Next Patch

[wodin]

Mike production issues and usage..they couldn't make the arty quick enough..remember no one expected the war at the start to go on aslong as it did nor have a real idea on the role of Arty. SO both sides didn't plan for the sort of Arty amount that was used. It took awhile for new armament factories to start up and build up steam. There was a massive outcry on the Brit side with regards to the issues at the time..many blamed the government also the factories where plagued by strikes over wages etc etc.

Also remember Britain had had a disarmament policy leading upto the war so they where low on everything from uniforms to ammo to weapons.

Germany also went through far more rounds during the start of the campaign than they had expected leading to severe shortages towards the end of the first battle of Ypres, this lasted well into 1915.

So really neither side should have the ability to stockpile huge amounts of ammo for about 14 months (Germany should have a decent stockpile at first but once it runs out it should take awhile for production to rise enough to stockpile beyond immediate necessity (In 1915 Germany should have enough for two offensives and the allies for two but again the Arty wouldn't be on the scale of Verdun onwards). Britain should struggle with Arty until the winter of '15. I'm not so sure about the French, but they too suffered Arty shortages not long after the war started. from Verdun onwards you should be able to dish out intense Arty barrages and still have enough to last for smaller scale attacks or for defense.

Neither side had the production at the scale it needed to be and it took awhile for it all to start up. As i said no War had ever been like this..infact as far as the British go Arty units had very little training in co operation with the Army and there was even tension between to two services. WW1 was the dawn of Arty working alongside the Infantry.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this.

Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve).

warspite1

...or better still just remove strategic bombing completely. It wasn't a factor in WWI, its a boring element of the game anyway - as you say its just each side sending waves of planes over - OR if you are to keep it in, make it affect morale NOT production.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this.

Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve).

warspite1

...or better still just remove strategic bombing completely. It wasn't a factor in WWI, its a boring element of the game anyway - as you say its just each side sending waves of planes over - OR if you are to keep it in, make it affect morale NOT production.

Here is a few suggestions to help reduce effectiveness of massive strategic bombing campaigns.

1) After each strategic bombing mission the bombing units gets a loss in efficiency.
2) After each strategic bombing mission during winter there is a risk of loss of strength points in addition to the efficiency loss.
3) Fighters interception range increased.

It is my understanding that the weather was a major threat to zeppelins on bombing missions. I suspect that bombers were affected during bad weather as well.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this.

Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve).

warspite1

...or better still just remove strategic bombing completely. It wasn't a factor in WWI, its a boring element of the game anyway - as you say its just each side sending waves of planes over - OR if you are to keep it in, make it affect morale NOT production.

Here is a few suggestions to help reduce effectiveness of massive strategic bombing campaigns.

1) After each strategic bombing mission the bombing units gets a loss in efficiency.
2) After each strategic bombing mission during winter there is a risk of loss of strength points in addition to the efficiency loss.
3) Fighters interception range increased.

It is my understanding that the weather was a major threat to zeppelins on bombing missions. I suspect that bombers were affected during bad weather as well.

warspite1

All these would help but I still come back to the same question; why is this a feature of the game when it wasn't (to any material extent) in real life?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Lord Zimoa - is there anything you can tell us at this stage re the direction that the naval war is heading and your thoughts on what is achievable here - either in this next patch or thereafter?

Many thanks.

warspite1

Anything you can tell us please guys?

[warspite1]

Any news on plans for Strategic Bombardment please in the next patch? I am in the middle of yet another game, totally ruined by this feature? [&:]

[Lord Zimoa]

Yes, will be adjusted/re-balanced.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Yes, will be adjusted/re-balanced.

warspite1

Great - thank-you [:)]

[Naskra]

A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente.
If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Naskra

A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente.
If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war.

warspite1

I have seen it happen in just one game. The British convoys were being splattered by 4-sub wolfpacks and the US did come in very early. However, it takes ages for the US to build up units, research tech, and transport over to Europe so I do not think the Germans have too much to worry about unless the US enters early.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Naskra

A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente.
If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war.

warspite1

I have seen it happen in just one game. The British convoys were being splattered by 4-sub wolfpacks and the US did come in very early. However, it takes ages for the US to build up units, research tech, and transport over to Europe so I do not think the Germans have too much to worry about unless the US enters early.

I've seen USA enter the war in 1915 and I did not appreciate the experience. But thanks to fleet superiority I managed to sink a lot of US troops before they reached the European shores.

I feel that there is little reason for CP to focus on the navy at this point. If you ignore the navy the CP is stronger at land and no US interference. But if you focus on the sea war then it is likely that US enters the war early to punish you. I would prefer a US entry that didn't depend so much on the convoy war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Naskra

A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente.
If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war.

warspite1

I have seen it happen in just one game. The British convoys were being splattered by 4-sub wolfpacks and the US did come in very early. However, it takes ages for the US to build up units, research tech, and transport over to Europe so I do not think the Germans have too much to worry about unless the US enters early.

I've seen USA enter the war in 1915 and I did not appreciate the experience. But thanks to fleet superiority I managed to sink a lot of US troops before they reached the European shores.

I feel that there is little reason for CP to focus on the navy at this point. If you ignore the navy the CP is stronger at land and no US interference. But if you focus on the sea war then it is likely that US enters the war early to punish you. I would prefer a US entry that didn't depend so much on the convoy war.

warspite1

I think it makes sense for US entry to be linked to how Russia/France are doing. But there is another big problem:

If France are taken out what are the British supposed to do? They cannot continue fighting in France - and nor can the Americans - unless they stick to the coast, otherwise they will be on half-supply. How are the British and Americans supposed to recapture Paris - or even Brussels - without supply? There needs to be some means of waging war without a capital.

[Hellfirejet]

If France is defeated,and Britain & America need to try and recapture PARIS for example,then I feel as a supply source,the only alternative has to be done by Naval units,as long as a clear path extends to the land forces,then the Naval units should be deemed,to give full supply![;)]

[Amaranthus]

Yes kirk23, that is a logical solution, otherwise invasion is essentially impossible unless you manage to take Brussels.

[krieg63]

after playing more than 12 game against human player I think it will be fine to have some optional realistic rules.

at least some point
1st - train have nothing to do in a ww1 game, but that really minor as there are not efficiency.

2nd - do not allow landing again port or capital

3rd - perhaps the more important; change the surrender rules. those for Russia are very good, it will be fine to have the same for France, Turkey and Austria and perhaps also Germany. during ww1 none of major country capital was taken as cp country have surrender before.

4th - review strategic warfare

[Jonathan Pollard]

Historically armored trains were very important during the Russian Civil War in the battle for control of the Trans Siberian Railroad. I think the Czechoslovak Legion basically fought its way across the entire length of that railroad using armored trains. I think the most unrealistic thing about them is that they can do amphibious invasions as long as the target hex has a railroad. At first I thought that even allowing them to be moved by sea may be unrealistic, but I found out that some merchant ships of the era did exist that could carry locomotives without disassembling them.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Historically armored trains were very important during the Russian Civil War in the battle for control of the Trans Siberian Railroad. I think the Czechoslovak Legion basically fought its way across the entire length of that railroad using armored trains. I think the most unrealistic thing about them is that they can do amphibious invasions as long as the target hex has a railroad. At first I thought that even allowing them to be moved by sea may be unrealistic, but I found out that some merchant ships of the era did exist that could carry locomotives without disassembling them.

Now how many army and/or corps sized armoured train units were there? It's another unit type that should be a small support unit, but alas there are none. Yes, the Czech Legion covered a lot of miles by train, but they didn't have huge fleets of them armoured.

[Lord Zimoa]

Some news about the upcoming 1.20 CTGW open Beta patch at our Facebook page or for those who don`t use that, I also posted it on the Commander development diary on the Commander website

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Lordz ... 682?v=wall

http://www.commander-games.com/2013/01/ ... new-patch/

[FOARP]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

If France is defeated,and Britain & America need to try and recapture PARIS for example,then I feel as a supply source,the only alternative has to be done by Naval units,as long as a clear path extends to the land forces,then the Naval units should be deemed,to give full supply![;)]

Much more sensible and easier to implement is to make ports deliver full supply - this would prevent the position where units in some parts of the map literally cannot be in 100% supply even if it is their home turf because they do not include a capital. Ireland and Sicily are examples here.

[warspite1]

WHERE IS THE NEXT PATCH!!!!!?????!?!?!?!?! [;)]