Icarus Mod, Version 5 Available

[mdsmall]

Hey Michael,
some feedback from the 1916 game i am currently playing from both sides.

1. Germany should start with full trench, level 5 thus giving minimum level 6 entrenchments. It was bloody hard for the English to fight at the Somme and it should be. Right now an English well time offensive can reach Lille and roll the left flanks. Far too fast and early historically. Historically, Germans built the formidable Seigfried (called Hindenburg by the English) line which was the best trenches of the entire war and nearly impregnable....

Germany also can start with level 2 submarine and level 2 Air-ships and maybe 1 more Zeppelin, after all major Zeppelin raids and Submarine raids occurred in 1916. It maybe can start with Naval Warfare researched, thus giving the German player an alternative to spend massive MPP to upgrade German ships and fight a Jutland. (otherwise fighting Jutland is nonsense in 1916).

Additionally, General Bulow was dead by 1916 and Kluck was into retirement, maybe von Below and some other maybe von Hutier can replace those 2. (this gives a slight advantage to the Germans and compensates for 2 additional Russian corps to some extent).


2. I understand the need for Historical accuracy demands Monte N**** and Albania and Serbia surviving into 1916, but their ends give AH a-historically high NM and extra MPP. Maybe they can start dead and Serbian army in Albania preparing for departure. A-historical but game wise more balance. This will compensate by removing free NM and MPP for Austria.


3. Russian artillery esp. Heavy artillery needs to start in the build (it should need minimum 3 turns to deploy), right now in turn 2 or max 3 you can launch Brusilov and reach Oil fields. But Russia needs more troops on the northern Front, maybe the "Detachments" can be replaced by Corps... An additional 2 corps for the Russians one between Riga and Duagapolis and one near Minsk will help to stabilise the line for more turns.


4. French and English both can start with 1 heavy artillery in the build, arriving in 2/3 months. They both delayed the Somme offensive for artillery reasons. On the other hand, UK can have maybe 2 detachments in the Western desert to deal with Senussi. Right now Senussi can become a real challenge and can take Benghazi and threaten Tobruk.


5. Arabian revolts working great, true nuisance for Ottomans. But Kut-Al-Amara is getting some supplies (no idea from where), shouldn't be so. Maybe that Corps needn't start as it does allowing Ottomans to deploy further ahead and make it tougher for the English to march up in Mesopotamia.


6. Level 1 infantry (though not level 0) perhaps should give 1 offensive and 2 defensive thus making it more difficult to kill. In 1916 the fronts didn't move easily in the Western part. Similarly for level 2 infantry also. Though this perhaps should be restricted to only - Germany, France and UK. With Germans starting the campaign with 1 chit, thus giving them a small advantage to reach it earlier.

Hi shri - this is great feedback and I can work in many of these suggestions in the next iteration of the 1916 campaign. Here are few specific comments in response.

1) I could give Germany level 5 in trench warfare to start. However, that would exceed the tech level the CP player could reach starting in August 1914 (given that I have introduced a 3 chit maximum for Trench Warfare tech). More generally, I have looked hard at the way trenches are depicted in the game and there is little one can do to modify them. Even maximum strength trench lines can be pierced more easily in this game than historically. In my games, I have found the secret to a successful front line defence on the Western Front is a strong ability to counter-attack enemy corps with friendly artillery and second line corps to counter-attack. BTW - I thought the Germans retreated back to the Siegfried Line in the spring of 1917, not 1916.

Giving the Germans a greater naval capability to start is an interesting option for the 1916 scenario. Even with their massive sub fleet, the Germans currently can't match the UK and France in an all-out surface ship battle in the North Sea. And yet, they did venture forth in June 1916 for the Battle of Jutland...

2) In fact, my current thinking for the 1916 mod is to introduce several new features that will kick-in at the start of 1916 to start reducing A-H national morale, reflecting the disruption to their agricultural production in Galicia and increasing domestic political unrest within the Empire. Not giving them the NM boost for defeating Serbia would contribute to that. I could also, as you say, have A-H start the first turn having taken Uskub already, forcing Serbia's surrender.

3) These suggestions are very doable. I did not do the research on actual strength levels in 1916 when I came up with the current forces on both sides (instead, I made "reasonable" assumptions about the losses).

4) ditto for the UK and French heavy artillery. I could give the UK the Western Desert Force detachment to help deal with the Senussi. I find that the Italians have to send one or two detachments to eastern Libya. If they do that, they can see off the Senussi.

5) Glad to hear that the Arab Revolt is working well for you. Kut-al-Amara should not be much of a problem for the Ottomans, as they start the scenario surrounding the one Indian Army corps there. It does get some supply from the town until the supply runs down to zero, when it gets easily destroyed by the Ottomans - just as happened in 1916. I have beefed the Ottomans ability to hold Mesopotamia considerably, by giving them a DE to buy a new general in Baghdad once the British surrender at Kut, plus the option to build the railroad to there by mid-November 1916.

I plan to look again at the Decision Events around Persia. It should be a minor that both sides see an advantage in invading in order to outflank their opponents, as happened during the war.

6) In fact, that will be one of the main changes in the next iteration of the mod. The base level defence strength of corps should increase faster than their attack strength, with each increment of Infantry Weapons tech. I intend to do this o increase the attrition faced by attackers. Right now, with advanced artillery and experienced generals, it is possible to wipe out a 10 strength entrenched defending corps by taking only 2 strength points in losses. It needs to be a little higher, while still making prepared frontal assaults worthwhile.

Cheers,

Michael

[shri]

Hey Michael,
some feedback from the 1916 game i am currently playing from both sides.

1. Germany should start with full trench, level 5 thus giving minimum level 6 entrenchments. It was bloody hard for the English to fight at the Somme and it should be. Right now an English well time offensive can reach Lille and roll the left flanks. Far too fast and early historically. Historically, Germans built the formidable Seigfried (called Hindenburg by the English) line which was the best trenches of the entire war and nearly impregnable....

Germany also can start with level 2 submarine and level 2 Air-ships and maybe 1 more Zeppelin, after all major Zeppelin raids and Submarine raids occurred in 1916. It maybe can start with Naval Warfare researched, thus giving the German player an alternative to spend massive MPP to upgrade German ships and fight a Jutland. (otherwise fighting Jutland is nonsense in 1916).

Additionally, General Bulow was dead by 1916 and Kluck was into retirement, maybe von Below and some other maybe von Hutier can replace those 2. (this gives a slight advantage to the Germans and compensates for 2 additional Russian corps to some extent).


2. I understand the need for Historical accuracy demands Monte N**** and Albania and Serbia surviving into 1916, but their ends give AH a-historically high NM and extra MPP. Maybe they can start dead and Serbian army in Albania preparing for departure. A-historical but game wise more balance. This will compensate by removing free NM and MPP for Austria.


3. Russian artillery esp. Heavy artillery needs to start in the build (it should need minimum 3 turns to deploy), right now in turn 2 or max 3 you can launch Brusilov and reach Oil fields. But Russia needs more troops on the northern Front, maybe the "Detachments" can be replaced by Corps... An additional 2 corps for the Russians one between Riga and Duagapolis and one near Minsk will help to stabilise the line for more turns.


4. French and English both can start with 1 heavy artillery in the build, arriving in 2/3 months. They both delayed the Somme offensive for artillery reasons. On the other hand, UK can have maybe 2 detachments in the Western desert to deal with Senussi. Right now Senussi can become a real challenge and can take Benghazi and threaten Tobruk.


5. Arabian revolts working great, true nuisance for Ottomans. But Kut-Al-Amara is getting some supplies (no idea from where), shouldn't be so. Maybe that Corps needn't start as it does allowing Ottomans to deploy further ahead and make it tougher for the English to march up in Mesopotamia.


6. Level 1 infantry (though not level 0) perhaps should give 1 offensive and 2 defensive thus making it more difficult to kill. In 1916 the fronts didn't move easily in the Western part. Similarly for level 2 infantry also. Though this perhaps should be restricted to only - Germany, France and UK. With Germans starting the campaign with 1 chit, thus giving them a small advantage to reach it earlier.

Hi shri - this is great feedback and I can work in many of these suggestions in the next iteration of the 1916 campaign. Here are few specific comments in response.

1) I could give Germany level 5 in trench warfare to start. However, that would exceed the tech level the CP player could reach starting in August 1914 (given that I have introduced a 3 chit maximum for Trench Warfare tech). More generally, I have looked hard at the way trenches are depicted in the game and there is little one can do to modify them. Even maximum strength trench lines can be pierced more easily in this game than historically. In my games, I have found the secret to a successful front line defence on the Western Front is a strong ability to counter-attack enemy corps with friendly artillery and second line corps to counter-attack. BTW - I thought the Germans retreated back to the Siegfried Line in the spring of 1917, not 1916.

Giving the Germans a greater naval capability to start is an interesting option for the 1916 scenario. Even with their massive sub fleet, the Germans currently can't match the UK and France in an all-out surface ship battle in the North Sea. And yet, they did venture forth in June 1916 for the Battle of Jutland...

I asked for level 5 trenches for 3 reasons-
1. Historically, the Germans had the best trenches in WW1 by a very large margin. The French after the Nivelle offensive and mutinies improved their trenches, British never improved them properly giving comforts like internal lighting and interior tunnels etc.

continuing, throughout the Somme and 3rd Yipress offensives of 1916 and 1917, the English commented on the strong concrete defenses and trenches of the Germans and multiple machine guns at angles which mowed down 1000s of troops in each wave. This needs some sort of simulation in-game. Using the English army as a sledgehammer in 1916 is far too a-historical. Right now, you can concentrate about 8-9 English Corps under Plumer & Haig with 2 Heavy and 1 Medium artillery and several planes on a narrow front and attack very strongly & easily. Using the French to hold the majority of the line while you keep attacking (as French NM is lower). You can also use the 2 French heavy artillery and French planes as force multipliers for diversionary attacks and further complicate things. I reached Luxembourg (albeit due to some bad play by my opponent - he removed 2 corps and 1 heavy artillery to exterminate Russian lines) by Autumn 1916., still his losses were appalling overall.


2. You are right about the Seigfried (Hindenburg) line, it was suggested to Ludendorff in the Summer of 1916 to reduce the salient, the construction started immediately, it was built by Winter of 1916, in January 1917 Ludendorff gave the orders to retreat to it in a staggered manner, by March 1917 it was complete. It freed up over a dozen divisions for the Germans partially compensating for the extreme losses of Verdun and Somme.


3. My point is, the attack on German lines should cost the English a lot more than 3-4 points loss to kill a 11 strength well dug-in German guard corps on the Western front. (The Guard & Guard reserve corps were like the premier fighting force of Imperial Germany and a feared formation). An English offensive in 1916 using the "drafted" Kitchener army which wasn't so well trained shouldn't have a cake walk attack into Belgium. 1918 is a different ball game, but in 1916 the English armies were quite Raw and did rudimentary mistakes in attacking trench lines.

---

As for Jutland, i was so scared of the English navy that no capital ships of mine have been on the North sea ports also. The size difference is too huge, i only used it in the Baltics to slowly kill Russians ships and proceed at snail's pace to St. Pete. I did send a substantial amount of level 2 subs into the NM points in 1917 a simulation of unlimited Sub Warfare to gate crash the terribly high English NM levels. But seeing the size of the Royal navy (via my subs) i decided there was no point in any risk of a capital ship warfare. So, i thought why did Reinhardt Sheer chance it? perhaps the answer was better quality ships and ammunition which can be given with level 1 ships maybe.


OTOH my opponent in the other game (me as entente) came into the North sea to kill 2 DDs, 2 CLs and 2 CVs (in a single turn) and while returning got the broadsides from 6 English Dreadnoughts and lost 2 BBs and 2 BCs and several other ships badly damaged. His navy was a walking corpse after that single engagement. He also lost a lot of NM (4-5% maybe). He probably thought my DDs were easy kills and wanted to carve an easy path for his subs to move in and out of the blockade.

[Bo Rearguard]

So, i thought why did Reinhardt Sheer chance it? perhaps the answer was better quality ships and ammunition which can be given with level 1 ships maybe.

I think there was a far different spatial naval dynamic in the historical event. Not being able to concentrate most or all of your fleet in one hex is a serious problem, because it prevents a convincing representation of large-scale surface engagements like Jutland. Most clashes I see in this game between the Grand and the High Seas Fleet tend to spill all over the North Sea. Fortunately, most of the naval game involves commerce raiding over large areas, so the problem isn't too glaring.

[shri]

So, i thought why did Reinhardt Sheer chance it? perhaps the answer was better quality ships and ammunition which can be given with level 1 ships maybe.

I think there was a far different spatial naval dynamic in the historical event. Not being able to concentrate most or all of your fleet in one hex is a serious problem, because it prevents a convincing representation of large-scale surface engagements like Jutland. Most clashes I see in this game between the Grand and the High Seas Fleet tend to spill all over the North Sea. Fortunately, most of the naval game involves commerce raiding over large areas, so the problem isn't too glaring.

Hmm makes sense.
Even with Artillery, Aircraft, Zeppelins stacking would have helped a lot. As otherwise these brittle units can get overrun if a breakthrough occurs, not so much a problem on the Western front, but huge one in the other fronts.

Still Jutland was quite a close battle despite lopsided numbers/gun tubes. The way i understand the game (i maybe wrong)
Each Battleship represents 2-3 ones, same for pre Dreadnought and Battlecruisers
Whereas Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines are stacks of 10.
So, the 151 ships of the Grand Fleet are maybe 15-25 on the map and the 99 ships of the Hoch See Flotte are maybe 9-15 on the map. These numbers are possible in game, albeit not on the same hex.

[GrisAcier]

Hello, I played 3 games (hotseat) that all ended by resounding Entente victories.
First game, CP went east first + cede Trentin to Italy. Ended up with all the Ruhr in Entente hands by 1917 and German NM reaching zero in early 1918.
2nd game, CP went France first, by 1916 A-H was steamrolled by the Russians and the Germans pushed out of Belgium.
3rd game another try at France first with a quick pivot to the east ending in an Entente victory on every single front by spring 1917 (but the game was already lost 1 year beforehand).
I can't see how the CP can win, am I doing something wrong?

[mdsmall]

Hi - it should not be that lopsided and I have tried to keep the Icarus mod as balanced between the two sides as the vanilla game. A couple of thoughts:

- Never cede Trento to Italy. It kills A-H national morale and leads to eventual AH surrender. It is far easier to defend the mountain borders with Italy with detachments until AH is ready to go on the attack there.
- Has the CP side focussed on taking out Serbia early? If not, the Ottomans wither on the vine, and the CP side will suffer.
- AH should be able to defend the line of mountains in the Carpathians for a long time against Russian attacks in 1914-15 - certainly long enough for the Germans to relieve the pressure on them, regardless of whether Germany goes France first and even moreso if the Germans go Russia first.
- Are you investing in the key technologies early for the CP: trench warfare; infantry weapons; artillery warfare; gas/shell tech?
- Are you being really aggressive in your invasion of Belgium when the Germans go France first? You should be able to capture Lille on the first move. Look at some CP opening on YouTube e.g. on Old Crow Balthazor's Strategic Arcana channel to see how it is done.
- Save the German surface fleet to beat up the Russian navy; or the occasional opportunity if the British navy offers a target of opportunity close to your ports. Use your subs to the max.

Or - offer to play a MP game against someone. The game (and this mod) work far better with the fog of war as a reality in MP play.

Cheers,

Michael

[GrisAcier]

In all of my games AH and Turkish NM was never a factor, it remained high. The CP lost because of German NM.
I have the good tech priorities (thanks to this board, ngl ), I don't waste the German navy and I use a lot of subs.
I don't think that an optimised Schlieffen is the key to German victory. Even if Lille is lost turn 1, as long as the French keep Paris before Germany's switching to the east, the Entente will win.

I played another "East first" hotseat game that sums up nicely what's wrong with the balance. Trentin was ceded to Italy. Russia quickly fell with Brest-Litovsk being signed in early 1916. Serbia followed suit, and then Greece. The US entered the war in late 1916. The Ottomans annihilated the British in Iraq in 1917, and then aligned the Transcaucasian federation and took Persia. The north of Italy was invaded by the Austrian and Turkish armies when the country entered the war in 1918. In 1917, the Germans & Austrians pushed back the French and British on the western front, retaking Aachen & Alsace, and by summer of 1918 the Allies front in France was collapsing. So everything was going well for the CP until Germany was dolchstoss'ed when its NM reached 0 in august 1918

At endgame NM was as follows:
British empire 26%
France 38%
Italy 46%
USA 94%
Austria-Hungary 91%
Ottoman empire 135%
Germany, Russia and Serbia 0%.

Frankly I can't see how the CP is supposed to win as long as France and Britain keep focusing on the western front and enforcing the blockade. The German NM is just melting, no matter how succesful the CP are elsewhere.