Matrix Games Forums

Hi Chernobyl - yes, it is a strength script which has a 75% chance of firing on each winter turn (i.e., for both sides). Since there are four winter turns each year, the script will likely fire on three of them. The effect is meant to be annoying but not devastating for the Ottomans. Ottoman units affected by winter lose either 0 or 1 strength point and between 20 - 40% of their morale. Offsetting these losses is the increased severity of winter weather in the Caucasus which should reduce the Russians ability to attack at that time of year. Also note that Ottoman units on resource hexes are not affected. In dialling up these winter effects, I was conscious of the fact that I had reduced the number of mountain units the Russian receive at the start in the Caucasus from 3 to 1.

I am about to go into my second winter playing the Ottomans in the Icarus 1916 campaign that is going up now on Old Crow's YouTube channel. I did not find it a major setback in the first winter. I will keep on eye on this and will assess the game balance implications at the end of this public play-test match.

Michael

Thoughts on Caucasus:
I will playtest this in hotseat and give you more detailed results, but I am suspecting the Turks will have a tough time holding the mountains in the 14/15 winter. The twice-per-turn damage to strength and morale combined with the plague damage, combined with low supply (Turks have damaged HQs that take several turns to move and repair) means the Turk units are in very weak state when war breaks out. Combine this with the fact that you can't really place units on the optimal hexes (you can't place a HQ anywhere other than a city, which means you can't really entrench a fighting unit on a city, or move the HQ to provide optimal supply/coverage) and I feel the Russians can do some real damage here, even with no mountain corps.
The winter damage effect may also motivate the Central Powers player to eventually substitute Ottoman units in the Caucasus with German or Austrian troops, avoiding these effects.
Again I'll playtest this and report back how it goes, but I would consider doing some of these:
-Perhaps the winter should affect the Russians too, just less? Could be fun to provide the Ottomans some opportunities for counterattack.
-Perhaps weaken the morale damage, reduce the chance, or make it a once per "turn" event (not both sides' turns)
-Perhaps it should damage only fighting units, not HQ units, to allow you to place HQ on different hexes and place fighting units to defend cities?

Thoughts on PERSIA:
This overall is very cool because the new routes that open up make things less predictable, with higher chances to outflank the enemy and cause real problems (not just entrench, wait for artillery to blast them out).
However I think you might want to slow down the Russian ability to march thru Persian Armenia. It seems to me you can (for example) pre-place some Russian cavalry near Yerevan, and force move them down to the mountains overlooking Mosul/Kirkuk (hexes 235, 112 and 234,113) and this creates a huge advantage for the Russian player. The Ottomans now have to place units in Mosul and Baghdad/Kirkuk or risk losing these NM objectives to cavalry thrusts, and I imagine it's difficult or impossible to root the Russians out of those mountains, considering how low Ottoman supply is in the desert. I'm not an expert on this theatre but I feel like that road heading towards Mosul is a bit too tasty for the Russians.

The ability for Russian units to threaten Van immediately from Khoi is also very strong.

I'm reading that the Turks occupied Khoi early in the war, captured Urmia in Jan 1915, north of Mehabad (which was then known as Savojbolagh). Urmia appears to be the larger city than Mehabad. Apparently the Turks even briefly even in possession of Tabriz in early 1915 before the Russians recaptured it. The Turks were driven out of Khoi in 1916.
In the mod, as it is the Russians get the "first mover advantage" in Persian Armenia, this allows them to secure all of Persian Armenia and occupy the borders (and beyond, if the Turks don't per-garrison the Persian borders). So perhaps the Turks should be given the first opportunity to move into Persian Armenia? The Turks don't own the hexes, so they can't force-move thru. Plus their supply is low, and it's unclear to me whether they have forces to spare (any Turkish corps sent into Persia isn't available at Gallipoli). Turkish units would have the potential to take Khoi and Mehabad before the Russians get there, but if the Turks lose Van (a distinct possibility), any Turkish unit near Khoi would be cut off.

Roads/Rails/Map suggestions:
-I would look at the Mosul-Mehabad road and consider if it really makes sense for it to be there. Not sure about the history but as far as I know the Russians weren't threatening to come down this route into Iraq? Could delete that road and replace Mehabad with Urmia (town) on hex (236, 110) and reroute the road to head up to Khoi?
-I don't believe the Transcaucasus railroad extended to Batumi. Wikipedia says this extension wasn't added to the 1960s. I would delete the rail from Poti to Batum.
-The Russians completed a military railroad extension to Erzurum in 1916. In the spirit of your Ottoman event that allows for a rail to be constructed to Baghdad, consider adding an event that allows Russians to pay MPP to accomplish this (extend the rail from Kars to Erzurum), once the city is captured.

Random notes:
I noticed the upgrade cost for minors is higher than for majors for the field artillery unit. This is before any Production tech.
You might want to consider changing HQs from Soft to another type, perhaps Artillery, considering how easily they can be damaged by Heavy Artillery now that it has range=3.

Overall, the Russia-Ottomans theatre is harder to predict and defend and that's great. Historically the Turks lost Trebezon and Erzurum by early 1916. It's nice that you have the ability to recapture these cities too, so if Russia eventually collapses, I assume Turkey gets NM boosts by the recapture of these cities. The extra routes provide more potential for maneuver and unexpected thrusts, after playtesting and balance changes.

Chernobyl wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 9:48 pm Thoughts on Caucasus:
I will playtest this in hotseat and give you more detailed results, but I am suspecting the Turks will have a tough time holding the mountains in the 14/15 winter. The twice-per-turn damage to strength and morale combined with the plague damage, combined with low supply (Turks have damaged HQs that take several turns to move and repair) means the Turk units are in very weak state when war breaks out. Combine this with the fact that you can't really place units on the optimal hexes (you can't place a HQ anywhere other than a city, which means you can't really entrench a fighting unit on a city, or move the HQ to provide optimal supply/coverage) and I feel the Russians can do some real damage here, even with no mountain corps.
The winter damage effect may also motivate the Central Powers player to eventually substitute Ottoman units in the Caucasus with German or Austrian troops, avoiding these effects.
Again I'll playtest this and report back how it goes, but I would consider doing some of these:
-Perhaps the winter should affect the Russians too, just less? Could be fun to provide the Ottomans some opportunities for counterattack.
-Perhaps weaken the morale damage, reduce the chance, or make it a once per "turn" event (not both sides' turns)
-Perhaps it should damage only fighting units, not HQ units, to allow you to place HQ on different hexes and place fighting units to defend cities?

Hi Chernobyl - great suggestions!

On the winter effects in the Caucasus, please do play-test this out and report back. This was one of the most recent features I added to the mod for the latest version (Version 5), so I have not extensively play-tested it. And you are right, the Ottomans start with already under-strength forces in this theatre in 1914 than they do in 1916.

I could certainly reduce the probability (trigger) for the winter effects and reduce the morale and/or strength impact. I could also assign winter effects to the Russians too but with different intensity, as I did between the Ottomans and their Entente European enemies for the summer weather effects. But the game engine does not allow strength scripts to fire only on the CP turns (reducing the probably of firing to 50% is the best way to approximate this). Nor can you specify that strength scripts only apply to certain types of units.

An alternative would be to keep the weather effects as they are but increase the strength of the Ottoman HQs that start in this theatre in 1914. That would mitigate the particular impact on combat readiness in 1914 - though historically that was when their troops suffered the most from winter in the Caucasus.

Chernobyl wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 9:48 pm
Thoughts on PERSIA:
This overall is very cool because the new routes that open up make things less predictable, with higher chances to outflank the enemy and cause real problems (not just entrench, wait for artillery to blast them out).
However I think you might want to slow down the Russian ability to march thru Persian Armenia. It seems to me you can (for example) pre-place some Russian cavalry near Yerevan, and force move them down to the mountains overlooking Mosul/Kirkuk (hexes 235, 112 and 234,113) and this creates a huge advantage for the Russian player. The Ottomans now have to place units in Mosul and Baghdad/Kirkuk or risk losing these NM objectives to cavalry thrusts, and I imagine it's difficult or impossible to root the Russians out of those mountains, considering how low Ottoman supply is in the desert. I'm not an expert on this theatre but I feel like that road heading towards Mosul is a bit too tasty for the Russians.

The ability for Russian units to threaten Van immediately from Khoi is also very strong.

I'm reading that the Turks occupied Khoi early in the war, captured Urmia in Jan 1915, north of Mehabad (which was then known as Savojbolagh). Urmia appears to be the larger city than Mehabad. Apparently the Turks even briefly even in possession of Tabriz in early 1915 before the Russians recaptured it. The Turks were driven out of Khoi in 1916.
In the mod, as it is the Russians get the "first mover advantage" in Persian Armenia, this allows them to secure all of Persian Armenia and occupy the borders (and beyond, if the Turks don't per-garrison the Persian borders). So perhaps the Turks should be given the first opportunity to move into Persian Armenia? The Turks don't own the hexes, so they can't force-move thru. Plus their supply is low, and it's unclear to me whether they have forces to spare (any Turkish corps sent into Persia isn't available at Gallipoli). Turkish units would have the potential to take Khoi and Mehabad before the Russians get there, but if the Turks lose Van (a distinct possibility), any Turkish unit near Khoi would be cut off.

Roads/Rails/Map suggestions:
-I would look at the Mosul-Mehabad road and consider if it really makes sense for it to be there. Not sure about the history but as far as I know the Russians weren't threatening to come down this route into Iraq? Could delete that road and replace Mehabad with Urmia (town) on hex (236, 110) and reroute the road to head up to Khoi?
-I don't believe the Transcaucasus railroad extended to Batumi. Wikipedia says this extension wasn't added to the 1960s. I would delete the rail from Poti to Batum.
-The Russians completed a military railroad extension to Erzurum in 1916. In the spirit of your Ottoman event that allows for a rail to be constructed to Baghdad, consider adding an event that allows Russians to pay MPP to accomplish this (extend the rail from Kars to Erzurum), once the city is captured.

I have found in my play-tests that provided the Ottomans keep a unit well entrenched on Mosul, they can hold it fairly easily unless the Russians send a HQ down the road from Tabriz to Mahabad in order to project higher level supply into that corner of Mesopotamia (actually Kurdistan). In this version of the mod, the Ottomans now start with a corps there. The temptation is high to move it to another theatre (as they did historically) but they have the means to defend it.

In earlier versions of the mod, the option to build the RR line to Baghdad included completing it as far as Mosul as a first stage by the end of 1915. I could also re-instate that in some form. Once Mosul become a city with 10 strength supply (after the RR is completed) it should be much easier to hold against Russian incursions.

That is an interesting suggestion to give the Ottomans the option of moving first into Persian Azerbaijan. That can be done by changing the timing of when the territorial transfer fires. In this mod, if the Ottomans move up to the border with Persian Azerbaijan or head towards Khoi, an Armenian volunteer detachment automatically deploys in Khoi or Tabriz. I could adjust or remove that. Given how weak the Ottoman forces are in the Caucasus when they mobilize in 1914, I think it is unlikely that a player would push them forward into that area, even if they could move first. But do analyze this some more. I could also send you a variant of the mod with this feature added and you could play-test it out.

Maybe you could post a map showing your suggestion for redrawing the roads and placement of the towns in Persian Azerbaijan?

I could certainly remove the Russian RR to Batumi. It would make it somewhat harder for the Russians to hold against an Ottoman attack and makes it harder for the Russian to push towards Trabzon along the coast.

I really like the idea of having the Russians extend their RR from Kars to Erzurum once they capture it and will add that event in the next version of this mod.

Chernobyl wrote: Sun Apr 23, 2023 9:48 pm Random notes:
I noticed the upgrade cost for minors is higher than for majors for the field artillery unit. This is before any Production tech.
You might want to consider changing HQs from Soft to another type, perhaps Artillery, considering how easily they can be damaged by Heavy Artillery now that it has range=3.

Actually the upgrade costs for all minor units, not just artillery, is 25% higher than regular units. This is a standard setting in the vanilla game. I am inclined to leave it that way.

I think the solution for protecting HQs is not place them within 3 hexes of heavy artillery! Seems to me to be an interesting option to be able to blast a few strength points off unwary enemy HQs if they are spotted too close to the front line.

mdsmall wrote: Mon Apr 24, 2023 3:01 pm I think the solution for protecting HQs is not place them within 3 hexes of heavy artillery!

Well, this gives artillery a new powerful ability: to dictate enemy supply levels and unit arrangements behind the front. Now your front line won't be getting optimal supply anymore because of the threat of your HQ getting shelled. This could be okay, but I'm not sure it's balanced or makes sense in confined spaces where there are very few spots for your HQ that make sense, for example when there's a city of strength 5 or 6 that requires the HQ to be in that city hex to get any decent supply, and the city comes under artillery range, you now might have to evacuate the whole area.

Honestly I don't notice much of a difference between Heavy Artillery and field artillery. They both do de-entrenchment when upgraded to level 1, and they both store plenty of ammo. That's enough to take out any fortress including Verdun with just "field" artillery. No need to even reinforce the artillery up to full strength, just upgrade it and fire away and no hex can survive.

Hi Chernobyl,

I really don't think the three hex range for heavy artillery is going to make that much difference to the ability of enemy HQs to supply front line troops in most instances, for several reasons. First, all resource hexes provide a 1 point defensive bonus to HQs against artillery and that is enough of a difference to reduce the chance of strength point losses from artillery fire to very low probability. Second, this assumes that heavy artillery are placed one hex behind the enemy front line. That makes them very vulnerable to being attacked by breakthroughs in the front line, as happens routinely with field artillery that only has a range of two hexes. I always keep my heavy artillery three hexes back from the front lines I plan to attack for that reason. Third, this situation only arises if a key resource hex that is the only source of maximum supply is only one hex behind the front line and it is a resource hex that is not connected by rail to a friendly capital or industrial centre. That can happen, especially in low supply areas like the Caucasus. But players tend not to deploy heavy artillery there, given their reduced movement compared to field artillery. If you want to reduce the ability of HQs on a key town from supplying front line troops, a rail gun or heavy bombers are a more flexible tool. All I can say is that so far, I have not seen either side using heavy artillery against HQs this way.

You are right that the combat effects of shell fire from field artillery and heavy artillery are mostly the same. (Heavy artillery start with 10% demoralization per shell, versus 5% for field artillery). The differences are in their range, movement and maximum number of shells. Those seem to be significant differences to me - at least, they lead me to using the two types of artillery on different fronts and in different ways. If de-entrenchment increments were more granular than 0.5 per level, or partial de-entrenchment was cumulative, I would give field artillery a reduced de-entrenchment capacity, so that it might take two or more shells to de-entrench one level. But the game engine does not offer that option. If I set the base level de-entrenchment of field artillery to 0 rather than 0.5 (as in the regular game), it would take until they achieved Artillery Weapons 2 before they would be any use for de-entrenchment. That would really slow down the game until around mid-1916. I could reduce the maximum number of shells for field artillery below six, or I could restrict them to being upgraded to only level 1 in Artillery Weapons. I will wait to hear more feedback from play-testing before considering that.

You are quite right that even a major fortress like Verdun can be reduced to zero by using field artillery alone (two units, upgraded to Artillery Weapons 2 and firing 12 shells between them can do it). That is true as well in the vanilla game. I have not come across a fix yet that makes Verdun harder to capture without also making regular trench lines impenetrable. But I am open to suggestions!

Cheers,

Michael

mdsmall wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:14 pm Second, this assumes that heavy artillery are placed one hex behind the enemy front line. That makes them very vulnerable to being attacked by breakthroughs in the front line, as happens routinely with field artillery that only has a range of two hexes.

Good point.

mdsmall wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:14 pm The differences are in their range, movement and maximum number of shells. Those seem to be significant differences to me

I think you have them both at a quite high number of maximum shells. Any corps in any hex pretty much melts away once it's de-entrenched, and you only need say 3-4 shots to accomplish that in 1915.

mdsmall wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:14 pm If de-entrenchment increments were more granular than 0.5 per level, or partial de-entrenchment was cumulative, I would give field artillery a reduced de-entrenchment capacity, so that it might take two or more shells to de-entrench one level.

Yes I had the same thoughts before. It's too bad we can't change more things. I would love to set some techs to 50% researched at the start of the game, or limit the number of times you can bombard the same unit in one turn, etc.

mdsmall wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:14 pm even a major fortress like Verdun can be reduced to zero by using field artillery alone (two units, upgraded to Artillery Weapons 2 and firing 12 shells between them can do it).

I was able to do this against the computer in summer 1915 with just one field artillery unit, strength=5, upgraded to level 1, with only 3-4 corps, and I don't believe I even saved up to maximum shells. I took little to no losses. It depends on commander experience and national morale, but I also could have thrown more units into the fight.
Perhaps Verdun should get more artillery defense?

mdsmall wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:14 pm If I set the base level de-entrenchment of field artillery to 0 rather than 0.5 (as in the regular game), it would take until they achieved Artillery Weapons 2 before they would be any use for de-entrenchment. That would really slow down the game until around mid-1916. I could reduce the maximum number of shells for field artillery below six, or I could restrict them to being upgraded to only level 1 in Artillery Weapons. I will wait to hear more feedback from play-testing before considering that.

I have not come across a fix yet that makes Verdun harder to capture without also making regular trench lines impenetrable. But I am open to suggestions!

Yes well this is a philosophical question that involves considering history, to answer the "how do we want artillery and attacking vs trenches in general to behave and evolve as the game goes on?"

I think a couple Field Artillery units should could exist with some limited functionality from the start of the game (one for Germany, one for France). They would do some strength damage (0.5) even before upgrades, but have low maximum shells (1-2) which means even if no corps go over the top, the troops in the trenches still take some losses every turn. (Artillery caused the most casualties in WWI, and a lot of it wasn't during an attack, just constant attrition).

I think it would be better if Artillery isn't really able to totally de-entrench a fully entrenched unit, even late in the game (of course you can use multiple artillery but I don't see a way for stopping that, at least that is a large commitment). Because what happens now is artillery fully de-entrenches the enemy unit, maybe even does some strength damage along the way, and the corps is completely helpless. It just dies and the attackers take very few losses. WWI wasn't like that You needed a heavy bombardment (or something quick but well thought out) and a large number of forces, and you could still expect heavy casualties. Artillery should be worth using and provide opportunities for attacks, but they shouldn't wipe the floor with an enemy corps.

Here is what I have in mind:

Heavy Artillery: 0 attack, 0.5 deentrenchment, 5% morale damage, max ammo = 1, range = 3
Field Artillery: 0.5 attack, 0 deentrenchment, 5% morale damage, max ammo = 1, range = 2

Artillery Weapons tech (2 chits assignable, max level 2, cost 125):
-----Heavy Artillery: +0.5 deentrenchment, +5% morale damage, +1 max ammo
-----Field Artillery: +0.5 attack, +1 max ammo

Gas/Shell Production tech (1 chit assignable, max level 2, cost 200):
+1 Ammo reloaded per turn for both artillery, +0.5 build limit for both artillery (for most nations)

Random notes/bugs:

I noticed German corps get upgraded with anti-tank instead of anti-air. Not sure if this is the mod or me misclicking and saving something.

Gas/Shell gives +0.5 build limits for both types of artillery, not just "field" artillery. Pretty sure you didn't intend this?

Chernobyl wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:33 am Random notes/bugs:

I noticed German corps get upgraded with anti-tank instead of anti-air. Not sure if this is the mod or me misclicking and saving something.

Gas/Shell gives +0.5 build limits for both types of artillery, not just "field" artillery. Pretty sure you didn't intend this?

Hi Chernobyl - Thanks for spotting these issues. You are right there is a small tech glitch with German corps (only). They should be able to upgrade with AA tech, not anti-tank tech. I will correct that in the next update to the mod. (I very much doubt this glitch will affect any games in play, since AA tech is rarely used in the World War One game, unlike the World War Two games where airpower is much more powerful).

And you are correct, it was my intention have Gas/Shell tech increase the build capacity of field artillery only, not heavy artillery as well, once the five biggest powers read tech level 2 in that tech. But there may be a case for including heavy artillery as well in this enhanced build capacity. I will consider keeping that glitch.

You have offered a lot to think about in your comments above about "the eternal dance" between artillery and trenches in this game. It is true, once a corps is fully de-entrenched by four or five artillery shells, I can be easily eliminated by attacks from two adjacent hexes if the attacker is using an experienced general. I will get back to you with my more considered reactions to your good suggestions about artillery.

mdsmall wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:03 am eternal dance" between artillery and trenches in this game

Yeah I went a bit nuts yesterday and I didn't even complete what I wanted to say

It's very hard to get it right. Make artillery too weak and it will be too much of a stalemate. Any solution would require extensive testing across the duration of the game and all fronts.

I think part of the key is in manipulating attack (vs soft/hard) values for Field Artillery, because there's a lot of freedom to manipulate defense values (vs artillery).

mdsmall wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:03 am glitch

Another random thing I have noticed: AI seems to be moving its subs to sit next to the land convoy from Greece to Austria-Hungary. I am not sure if this is because those French and British subs love hanging out at the Salonika port, or because they think they can raid land convoys. I suspect it is the latter.

-I also have a save file where I gain control of a town in Russia even though I never placed a unit on it which is a bug. Not sure if this is a bug in the mod or in vanilla.

Chernobyl wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:45 pm
Another random thing I have noticed: AI seems to be moving its subs to sit next to the land convoy from Greece to Austria-Hungary. I am not sure if this is because those French and British subs love hanging out at the Salonika port, or because they think they can raid land convoys. I suspect it is the latter.

-I also have a save file where I gain control of a town in Russia even though I never placed a unit on it which is a bug. Not sure if this is a bug in the mod or in vanilla.

Hi Chernobyl - there are no Fleet scripts for the AI that I can see that send Entente subs to raid convoys, so some other aspect of the AI must be producing that effect. I don't plan to spend time trouble-shooting the AI - life is too short!

The bug you mention must be a product of the game system, as I did not change anything in the mod which affects the ability of units to occupy resources. You might wish to share your file with the devs for them to review.

Chernobyl wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:45 pm Another random thing I have noticed: AI seems to be moving its subs to sit next to the land convoy from Greece to Austria-Hungary. I am not sure if this is because those French and British subs love hanging out at the Salonika port, or because they think they can raid land convoys. I suspect it is the latter.

I mentioned this to Hubert and he's implementing a fix for subs to ignore land convoys.

BillRunacre wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:28 pm fix for subs to ignore land convoys.

You can see what I'm talking about if you turn off fog of war in that bug_orsha file from the bug thread I created (updated file).

The AI subs seem to be attracted to the land convoy although I'm not entirely sure, they are also in "silent" mode so many something else is going on.

First of all Michael a great mod, take a bow. I used to be regular on these forums, been away for over a year now and just saw your mod a month ago. Played it twice, 1914 and 1916 scenarios once each. Realy great changes. I think the game looks far more historical now. (though the 1916 scenario itself has major hard-coded issues inbuilt in it, separate topic altogether)

1. The artillery vs Heavy artillery break is most welcome. Maybe something could be done for shells also, but right now the balance is much better.
2. The reduction of trenches on the Eastern front is most welcome. Finding level 5/6 trenches (outside the huge Russian forts in Congress Poland) was totally anachronistic. Most trenches on the eastern front were between level 2 & 3 even in 1916-1917 historically (as per both Stone and Buttar)
3. The storm trooper additions to Germany and the Anzac/Canadian breakthrough corps are really good additions to the game, much needed. These were important Historical units missing. I personally think maybe Russia, France, Austria and Italy can each get their Guard corps rebought as Stormtrooper/breakthrough corps to also give them a chance, but it is ok as it is. (to show the Arditi, Alpen Jagers, French Voltiguers etc.) though the Mountain divisions probably show it already.
4. The mountain division instead of corps is also a very welcome change. Mountain corps was totally anachronistic, the elite Alpenkorps despite the name was just a reinforced division. Maybe mountain troops can start with extra hit points/experience to show their elite training levels.
5. Ottoman losses on Caucasus seem a trifling too high to me, if they lose so many troops to attrition + the disease they can never regain strength and the line will collapse very soon, in real life/historically except the disaster of Sarikamish, the Ottomans fought relatively ok. Nothing great, but were quite decent on the defensive till mid 1918.

Regarding 1916 scenario issues -
It is beyond the scope of the mod and probably the game engine itself.

Serbian surrender, the Montenegro and Albanian existence.
The ease of taking the last Belgium stronghold or Verdun and other anachronisms are difficult to mod.


As an aside, maybe the Germans can start 1916 in west with level 6 trenches. Their defenses were at full strength with really good formidable trenches at this time. Defense in depth was not perfected till after the Somme (or in later stages of the Somme under von Lossow). The Somme showed the bad British offensive ways and the relatively strong German defenses quite starkly. 3rd Ypres and the Nivelle offensive showed the success of the Defense in Depth.

Hi shri,

Many thanks for the very positive feedback on the mod! This forum has been very quiet lately, so I did not notice your recent posts until now. I see you are starting a new MP test match. Do let us know how it goes on the AAR forum. If you have further ideas on how to improve the mod, please do post your thoughts here.

I have been doing some quiet tinkering on a Version 6 of the 1916 campaign that has major changes to national morale on both sides to increase war-weariness, which I feel is very under represented in the game. Also, I am looking at increasing the defensive strength of fortresses and fortified towns to make Verdun in particular harder to take. I propose to go back to increasing the base defence strength of corps vs corps to 4 (rather than 3), as I had done in earlier versions of the mod, and I have some other ideas on how to increase attrition for the attacker later in the war. Finally, I have some further thoughts about how to increase the survivability of subs - beyond the last adjustments made by the devs - to make a German sub campaign a greater threat to Britain.

If anyone would like to do a play-test of my current draft of Version 6, just PM me and I will send it to you. But it is not ready yet for general release. In the meantime, I encourage anyone interested in the mod to check out Version 5, as posted in this Forum.

Cheers,

Michael

mdsmall wrote: Sat Jul 29, 2023 9:27 pm Hi shri,

Many thanks for the very positive feedback on the mod! This forum has been very quiet lately, so I did not notice your recent posts until now. I see you are starting a new MP test match. Do let us know how it goes on the AAR forum. If you have further ideas on how to improve the mod, please do post your thoughts here.

I have been doing some quiet tinkering on a Version 6 of the 1916 campaign that has major changes to national morale on both sides to increase war-weariness, which I feel is very under represented in the game. Also, I am looking at increasing the defensive strength of fortresses and fortified towns to make Verdun in particular harder to take. I propose to go back to increasing the base defence strength of corps vs corps to 4 (rather than 3), as I had done in earlier versions of the mod, and I have some other ideas on how to increase attrition for the attacker later in the war. Finally, I have some further thoughts about how to increase the survivability of subs - beyond the last adjustments made by the devs - to make a German sub campaign a greater threat to Britain.

If anyone would like to do a play-test of my current draft of Version 6, just PM me and I will send it to you. But it is not ready yet for general release. In the meantime, I encourage anyone interested in the mod to check out Version 5, as posted in this Forum.

Cheers,

Michael

Hi Michael,
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p5113567

On your suggestion have started an AAR, but not yet posted pics as i want 1914 to end before i give up all my card online.

mdsmall wrote: Sat Jul 29, 2023 9:27 pm Hi shri,

Many thanks for the very positive feedback on the mod! This forum has been very quiet lately, so I did not notice your recent posts until now. I see you are starting a new MP test match. Do let us know how it goes on the AAR forum. If you have further ideas on how to improve the mod, please do post your thoughts here.

I have been doing some quiet tinkering on a Version 6 of the 1916 campaign that has major changes to national morale on both sides to increase war-weariness, which I feel is very under represented in the game. Also, I am looking at increasing the defensive strength of fortresses and fortified towns to make Verdun in particular harder to take. I propose to go back to increasing the base defence strength of corps vs corps to 4 (rather than 3), as I had done in earlier versions of the mod, and I have some other ideas on how to increase attrition for the attacker later in the war. Finally, I have some further thoughts about how to increase the survivability of subs - beyond the last adjustments made by the devs - to make a German sub campaign a greater threat to Britain.

If anyone would like to do a play-test of my current draft of Version 6, just PM me and I will send it to you. But it is not ready yet for general release. In the meantime, I encourage anyone interested in the mod to check out Version 5, as posted in this Forum.

Cheers,

Michael

Hi Michael, do you think Russia is too strong? If yes, why? If no, why?

Historically the English, German, French Armies were say tier 3 by 1918
Americans at tier 2
Italians and Austrians close to tier 2
Russia and Ottomans also close to tier 2
Minors at tier 1 (they lacked artillery)

If you are increasing defensiveness maybe you need not increase for the non-English, French and German corps. Because these 3 nations proved far more resilient than the others by a wide margin.

Hi shri,

As you have seen from Version 5 of the Icarus mod, I think the Russians are too strong in their ability to expand their war material production. Given their huge economic base and low industrial modifier (both historical), each increment of Industrial tech increases their MPP production by 90 - 100 MPPs. If they can reach level three in Industrial tech, their economy becomes as large as Germany. At level 4 and 5, it gets even bigger. I don't think Tsarist Russia had the same political capacity to engaged in forced industrialization as the Soviet Union did under Stalin. My solution is to reduce the number of chits the Russians can invest in this tech from 3 to 2, which at least slows down their growth, while still keeping them a grave threat to Germany if they can survive into 1917-18.

I also think there is a case for limiting the the maximum level Russia can reach in Command and Control to level 2. This would reflect the limits of how far Russian generals could improve after the Tsar had made himself their Commander in Chief. This is new adjustment I am considering for Version 6 of the mod.

The reason I favour raising the base defence strength of all corps is that once artillery comes into play, especially at artillery weapons 1 and above, attackers with strong commanders can wipe out 10 strength enemy corps and only take 1 or 2 strength points in losses. That seems too ahistorical to me. Raising the base defence strength of corps by 1 does not radically change things, but it means the attackers attacking de-entrenched enemy still take 3-4 point losses before they wipe out a 10 strength defender.

I generally agree with your assessment of the capabilities of different armies in WW1. The SC game system gives equivalent units on all sides the same attack and defence strengths; differences between armies are expressed through the command levels of their generals, experience of their units when they deploy and their capacity to be upgraded by different techs. I prefer to respect that approach in this mod, rather than giving the corps of different nationalities different base attack and defence strengths. However, I limited Trench Warfare tech maximums as a one way of reflecting the difference in capabilities between different armies.

Cheers,

Michael