December Update?

[Oleg Mastruko]

Balkans map looks really strange, especially the north part (visible on the first screenshot).
Budapest is almost straight to the east of Zagreb (even a bit to the SE), while in fact it's to the north, northeast. Really looks very skewed. Also part between Zagreb and Pola...

Where's Belgrade on the second screenshot?

What's this unit in the bottom of second screenie that has red-white-blue flag? You say it's Greeks? It's not Greeks I hope. Their historical flag can be seen here:

http://www.fotw.net/flags/gr-evna2.html#wen
http://www.fotw.net/flags/gr-evna1.html#wfl

Ismail (Romanian port) should not be Romanian (I think it was part of Russian empire though I'd have to check). Anyway it's a inland port on Danube river, principal Romanian port in that hex should be Galati (also an inland port on the Danube, really should be in hex to the west but I assume rules don't allow inland ports), or even better - Constanta (in the hex to the SW).

O.

[Harald1050]

Servus!

I think Vienna is there (on the map) where Budapest should be.

Gruß
Harald

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Balkans map looks really strange, especially the north part (visible on the first screenshot).

Northern Europe doesnt look like europe either. Such a shame as Im sure the gameplay is fantastic. Anyway enough of that;)

[Windfire]

Looking at the angles of the coast lines I suspect North may be closer to the top right corner of the screens and not the top edge.

[FrankHunter]

I don't know guys, are you sure you're not letting the borders throw you off your orientation? Borders are dynamic, as countries surrender, territory is lost. In the above shot, Belgrade is now a part of the AH empire. Now having said that, I'm not going to go to the wall defending the location of Zagreb so I'll check that one:) Vienna on the other hand I'm pretty sure about. As for Ismail/Galati, I think changing the city to Constanta to the south might be the best course of action.

Here's a shot of the map overview

[Harald1050]

Maybe this map helps a little bit.

[Hanal]

bump...for screenies

[wodin]

Frank,

The Southern coast of Britain looks odd. Holland seems extremely far away from Britian. It all looks very warped indeed.

Hopefully the new map has a better perspective. Infact the more I look at it the odder it seems.

[dricard]

Another question, Frank,

WWI was a war with quasi-immobile fronts. What will you do to make this game realistic and fun at the same time? What features will include this game to achieve that?

[FrankHunter]

My opinion is that it wasn't the most dificult thing in the world to break a trench line. So you can acheive breakthroughs with artillery, gas, stoss, tanks whatever. My view is that what made actual breakthroughs on the western front hard to acheive was that the defender could easily rush reserves to the breach.

Manpower and supply, not trenches, are the key to holding a front. So its always possible to open things up. And of course when you do break through you have no trenches and for a turn you're ripe for counter-attack..

The east and the balkans tend to stay fluid but that could just be my play style.

One thing to remember is that the national morale will break if you lose too much territory so you can't trade space for time in this game.

[FrankHunter]

The map is tilted. Look at Europe and then tilt the map so that the French channel coast and the German coast are equal distant from the screen top.

[ojnab_bob]

Frank, any other words of wisdom on the status of the game? I just read Shaara's novel on the Great War and am itching to try this bad boy out.

[wodin]

Im reading Shaara's novel aswell. Its not as good as I'd thought it would be. Glaring mistakes at the start. British wearing tin hats in 1915 and using the word regiment instead of battalion. This makes me wonder how much research he actually did.

So many better books out their to give a feel of combat most of them are memiors.

[Tankerace]

What do you mean wodin? At least in WW2 and I believe in WW1, In British nomenclature a battalion was a regiment. Or at least a British regiment was the equivelent of an American battalion.

[wodin]

A British regiment consists of four or more battalions. Each Battalion had four companies. Only once did two battalions of the same regiment serve along the front line together. All of which fought as seperate entities. A Brit would refer more to his battalion than his regiment. In the book he should have used Battalion not regiment in the context of the paragraph. Besides that its a glaring mistake to have the Brits in tin hats in 1915.

[dricard]

A british regiment it is only an administrative and ceremonial grouping of battalions in the infantry. Let's give an example of two batallions of the same regiment in 1914:

The 7th Btn South Staffordshire Regiment, they fought with the 33rd Brigade, 11th Northern Division, K1 new army ( the first 100.000 enlisted soldiers in 1914). Destination in 1915 : Gallipoli

The 8th Btn South Staffordshire Regiment attached to 51st Brigade, 17th Northern Division, K2 New Army. Destination in 1915 : France.


So, I am agree with wodin, use the word regiment instead of battalion is a clear mistake.

[wodin]

Thankyou