Mod Suggestions from Checksum

[mdsmall]

Hello and good day,

I found some bugs; nothing major, but I keep noticing them, so I thought I might as well post them here. Could they perhaps be fixed with the next Update?

1. If the UK ist not in the war yet, it will protest "German" naval movement whenever Austro-Hungarian ships operate near Algeria. The Austro-Hungarian supreme naval commander, Admiral Haus, protests strongly against his ships being mistaken for the German navy.

2....
d) All of the Caucasus Mountains and all the various Persian Mountains are just mountains, not high mountains, even though many of them are as high as the highest mountains in the Alps. Poring over all of them might be too much work, but at least the Damavand (249, 114) and the Ararat (233, 106) should be upgraded to high mountains.

......

7. Various countries lack logical alternate capitals:
a) The Ottoman Empire should/could have Angora. Admittedly that should be evaluated carefully, as it would prevent a clean decapitation by occupying Constantinople. Still, given that all other majors have one or more alternate capitals I'd say it would be fair.
b) Switzerland should have both Geneva and Zurich, which are large towns perfectly capable of housing the Government. The lack of an alternative capital is particularly striking given Switerland's highly federalized nature - France and the German Empire were far more centralized.
c) Alexandria should be the alternative capital for Egypt. It was important both as a major city and a major port. It also seems unlikely that British rule would collapse immediately after the loss of Cairo.
d) Benghazi should be the alternative capital for Libya. Libya being very decentralized back then, the loss of Tripoli should not let the whole Italian adventure crumble.

8. The German naval port at Heligoland (160, 70) does not exist even though it was a major port for the High Seas Fleet and a lot had been invested into it prior to WW1. Is this because the Island is too small for the map to create a port there or can it be fixed?

9. Finally, a suggestion for the Call to Arms scenario: If Germany does not declare war on Belgium - or perhaps if there are not at least two German units on Belgian territory - by turn 2, then (similar to the decision to send the Austro-Hungarian 2nd army under Böhm-Ermolli against Russia) German mobilization should be delayed by 1 turn, making the 6 corps that mobilize in the Rhein-Ruhr-Area (at 160-161, 77-80) available 1 turn later and also costing another 75 MPP additional mobilization cost. This should make the Russa-First-Strategy slightly less comfy while still keeping the option open. It is also more realistic and in line with the German mobilization plan which had a very precise, inflexible schedule and did not even envsisage a potential Russia-First-Strategy. The claim by the German Supreme Army Command that primary mobilization against Russia would only result in a chaotic crowd of disordered people without supply ("wüsten Haufen ungeordneter Menschen ohne Verpflegung") is probably overblown, but there would definitely have been delays and some disorder.

Hi Checksum - I have quoted some of the thoughtful comments you posted on the Tech Support board dealing with issues that could be relatively easily modified in the existing game. I would like to consider some of these ideas in my ongoing Icarus Mod for the 1914 Campaign. So, I am reposting these notes here for others to comment, as well as for Bill to reply if he wishes.

1) Austro-Hungarian naval movements in the Med trigger British protests

This happens because one of the #CONDITION POSITIONS that triggers a protest by the UK is one Central Powers naval unit within 75 sea hexes of mid-Atlantic hex 80,87. It turns out that reaches into the Western Med off Algeria. That could be fixed by just adjusting the #CONDITION POSITION to apply specifically to German units. (Or you could keep the trigger as is and reword the notification so it says the UK is protesting Central Powers naval movements.)

2) In fact, in the Icarus mod I added high mountains in the Ararat hex you mentioned, plus two more hexes in the Caucasus mountains to represent Mount Elbrus. I have not looked yet at the high mountain terrain in Persia but will check it out too.

7) All good suggestions about alternate capitals. I fully agree with your caveat about giving the Ottomans an alternate capital - if they have one, it should be Angora. But it would affect the play of the game significantly to give them that back-up.

8) Heligoland: that is a very interesting observation. It can be fixed by making Heligoland a land hex (currently it is a sea hex) and adding a resource to it (I would suggest a fortress). I would also add a full strength coastal gun. This would certainly deter Entente naval "adventurism" against Germany e.g. sending destroyers to mine the entrances to the two German ports on the North Sea. You could add a port hex as well to Heligoland once it is a land hex, though that would change naval movements around Heligoland significantly as it would then take up two hexes rather than one. It would be interested to hear more about how the German navy actually used Heligoland in WW1.

Bill - have you considered doing something with Heligoland in the game?

9) Changes to German mobilization in 1914: that is an interesting idea as well. Rather than just delaying the arrival of those six corps by one turn, might it make more sense to write a new DE giving Germany the option of having them deploy in East Prussia rather than the Ruhr, at a greater cost and perhaps a further delay. If Germany decides to do a Russia first opening (which is intrinsically an alt-history choice) it seems reasonable to imagine that the German High Command would change the mobilization points for some of their later arriving units. However, adding this DE would probably serve as a further incentive to consider Russia-first openings - which is not your intent in making this suggestion. I'd be interested in your views.

Michael

[Checksum]

Hello Michael,

I just watched part of your game with Balthazor on Youtube - your mod looks very promising and makes a lot of very interesting changes! I particularly liked your corrections regarding ‘landscaping’, the additional Partisans and the time-locked storm troopers and additional naval blockade effects from 1917 onwards, as well as many other things. I'm very much looking forward to its eventual release. Do you think it would be possible to use it conjunction with the Blue Max Mod (despite the new unit types) and against the AI?

With regard to your questions / comments:

1) I don’t mind the trigger per se, it makes sense for the British to be concerned about overly adventurous naval movements of all the Central Powers. My vote would be for a correction of the notification (“Central Powers” instead of “German”, perhaps also noting that these scandalous movements occurred in the Mediterranean, if this makes sense for the trigger in question).

2) Great! I would definitely add at least the Damavand as high mountains. There are some other candidates as well, many Persian mountains are higher than 4,000 m amsl and some (like the Damavand) are even higher than 5,000 m amsl. By contrast, none of the Ural Mountains even reach 2,000 m amsl.

7) I completely agree. I definitely think that the smaller countries should have their alternative capitals, but I, too, am a bit torn about the OE. Part of the problem is gameplay-related (as described), but part is also roleplay-related: Would the Sublime Porte really move to their seat of government even temporarily to the province? It’s a difficult question: The by 1914 mostly powerless sultan would probably have baulked at the idea (old imperial mindset, also ‘appearance before substance’), the Young Turks might have done it (mixture of old imperial and modern nationalistic leanings) and Mustafa Kemal obviously would have done it without hesitation (modern Turkish nationalistic mindset).

8) Heligoland is just a small islet, even smaller than Gibraltar, but it’s the only German high seas island and as such had high symbolic value. Unlike the Frisian Islands it’s also mostly rock, not just sand, and it had strategic value for the German navy, so it was built up as a naval fortress almost immediately after it was acquired by the German Empire in 1890.
From 1906 to 1916 the works were vastly extended as part of a hare-brained, uhm I mean cunning, German scheme to get on the good side of the UK by rivaling them navy-wise: The gun emplacements were modernized, extended and complemented, additional storage areas were built for naval supplies and ammunitions, the rock caverns were vastly extended to house several thousand soldiers, a power plant and numerous navy-related workshops were built and, more importantly, a large artificial deep-water harbor of roughly 0,5 square kilometers including small dry docks was built for the navy. Most of the works had been completed by 1913, though a storm tide damaged part of the harbor that same year. Total cost of the extension/modernization was around 70 million Goldmarks, not counting maintenance, supply and minor supplementary works (by comparison, the modern Derfflinger Battlecruiser cost 56 million).
The purpose and actual usage of Heligoland in WW1 was threefold: 1) Protect the German Bight and in particular the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Kanal between North Sea and Baltic Sea, 2) hamper any Anglo-French port blockades (clearly, the British would never consider a blockade north of Scotland) and 3) serve as a base for resupply of the navy and repair of smaller ships. I’m not too sure about its potential as a permanent home port for capital ships, though (i.e. unlike Gibraltar, it should have just one port hex). I think adding a fortress + harbor to Heligoland makes sense both roleplay-wise and gameplay-wise, although it might need some play-testing to see whether it works in practice or whether the additional harbor makes the German Bight too inaccessible to the Entente (as it was historically, but might or might not be desired gameplay-wise in your mod). It’s really cool that you add coastal guns, btw. Can the AI handle them, too?

9) I would agree with you that it would make sense to do so, I just don’t think that the German High Command would have been willing and able to do so in such a short time in 1914.
All serious planning after 1905 and especially under Moltke the Younger (chief of the High Command 1906-1914) was Schlieffen, Schlieffen and Schlieffen again (i.e. early mobilization, then France first via Belgium and only then Russia). The whole German strategy rested on this and everything was perfectly planned through, including to-the-minute schedules of thousands of trains. By the time the war finally came, German High Command had complete tunnel vision and likely could not envision any other path. Fittingly, Moltke, who was already on edge by the faster-than-expected mobilization of Russia, suffered a nervous breakdown when the Kaiser ordered a temporary halt to the war preparations against Belgium at the eleventh hour after a false report that Britain would guarantee to stay out of the war if Belgium remained untouched. After all, there had been no preparations for any deviations from the Schlieffen-Plan.
Consequently, I can see only two realistic alt-history-scenarios of 1914 where the German Empire would have gone for No-Belgium-And-Russia-First: 1. Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg unexpectedly keeps his nerve at the end of July, hopes fervently and unreasonably for lasting British neutrality and puts his foot down instead of meekly sinking into depression and doubt. 2. The Kaiser loses his nerve completely at the end of July and definitively prohibits a march through Belgium instead of flailing about wildly and parroting whoever he last spoke to, even though he was normally very fond of doing so.
Neither scenario would allow for much preparation; some unforeseen delays would therefore be very realistic and a fitting, but not forbiddingly high ‘punishment’ for the spontaneous deviation from the rigid planning of the German High Command. I also think it makes sense gameplay-wise; in my impression a determined Russia-First can still be somewhat OP and the mobilization delay should give Russia a better chance to prevent becoming a foregone conclusion in by late 1914.


Additionally, I have another suggestion for the mod, although I’m not sure if this is possible:
The NM punishment to the UK (and maybe to France) for DOWing Belgium is very high and the DOW itself comes roleplay-wise out of the blue. Still, at least the AI always tries it if things in Alsace do not progress. I think both the action and the consequences are mostly not unreasonable both gameplay-wise and alt-history-wise, but I would much prefer if it didn't came out of the blue and if it weren't so predictable.
A solution could be a DE where the Entente can deliver an Ultimatum to Belgium sometime in 1915 (possibly at a small cost of MPP or NM) and Belgium then decides – Based on a) its mobilization, b) the strength of Entente units and CP units near its borders and c) perhaps a small randomness factor – what to do: 1. Fold and join the Entente (no Entente NM hits, maybe even a minor bonus), 2. do nothing and hope for the best (the Entente can then attack and take a - maybe slightly diminished - NM hit), 3. directly join the CP (the Entente take a lower hit, the Belgians were obviously traitors and who likes Belgian chocolate anyway), 4. ask Germany for an emergency hardware delivery in the form of an MPP contribution which Germany then can either a) agree to (=Belgium joins CP as in 3) or b) decline (=Belgium joins Entente as in 1). Would that be possible and do you think it makes sense?
Obviously, the Entente could still simply DOW Belgium at any time if they prefer to take the regular NM hit upfront and keep their plans a secret.

[mdsmall]

Hi Checksum,

I am glad you enjoyed looking at the first play-test of the Icarus Mod on Old Crow's Youtube channel. It has been a great way to help people get a look at the mod and to promote the other games that Old Crow has posted there.

I have not yet posted the mod in an open forum as it needs more play-testing and I am constantly getting new ideas for small improvements. But I am happy to send it to anyone who requests it - just send me a DM (or let me know here if a DM does not go through). I can confirm that it works with the Blue Max mod and Blue Max includes counters for all the new units in the mod (ie heavy artillery, coastal guns and German colonial corps). It works imperfectly against the AI at the moment - getting that right will require me to learn how to edit the AI scripts (which I have not done yet). But you can still play against the AI - I did so in a couple of early play-tests of the mod. Now on to your ideas.

1. Austrian naval movements: I personally have not seen AH send their sub into the Western med at the beginning of the game (I don't think their surface ships would survive very long far away from friendly ports). But why not adjust the game to allow for it? My suggestion would be to write a separate UK script triggering UK concern but based on distance of Austro-Hungarian naval units from Gibraltar.

2. Access through Gibraltar: it was noted elsewhere in the Forum that it is odd that before the UK is fully mobilized all other powers' naval movements past Gibraltar, including French ones, are blocked. I will experiment with writing a new loop that would allow both sides to pass through Gibraltar until the UK has fully mobilized and joined the war. This would enable the Central Powers, if they really wanted to push the envelope, to send one or two German subs into the Med or the Austro-Hungarian one into the Atlantic before the UK enters the war.

3. Persian mountains: My thought is to make hex 249,114 high mountains for Mount Davamand and hexes 246,113 and 247,113 high mountains as well to represent some of the other peaks in the Elburz range near Tehran. These hexes will not be of much consequence in the game, but they add greater geographic variety and accuracy to the game map.

4. Second Ottoman capital: My instinct is to leave Constantinople as the only Ottoman capital on the theory that if the Sublime Porte were driven from their historic capital, the regime would collapse instead and the Empire would surrender. It is hard enough for the Entente to capture Constantinople that I am inclined to leave it that way as an incentive for the Entente player to try to take it as a means of forcing a complete surrender, rather than an armistice. In the second version of the Icarus mod, I have adjusted the NM effects of an Ottoman armistice versus a surrender to provide such an incentive.

If one decided to make Angora a second capital, I would further adjust the Ottoman NM scripts so that only if the Entente rejected an armistice offer from the Ottomans would the loss of Constantinople not be sufficient to drive them to immediate surrender. (In other words, the "increased fighting spirit" DE that is already in the game would be modified to increase the chances of shifting the capital to Angora if Constantinople is lost).

5. Second Egyptian capital: I can see that if the British lost Cairo they could move their administration to Alexandria and fight on from there. But in the case of Egypt, surrender is almost a purely political signal since there is at most one Egyptian detachment that would surrender (plus the Lawrence HQ if it is in the game). I think the case can be made that the prestige loss of losing Cairo would be enormous and would trigger the NM losses already prescribed in the game for the surrender of Egypt. My inclination is to keep Cairo as the only Egyptian capital (or add Alexandria only if Angora is made a second capital for the Ottomans).

6. Heligoland: that's very interesting additional information. Having recently played the Central Powers and had my opponent deploy capital ships and destroyers in the German Bight (admittedly after I foolishly lost most of my German capital ships), I am sympathetic to adding a German coastal gun on that hex and it sounds like that would be a reasonable reflection of the way the IGN fortified the island. Coastal guns will rarely sink surface ships on their own but they will inflict losses and they are much cheaper to rebuild than ships. The AI will work with them. Improved spotting off the coast, including in bad weather, would be a major benefit to the CP side of putting a coastal gun unit on Heligoland. While adding a port would be historically accurate, I think it would distort the map a bit too much to make Heligoland occupy two hexes rather than one - but that is a matter of taste.

7. German mobilization: after reading your discussion, I would not recommend writing a DE that allowed a change in mobilization locations. I can see adding the script you suggested to delay the late arriving corps and charge an extra mobilization cost - but the main reason for doing this would be if it was felt it was needed for game balance, given that a Russia-first strategy can be over-powering for the Central Powers. My approach to that issue was to reduce the NM value of Warsaw and to oblige the CP to capture more Russian NM objectives deeper into Russia before they can be assured they will push Russia into revolution.

8. Entente DOW on Belgium. My that's a complicated set of scenarios! It reminds me of the scripts I have written in the Icarus mod for the Zimmerman telegram. I think it would be possible to write a set of interlocking DEs to cover most of those possibilities. One could test them out either by a hot-seat test or through a match against a human opponent. Writing a set of scripts for the AI to follow to do all that is beyond my current capabilities (more experienced mod writers may wish to comment).

Cheers,

Michael

[OldCrowBalthazor]

If I may throw in my 3 cents here .
Regarding the capitulation of the Ottoman Empire by what ever means, the Young Turks eventually took over the government and established it in Ankara (Angora).

One thing that happens when the OE falls via Armistice or Surrender, is that the Entente player can and will wholesale move their troops out of the Middle East AO. Turkey, Palestine, Iraq, etc al. I always thought it would be realistic that the Entente would have to keep some certain amount of troops there...at least in Iraq, Syria, and Palestine to quell the Arab Nationalists and help the civilian authority administer those newly established states.

There is a similar mechanic regarding Ukraine after Russia Falls to the Bolsheviks. The CP needs to keep a certain amount of troops near Warsaw or the wheat MMP won't flow. Now I realize that some other kind of malus other than MMPs would be required to make the Entente player consider hard whether to move out a lot of troops from the AO described...but some solution may come to my mind on this idea.

Kind of just throwing this out there...just read this thread and will think more on this. If there is any merit to this or an idea of the malus that could be implemented, I would be interested.

[BillRunacre]

8) Heligoland: that is a very interesting observation. It can be fixed by making Heligoland a land hex (currently it is a sea hex) and adding a resource to it (I would suggest a fortress). I would also add a full strength coastal gun. This would certainly deter Entente naval "adventurism" against Germany e.g. sending destroyers to mine the entrances to the two German ports on the North Sea. You could add a port hex as well to Heligoland once it is a land hex, though that would change naval movements around Heligoland significantly as it would then take up two hexes rather than one. It would be interested to hear more about how the German navy actually used Heligoland in WW1.

Bill - have you considered doing something with Heligoland in the game?

Hi Michael

I've not really felt inclined to add it as I think Germany has plenty of ports already, and adding a port as well as a resource would look a bit too much.

[Checksum]

@Michael:

1. and 2. I like your ideas on Gibraltar, that would be more plausible than the status quo and could create very interesting dynamics.

3. Sounds good, that would definitely help immersion.

4. A conditional alternate Capital is admittedly better that an unconditional one; it’s not only more historical but also makes the choice regarding the OE’s withdrawal offer more meaningful. And it avoids straying too far from the ‘decapitation’ option since the Entente can still try that before the withdrawal offer. Balthazor’s idea is also very interesting, albeit from a completely different angle. I can’t tell which option is better or if perhaps both should be implemented in parallel. Might need some testing.

5. I didn’t really consider the Egyptian units at all - as you correctly described, they are too insignificant to truly matter. I’m more concerned about supply; once Cairo falls and Egypt surrenders, the Entente loses access to all unoccupied supply sources which can turn the rest of the Entente units in Egypt into mush, unless their placement happened to be very lucky.

6. For Heligoland I very much like the idea of an island with a coastal gun only. I agree that an island AND a port might indeed be too much and unnecessarily forbidding to Entente forays into the German Bight, while giving the ING to much leeway. It should be a gamble for the Entente, not suicide. Also, given that Heligoland port mostly serviced smaller ships and not dreadnoughts, it’s not that far-fetched.

7. I would really like to see a delayed mobilization for the deviation from Schlieffen, admittedly mostly for roleplay reasons. Gameplay-wise a nerf of Warsaw is probably more effective, although I think both measures might profitably work together since they address different areas of the problem (# of combat units in the early push and amount of NM lost).

8. I would love for the Entente to have more options regarding Belgium; it seems to me to make more sense both historically and gameplay-wise. It’s unfortunate that writing the DE is so complicated.

Thank you for the offer to send the mod. I’ll contact you when I have some leisure – right now my job is eating too much into my time.