1.25

[FrankHunter]

I've been working on a new version to be uploaded tomorrow. Here is a list of what I worked on.

1. Reduced the length of time isolated units and HQs can hold out.
2. Artillery alone in a hex when attacked is now destroyed instead of auto-retreating.
3. Activated units now move before cavalry units which prevents cavalry attacking an enemy stack on the offensive in order to freeze it in place.
4. Removed ability of CP naval units to move past Gibraltar.
5. Italy surrenders and French units entered the country a turn later. Fixed.
6. Fixed screen updates in PBEM/Hotseat games where other side's units would sometimes flash.
7. Removed seeing movement arrows in enemy rear areas.
8. Fixed negative effects of TE attacking Belgium/Holland/Lux.
9. Fixed need to enter password twice in PBEM games
10. Countries can no longer transfer food and RMs to Britain without using naval transport. All transfers over water now require naval units on shipping missions in that water. The naval orders display now updates these requirements. So for example if on the nat'l status screen you decide to transfer 10 RMs to Britain from France the naval orders screen will tell you you need 5 transport ships on a shipping mission in the Atlantic, on top of other requirements.


Thank you all very much for pointing these out or suggesting these to me!

[hjaco]

GREAT changes Frank [8D]

Thanx for excellent support of this game [;)]

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

2. Artillery alone in a hex when attacked is now destroyed instead of auto-retreating.

How about HQ's? Now they give great Intel acting as "scouting" units?

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

10. Countries can no longer transfer food and RMs to Britain without using naval transport. All transfers over water now require naval units on shipping missions in that water. The naval orders display now updates these requirements. So for example if on the nat'l status screen you decide to transfer 10 RMs to Britain from France the naval orders screen will tell you you need 5 transport ships on a shipping mission in the Atlantic, on top of other requirements.

Excellent change.

How does that work out with American transfer in general i.e. to other countries than Britain (or are they not allowed anymore)?

By the way there seems to be a loophole in american transfers as included below from a current game with no land connection to Russia? (We just noticed this evening)

[Lascar]

These are excellent updates Frank. The transport requirement for shipments from America should make a significant difference and a good reason to have unrestricted submarine warfare after America enters the war.

What exactly will be the negative effects of the TE attacking the Benelux countries? It would seem that they should be very severe and greatly reduce the chances of America entering the war--or delaying the possibility of entering until very late--if not out right prevent the entry of America on the side of the TE. It should be a trade off that the TE player will find very painful to make.

[lordhoff]

Geez you're fast! And here I was about to report that after a complete reload of 1.2.4 beta at the beginning of a game, the naval game is working as advertised (Re: Leaving Guns of August", support area).

Just curious, can isolated artillery units still reload from the national stockpile or have they been limited to a few fires?

[FrankHunter]

How about HQ's? Now they give great Intel acting as "scouting" units?

I didn't realize that, will check it asap.

How does that work out with American transfer in general i.e. to other countries than Britain (or are they not allowed anymore)?

No transfers over sea are allowed without the required number of transports in each sea area being moved over.

By the way there seems to be a loophole in american transfers as included below from a current game with no land connection to Russia? (We just noticed this evening)

Russia is a special case because there are off-map ports such as Vladivostok. Perhaps I could get some feedback on this but currently I've set it up that Britain can transfer to and from Russia if controls the North Sea (and has the transports). The North Sea is "standing in" for the off-map route around Norway. France and Italy can trade with Russia through the Med and Black Sea if the CP does not control Constantinople and Gallipoli. America can trade with Russia directly as if there was an overland connection.

What exactly will be the negative effects of the TE attacking the Benelux countries?

High chance of it generating "outrage" among neutrals leaning the TE's way (such as Italy) and that outrage leading to either putting entry further off into the future or switching to a strictly neutral stance.

[HannoMeier]

#10: Does transfer from Britain also requires transport cap? I think this would be more realistic (e.g. when Britain transfers to France).
 
What do others think about the instant arrival of transferred finished goods to a countries pool? E.g. when AH transfers 3 raw materials to Germany, they will be used in the following turn for production, but the transfer of 3 finished goods is available immediately for Germany to produce troops & assets.
 
I would also voted for a more restrictive concept regarding economic transfers and combined hq usage. Along the lines: German HQ's could activate anybody and Germany could transfer finished goods to anybody. AH could use HQ and economics for Turkey and Bulgaria, Turkey and Bulgaria could only serve themselves.
 
This would be much more realistic, I think.
 
Regards,
Hanno

[arichbourg]

All excellent updates - huzzah to Frank for continuing great work on this game.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Russia is a special case because there are off-map ports such as Vladivostok. Perhaps I could get some feedback on this but currently I've set it up that Britain can transfer to and from Russia if controls the North Sea (and has the transports). The North Sea is "standing in" for the off-map route around Norway. France and Italy can trade with Russia through the Med and Black Sea if the CP does not control Constantinople and Gallipoli. America can trade with Russia directly as if there was an overland connection.

I must protest in the strongest way Frank [:-]

No one is going to undertake a serious campaign against Russia under these conditions as Britain can send food (and IP) to Russia from day one of the war through the North Sea making starvation an unknown phenomenon in Russia. Russian railway (and shipping facilities) in those days in the far north was way underdeveloped and i will make the claim that only very limited amounts of transfer would have been possible.

With city loss counting half for morale Russia will loose a total of 62 morale if loosing all their cities. So you basically have to conquer the whole of Russia and destroy their complete field army in order to (perhaps) make them surrender.

The American transfer without limitation simulated to happen through the Pacific is debatable due to limited rail capacity from Sibiria to continental Europe but mainly due to the fact that no transports will be required for this operation as the Pacific is not a sea area in this game. Furthermore the Pacific is pretty darn big so it should require more shipping capacity in order to transport the same amount as across the Atlantic.

The shipping through the Black Sea requiring control of Constantinopel or (perhaps) an overland route through the Balkans (also with limited rail infrastructure) would IMO
be the preferable choice for game balancing, simplicity and realism.

In summary - no matter the intention this spoils any incentive for a Russia first campaign forcing CP to undertake the Paris or die Campaign [:(]

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: Hanno Meier

#10: Does transfer from Britain also requires transport cap? I think this would be more realistic (e.g. when Britain transfers to France).

What do others think about the instant arrival of transferred finished goods to a countries pool? E.g. when AH transfers 3 raw materials to Germany, they will be used in the following turn for production, but the transfer of 3 finished goods is available immediately for Germany to produce troops & assets.

I would also voted for a more restrictive concept regarding economic transfers and combined hq usage. Along the lines: German HQ's could activate anybody and Germany could transfer finished goods to anybody. AH could use HQ and economics for Turkey and Bulgaria, Turkey and Bulgaria could only serve themselves.

This would be much more realistic, I think.

Regards,
Hanno

Frank has answered this in part:

All transfers over water now require naval units on shipping missions in that water.

I agree that a one turn delay of transfers would be desirable but that also raises the question whether transfer should be possible both when carried out and received. Say Britain sends food to Russia through controlled Balkan hexes in turn A - in turn B those hexes are now controlled by the CP. What should happen? What would be the most fair and realistic solution?

I have always found the activation part of historic non cooperative countries a bit too arbitrary so activation required by one countries own HQ or a "major" power HQ would seem logical.
On the flip side this adds a difficult dimension in planning to the game which perhaps is out of scope of the game system?

[FrankHunter]

The transfers do now face a "one turn delay" before they show up in the other country's pool.

The reasoning on the America-Russia thing was that there won't be any German subs operating in the North Pacific anyway so there's no chance of sinking transports etc.

The British-Russia trade route is an abstraction also since there's no off-map sea areas but at least it gives Germany the chance of barring the route. But if you guys would prefer the route be either the Med-Black Sea or the North Sea-Baltic Sea I can change that.

And yes, the change to over-water transfers also covers British transfers to France (and vice versa).

And yes artillery in hexes with less than 5% supply cannot "reload".

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Russia is a special case because there are off-map ports such as Vladivostok. Perhaps I could get some feedback on this but currently I've set it up that Britain can transfer to and from Russia if controls the North Sea (and has the transports). The North Sea is "standing in" for the off-map route around Norway. France and Italy can trade with Russia through the Med and Black Sea if the CP does not control Constantinople and Gallipoli. America can trade with Russia directly as if there was an overland connection.

I must protest in the strongest way Frank [:-]

No one is going to undertake a serious campaign against Russia under these conditions as Britain can send food (and IP) to Russia from day one of the war through the North Sea making starvation an unknown phenomenon in Russia. Russian railway (and shipping facilities) in those days in the far north was way underdeveloped and i will make the claim that only very limited amounts of transfer would have been possible.

With city loss counting half for morale Russia will loose a total of 62 morale if loosing all their cities. So you basically have to conquer the whole of Russia and destroy their complete field army in order to (perhaps) make them surrender.

The American transfer without limitation simulated to happen through the Pacific is debatable due to limited rail capacity from Sibiria to continental Europe but mainly due to the fact that no transports will be required for this operation as the Pacific is not a sea area in this game. Furthermore the Pacific is pretty darn big so it should require more shipping capacity in order to transport the same amount as across the Atlantic.

The shipping through the Black Sea requiring control of Constantinopel or (perhaps) an overland route through the Balkans (also with limited rail infrastructure) would IMO
be the preferable choice for game balancing, simplicity and realism.

In summary - no matter the intention this spoils any incentive for a Russia first campaign forcing CP to undertake the Paris or die Campaign [:(]

I agree with Hjaco on this. The trans Siberian railroad during this period had much less capacity than it did during WWII. And the sea transport across the Pacific would also be a limiting factor. Perhaps a small number of supplies could be shipped this way to Russia but it should be placed at a very low cap.

Likewise, sea transport to Murmansk should also have a low cap and extremely bad winter weather should reduce this even further.

It would seem that the only way to actually send large quantities of aid to Russia during this period would have been through the Dardanelles into the Black Sea. Russia did receive some aid through other routes but not enough to prevent food shortages.

[Naskra]

I agree with those posters who say that supply of Russia is too easy. 
During the war, Russia's economic problems were not due to any inherent shortages, but rather to wholescale mismanagement.    My suggestion is that any transfer of food or materials to Russia be inefficient;  for example,
send 4, receive 1. 

[BK6583]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Russia is a special case because there are off-map ports such as Vladivostok. Perhaps I could get some feedback on this but currently I've set it up that Britain can transfer to and from Russia if controls the North Sea (and has the transports). The North Sea is "standing in" for the off-map route around Norway. France and Italy can trade with Russia through the Med and Black Sea if the CP does not control Constantinople and Gallipoli. America can trade with Russia directly as if there was an overland connection.

I must also agree with Hjaco. Not an expert on WWI but have read "Castles of Steel" as well as the ones by Keegan and Gilbert and it certainly seems that the only practical way to ship large quantities of food to Russia would have had to go via the Black Sea. The Baltic might also had been an option if the HSF had managed to massively screw up and get itself destroyed, which didn't happen. Also, it's been a few years since I read "Castles of Steel", but IIRC, Russia was hit with a double whammy: First, she had a terribly antiquated, corrupt, and mismanged distribution system. Second, from the time the Black Sea closed to her at the start of the war (along with the Baltic), she just plain couldn't feed her people and army without significant imports of food, which became impossible as long as Germany controlled the Baltic and OE held the Dardanelles. The Siberian Railway wasn't even remotely close to being able to make up any shipping difference and even if so, the food would have rotted long before it arrived where it was needed.

Frank, if I could get a little greedy after you've just announced this new update, I'd love to see some tweaking of the AI. Right now it does some things rather consistently (I'm sure others have their own observations): 1) It never seems to research gas - I've beat her to it every time as TE. 2) She almost always heads east, but never in the strength needed to knock Russia out. 3) When she heads east, she never fortifies adequately on the French frontier and when attacked in force there never rails anything remotely adequate back there to stop the hemorage. 4) She sends units into Serbia (both German and AH) but never attacks to finish Serbia off - she always takes Belgrade, advances adjacent to the two remaing cities, and then just sits there for literally the whole game.

[Lascar]

I know you have made some changes to the diplomatic status screen over the course of the past few updates. Originally the CP could see the exact status of pro-ET neutrals and then it was changed so that they can only get an approximate idea of their status. That seemed reasonable but now there seems to be a total diplomatic blackout so that the CP has no idea what the status of America is. It would seem that while they still have an ambassador and diplomatic relations with America they should at least have a rough idea of where America stands. This way that can make at least a semi-informed decision as to how many resources to allocate to diplomacy and not just blindly spend diplomacy points.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: Lascar

I know you have made some changes to the diplomatic status screen over the course of the past few updates. Originally the CP could see the exact status of pro-ET neutrals and then it was changed so that they can only get an approximate idea of their status. That seemed reasonable but now there seems to be a total diplomatic blackout so that the CP has no idea what the status of America is. It would seem that while they still have an ambassador and diplomatic relations with America they should at least have a rough idea of where America stands. This way that can make at least a semi-informed decision as to how many resources to allocate to diplomacy and not just blindly spend diplomacy points.

Or perhaps going the other way making precise entry an unknown factor for both sides?

[hjaco]

Regarding transfers to Russia if the coding allows it perhaps add an checkbox at the game menu giving players the option to play with alternate versions of transfer possibilities to Russia?

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: Lascar

I know you have made some changes to the diplomatic status screen over the course of the past few updates. Originally the CP could see the exact status of pro-ET neutrals and then it was changed so that they can only get an approximate idea of their status. That seemed reasonable but now there seems to be a total diplomatic blackout so that the CP has no idea what the status of America is. It would seem that while they still have an ambassador and diplomatic relations with America they should at least have a rough idea of where America stands. This way that can make at least a semi-informed decision as to how many resources to allocate to diplomacy and not just blindly spend diplomacy points.

Or perhaps going the other way making precise entry an unknown factor for both sides?

That would be more reasonable than a complete status blackout as it now stands.

[FrankHunter]

BK6583, No problem with getting "greedy" and tossing in "wish list" items. Just can't promise I'll be able to do anything on them. The AI one you mention I've looked at before and the "fix" was worse than the problem. The risk inherent in that strategy just sets off too many alarm bells and although I've tried to situationally turn some off the result hasn't been pretty. Its a big reason the AI plays better as the TE, less risk.

Thanks for the feedback guys, obviously I won't be able to upload today as I will look at each of these issues first.