
Maybe I'll declare war on them, too. I wonder how long it'll take them to get to Belgrade?
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:45 am
by operating
ORIGINAL: TripleCP
Yeah, multiplayer offers an altogether different experience, but I don't accept the implicit argument many game makers seem to be making these days that SP is just for learning the ropes before moving on to the "real game" by playing MP. I think it was EA that did a survey a few years ago that found around 85% of their customers never even play MP. Based on some of the AARs, as the game stands now I'd need to agree to some house rules to really enjoy it (such as no disbanding of Small Garrisons).
For one: One of the main developers here only plays the game in SP, so your thoughts and concerns he pays particular attention to and has also indicated for the next version that SGs will have no upkeep costs what-so-ever, making disbanding SGs senseless, unless for some tactical/operational reason would a player disband an SG.
I'll say this: The MP community here has been very active, many participating for the first time. I've looked to other games to play MP, but felt they were a nightmare to do logistically, real grognard stuff, everyone's wants and needs vary, to which I respect.
ORIGINAL: TripleCP
ORIGINAL: operating
I get a kick out of Sweden!!! Sweden "does get a RR point" to start with, but there are no railroads in Sweden, however Sweden does have a port, but "no transport points" to start with, seems kind of strange...[&:]
Maybe I'll declare war on them, too. I wonder how long it'll take them to get to Belgrade?
One of the beauties of MP here is: You can actually exchange game information with a willing opponent, which you would never get from the AI. In recent matches opponents have attacked Denmark and Sweden, resulting unprecedented view of those countries that I'd never get versus the AI..
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:47 am
by operating
ORIGINAL: AdmiralSarek
To solve the Turkey problem, can sea hexes be modified to be territorial waters, you need to declare war to move in to them, just like land hexes.
Admiral
To be specific: I believe you are referring to the Bosporus Straits in particular. Or should the Dardanelles sea hexes to it's west be included also?
I'm almost in agreement with Kirk in putting a port to the Black Sea side of Constantinople since reading up on Kiylos, where Admiral Souchon gathered his fleet to raid Russian ports, as described at this site:
http://www.turkeyswar.com/navy/navalops.html . Plus I would be for keeping the current Constantinople port as it is, as a result Constantinople would be the only city on the map with 2 ports, unless Kirk decided to create another city/port (called Kiylos) one hex just to the north-northwest of Constantinople.
Secondly: included in the above article, it describes the presence of German submarines in Turkish waters, as quoted below:
German Submarines
Two important developments during the latter half of 1915 had a significant impact on Turkish naval efforts in the Black Sea. First, German submarines arrived in Turkey. A total of 13 German submarines have been active in Turkish waters during the war and some of them have undertaken successful operations against the Russians in the Black Sea. The first sortie by a German submarine into the Black Sea was made by UB-7 on July 5, and this marked the beginning of a new phase of the war in the Black Sea. Second, on October 6, 1915, Bulgaria joined the Central Powers, the Bulgarian Navy was given under the command of Admiral Souchon as Varna became a base for Central Powers’ naval efforts in the Black Sea.
Of course it mentions Varna as a port (that's another corundum).
This is on my wish list: That a German sub fleet be deployed at Constantinople at some point in 1915. After-all the French get fleets deployed (turn 4 or 5) at North Africa (
NO cost) and the English get fleets deployed for the Gallipoli campaign (turn 23) (
at No cost), So why not have German sub fleets to Turkey get the same treatment?
What's fair is fair!!! Why should Germany PAY for the building of a sub fleet (and pay for it's upkeep while in the shipyard), that would be deployed 4 turns later at Cuxhaven , then spend upkeep on this fleet on it's journey to Turkey, where-as the French and English get all this for
FREE? And GEE! How about the ANSACS who get teleported to Cairo! and you guessed it---For
FREE!!!! and let's not forget the Canadian infantry that get teleported to England, you guessed it again----
FOR FREE!!!! But somehow the Germans get the
SHAFT!!!!![&:]
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:33 pm
by Hellfirejet
Submarine fleet for Turkey 1915 I can do that for you Rob!![:)]
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:44 pm
by operating
ORIGINAL: kirk23
Submarine fleet for Turkey 1915 I can do that for you Rob!![:)]
All-Right! You just made my exclusive Christmas card mailing list...[:D]
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:21 am
by operating
ORIGINAL: kirk23
Submarine fleet for Turkey 1915 I can do that for you Rob!![:)]
Not sure when German sub fleet arrived in the Eastern Med or Turkey in 1915? or, where (on the map) it attacked the Russian fleet in July 1915? So to me, an educated guess would be on a turn sometime before July 1915, perhaps May or June. Have to question if this sub fleet was in the area at the time of the Gallipoli landings? It would be an interesting AAR history read if it was present. Have to do a research about naval action on or about the time of the Gallipoli Campaign. The more I get into The Great War, the more I realize what I don't know about The Great War.
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:39 am
by operating
Hi Kirk!
This site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_ope ... s_Campaign has provided some more food for thought as to when German submarines arrived in the Eastern Med/Turkey. Will include excerpts from the site in quotes below:
One of these quotes indicates the presence of German subs in March 1915, which could mean they were deployed there before March 1915....
Further attempts[edit]
Keyes remained a firm supporter of naval action, and on 23 September submitted a further proposal to pass through the Dardanelles to de Robeck. De Robeck disliked the plan, but nonetheless passed it to the Admiralty. Risk to ships had increased since March, due to the presence of German submarines in the Mediterranean and the Sea of Marmara, where the British ships would be inviting targets if the plan succeeded. On the other hand, minesweeping was now better equipped and some of the ships had nets or mine bumpers which it was hoped would improve their chances against mines. The Ottoman Empire now had better supply routes from Germany whereas demands on the navy for more ships to support the attempt had to be added to continuing commitments of ships for the land action, and the ongoing campaign at Salonica attempting to support Serbia
The first French submarine to enter the Sea of Marmara was Turquoise. However, it was forced to turn back and, on 30 October, when attempting to pass back through the straits, ran aground beneath a fort and was captured intact. The crew of twenty-five were taken prisoner and documents detailing planned Allied operations were discovered. This included a scheduled rendezvous with HMS E20 on 6 November. The rendezvous was kept by the German U-boat U-14 which torpedoed and sank E20 killing all but nine of the crew. Turquoise was salvaged and incorporated (but not commissioned) into the Ottoman Navy as the Onbasi Müstecip, named after the gunner who had forced the French commander to surrender.
The Allied submarine campaign in the Sea of Marmara was the one significant success of the Gallipoli Campaign, forcing the Ottomans to abandon it as a transport route. Between April and December 1915, a total of nine British and four French submarines sank one battleship, one destroyer, five gunboats, eleven troop transports, forty-four supply ships, and 148 sailing vessels at a cost of eight Allied submarines which were sunk in the strait or in the Sea of Marmara.[28]
In 1993, a coal mining operation revealed the wreck of the German submarine UB-46 near the Kemerburgaz coast. After carrying out missions in Black Sea, on its way back, UB-46 hit a mine near Karaburun and sank with all hands. It is now on display at Besiktas Naval Museum in Istanbul.[29]
Also on 27 April, a kite-balloon ship had spotted an Ottoman transport ship moving near the Narrows. Queen Elizabeth, stationed off Gaba Tepe, had fired across the peninsula, at a range of over ten mi (8.7 nmi; 16 km), and sank the transport with her third shot. For much of the campaign, the Ottomans transported troops via rail, though other supplies continued to be transported by ship on the Sea of Marmara and Dardanelles.
It quickly became evident that the battle for Gallipoli would not be a swift or easy operation. At Helles, which was initially the main battlefield, a series of costly battles only managed to edge the front line closer to Krithia. Through the early battles, the Royal Navy continued to provide support via bombardments. However, in May three battleships were torpedoed: Goliath in Morto Bay on 12 May; Triumph off Anzac on 25 May; and Majestic off W Beach on 27 May. Goliath was sunk by the Ottoman torpedo boat Muâvenet-i Millîye while the other two were sunk by U-21.
Allied troops transports[edit]
An other important aspect of the allied naval operations was transporting safely the many thousands of soldiers to and from the Dardanelles over the Mediterranean Sea. The major threats were attacks by German and Austrian-Hungarian submarines and mines. The only major loss during the Dardanelles Campaign was the sinking of the HMT Royal Edward on 13 August 1915. The ship sailed from Alexandria, Egypt to Gallipoli with 1,367 officers and men onboard and was torpedoed by SM UB-14 near the Dodecanese. 935 lives were lost.
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:38 am
by operating
Often have read how German subs were shipped by rail to the Adriatic for deployment. What I question (and will research): Were all English subs built in England then sent to the Med. for deployment? If so, The Germans should be able to do the same thing... (from the production queue)
SM UB-45 was a Type UB II submarine or U-boat built for and operated by the German Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine) during World War I. UB-45 operated in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas, and was sunk by a mine in November 1916.
UB-45 was ordered in July 1915 and was laid down at the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen in September. UB-45 was about 37 metres (121 ft 5 in) in length and displaced between 270 and 305 metric tons (266 and 300 long tons), depending on whether surfaced or submerged. She was equipped to carry a complement of four torpedoes for her two bow torpedo tubes and had an 5-centimeter (2.0 in) deck gun. As part of a group of six submarines selected for Mediterranean service, UB-45 was broken into railcar-sized components and shipped to Pola where she was assembled and then launched and commissioned in May 1916.
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:10 am
by operating
Kirk, I know this is like "beating a dead horse" and originally in the game when it was first released: The deployment of a German submarine fleet before WW I even started, in the Mediterranean or Adriactic Seas. I question why this German sub fleet was removed in later versions, whereas, they should have stayed in the game (to my thinking correctly so)?
Campaigns[edit]
See also: Adriatic Campaign of World War I, Mediterranean U-boat Campaign (World War I) and Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign
In the Mediterranean Sea, the war began with most of the large, but elderly French fleet deployed on escort duty to protect convoys across the Mediterranean from the smaller, but newer Austrian fleet and cover against possible Italian entry into the war on Austria's side. Several British ships were also sent to Malta to reinforce the British Mediterranean Fleet. Germany also had a small presence in the Mediterranean with a few ships based at the Austrian naval base of Pola (in current day Croatia) and at the commencement of hostilities,
RE: Thoughts on 1.64
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:06 am
by operating
ORIGINAL: operating
Often have read how German subs were shipped by rail to the Adriatic for deployment. What I question (and will research): Were all English subs built in England then sent to the Med. for deployment? If so, The Germans should be able to do the same thing... (from the production queue)
SM UB-45 was a Type UB II submarine or U-boat built for and operated by the German Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine) during World War I. UB-45 operated in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas, and was sunk by a mine in November 1916.
UB-45 was ordered in July 1915 and was laid down at the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen in September. UB-45 was about 37 metres (121 ft 5 in) in length and displaced between 270 and 305 metric tons (266 and 300 long tons), depending on whether surfaced or submerged. She was equipped to carry a complement of four torpedoes for her two bow torpedo tubes and had an 5-centimeter (2.0 in) deck gun. As part of a group of six submarines selected for Mediterranean service, UB-45 was broken into railcar-sized components and shipped to Pola where she was assembled and then launched and commissioned in May 1916.
To add to this post, I found this site about British K type submarines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine all were built in England (
only using this as an example). Yet they can be deployed from the production queue to several ports around the CTGW map outside of Great Britain itself (teleported), whereas, the Germans are not allowed to do so to AH ports, as they did historically. So why should English subs get this advantage from the production queue? (was this a result of biased developers?) [&:]