Patch 1.08H ???

[Panama Red]

Calvinus:
With all the items you are fixing for the 1.08H patch, will it still be an OFFICIAL patch or will it revert back to a BETA patch ???

[Tamas]

I would advise a candidate (beta) patch first, just so we can help test it

[calvinus]

I'm still working on 1.08H, struggling against a nasty crash on save!
So, as soon 1.08H is ready, I would say it's worth a beta testing for some days.

[Panama Red]

Thank you.

Another question though, have you solved the AI only attacking with one or two corps yet ???

[Tamas]

Thank you.

Another question though, have you solved the AI only attacking with one or two corps yet ???

We dont want the AI to NEVER do those attacks.

[calvinus]

We dont want the AI to NEVER do those attacks.

This is not the point.

This attack can be done when you have good forces in your reserves.

I examined carefully the boardgame rules and I discovered that during Trench warfare the reinforcing units in battle (from neighboring armies) should go to Reserves box, not really to the Rear box. To be more precise, in the boardgame you can pick up some of these reinforcing units and place them in your Rear, but in exchange of another unit! This cannot be done in PC game terms.

So now battles in Trench warfare are tremendously unbalanced in favor of the defender.

For this reason, I introduced a couple of "corrections" that make now the game more balanced, preserving some "protection" for the defender of course.

[oldspec4]

Wow...always something to improve on

[Mowers]

So now battles in Trench warfare are tremendously unbalanced in favor of the defender.

For this reason, I introduced a couple of "corrections" that make now the game more balanced, preserving some "protection" for the defender of course.

Yes, it must be remembered that all the major sides were able to make significant tactical gains without severe losses from early 1917 onwards. All before tanks and storm troopers. The issue was not tactical success but operational level success.

The problem that this game has a challenge modelling is that counter attacking was rather easy. The model used for entrenching doesn't allow for this to be reflected properly.
Finding an abstract way to model this properly would help this game alot.

Mowers

[Drakken]

Yes, it must be remembered that all the major sides were able to make significant tactical gains without severe losses from early 1917 onwards. All before tanks and storm troopers. The issue was not tactical success but operational level success.

The problem that this game has a challenge modelling is that counter attacking was rather easy. The model used for entrenching doesn't allow for this to be reflected properly.
Finding an abstract way to model this properly would help this game alot.

Mowers

Uh, I don't understand your point.

Even in 1917, trench warfare was brutally costly for either side. However, small tactical advances were made that made it easier to gain slightly more ground than before (rolling barrage, for instances).

Yet, there was Vimy Ridge, but in 1917 also happened the Nivelle Offensive and the French mutinies. Because the trench warfare system was fundamentally the same, only after the tank and good use of Assault troops did the front really start to move.

What would need to change in the game, more precisely?

[calvinus]

Herewith you can find a summary of what I changed.

Defender battle setup in Trench Warfare...

BEFORE:
1) All neighboring HQs / GHQs (max 3 areas distance) send 1-2 corps to the REAR.
2) Distant HQs / GHQs (4+ areas distance) send 1-2 corps to the REAR... <== this is a bug! Now fixed with 1.08H
3) The Numerical Superiority is calculated also considering the REAR <== not fair!

NOW:
1) All neighboring HQs / GHQs (max 3 areas distance) send 1-2 corps to the RESERVES.
2) Distant HQs / GHQs send nothing!
3) The Numerical Superiority is calculated considering only Committments and Deployments.

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE DEFENDER:
- As a defender now it's a must to keep minimum 2 corps in your First Line
- Unless the enemy has successfully employed the Flash Bombardment, you can immediately call some corps from the RESERVES (see point 1!)
- You can call then Reserve corps from round 3 onwards

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ATTACKER:
- You can now attack with less than 3 corps, so you get a minor battle, that is better for you!
- If you employ the Flash Bombardment, the enemy is stuck by surprise and can't call for reinforcements in the very first round of battle
- You are no more forced to face so many corps in defense, so the battle is no more an impossible task!

[Mowers]

Uh, I don't understand your point.

Even in 1917, trench warfare was brutally costly for either side. However, small tactical advances were made that made it easier to gain slightly more ground than before (rolling barrage, for instances).

Yet, there was Vimy Ridge, but in 1917 also happened the Nivelle Offensive and the French mutinies. Because the trench warfare system was fundamentally the same, only after the tank and good use of Assault troops did the front really start to move.

What would need to change in the game, more precisely?

I would disagree with you and modern war historians would tend to strongly disagree with your statement "Because the trench warfare system was fundamentally the same". My BA and MA thesis were both on tactical doctrine in trench warfare in 1917 and I found that tactical advances were fairly easy to make, trench warfare was not "fundamentally the same" at all according to modern analysis.

Furthermore your statement "only after the tank and good use of Assault troops did the front really start to move." would also be considered an incorrect one by most theorists and historians today. Its considered a very outmoded view which hasnt been subscribed to except in popular culture on tv for some time.

The real issue is that holding recently captured ground and operational level advances were not easy for a number of obvious reasons, slow moving tanks and assault troops have no impact at the operational level.

My issue is that the entrenchment system does not model this effectively.

[PhilThib]

So what would be your suggestions... knowing that the system that has existed in the last 10 years with the boardgame gave proper results but if we can find some 'improvements' for the computer version and that they prove feasible and nice for gameplay, why not

[Mowers]

So what would be your suggestions... knowing that the system that has existed in the last 10 years with the boardgame gave proper results but if we can find some 'improvements' for the computer version and that they prove feasible and nice for gameplay, why not

There in lies the million dollar question.

I still don't entirely understand the myriad of rules and I face the issue as to whether the model is working as designed because it seems to have some outstanding issues. Nor am I familiar with your particular board game, so I am unable to judge from that perspective either.

What I will continue to do is feedback where I see the model not working in a way that was clearly intended or in a way that doesn't appear to measure up to analysis.

Where I believe I might have a solution I will be certain to feed in it to the pot. You can see my latest suggestion on mines (in the issues with patch G thread) and raiding to improve your ahistoric and poor functioning naval warfare model.

[patrat]

So what would be your suggestions... knowing that the system that has existed in the last 10 years with the boardgame gave proper results but if we can find some 'improvements' for the computer version and that they prove feasible and nice for gameplay, why not

my opinion is that calvinus is making tremendous strides in getting the computer version of the game to properly reflect the board game version.

its seems silly to discuss changing the game until this task is complete. i want to play it as it was intended before its starts getting monkeyed around with.

[Panama Red]

I agree with patrat. I like really historical games too, but this is a converted boardgame (based on history).

As such, I think Calvinus needs to get this game to play like the original boardgame first before he starts to historically modify it (if that is ever even needed).

[hattrick]

my opinion is that calvinus is making tremendous strides in getting the computer version of the game to properly reflect the board game version.

its seems silly to discuss changing the game until this task is complete. i want to play it as it was intended before its starts getting monkeyed around with.

I agree with this. I think the game is progressing nicely!

[Drakken]

I would disagree with you and modern war historians would tend to strongly disagree with your statement "Because the trench warfare system was fundamentally the same". My BA and MA thesis were both on tactical doctrine in trench warfare in 1917 and I found that tactical advances were fairly easy to make, trench warfare was not "fundamentally the same" at all according to modern analysis.

Furthermore your statement "only after the tank and good use of Assault troops did the front really start to move." would also be considered an incorrect one by most theorists and historians today. Its considered a very outmoded view which hasnt been subscribed to except in popular culture on tv for some time.

The real issue is that holding recently captured ground and operational level advances were not easy for a number of obvious reasons, slow moving tanks and assault troops have no impact at the operational level.

My issue is that the entrenchment system does not model this effectively.

I readily admit that my knowledge of the tactical subtleties of late WW1 trench warfare is not very developed, and is indeed influenced by the popular tv culture, as early as 1957 with Paths of Glory which portray the 1917 trench warfare as the same old mincer as before.

One cannot expect the common people to understand the subtle differences between, for example, the "overwhelming pre-charge artillery barrage" of 1914-1915 and the "rolling barrage" of 1916 onwards. We know the difference, but to the layman, it's still an artillery barrage. The board game was built-up around this accepted and widely accepted notion, based on layman's history knowledge in mind which was expected to be the player's average knowledge of the events, and not as a WW1-based military kriegspiel for us academics.

There is a reason why, in the popular mind, WW1 didn't change until the tanks and assault troops arrived to "break the deadlock", whether it was the truth or not. First, and obviously, it was presented with such narrative in history books and post-WW1 war movies.

Second, while tactical advances were made on the field and all powers finally adapted to the "new" way of warfare when the defensive is overwhelming favoured, these were too subtle and not wide-changing enough to fundamentally change the way the war was fought on an operational map. It was a mutated form of the same over the top, crawl into the mud, bite and hold enemy trenches in front of machine gun and schrapnel-loaded artillery exchanges. It may be 1917 trench warfare, but it was still trench warfare.

However, as we have learned better and we know things we didn't at the time, I'd be happy to see the rules amended to take these in account. I am fully ready to be proven wrong, and I'd love to have sources to read about these fundamental changes.

Also, if you could list some practical examples of changes made to the 1917 trench warfare and how they are not implemented, I might help in bringing suggestions.

[Tamas]

This is a strategical simulation of WW1, with details going into some operational aspects (the battles).

I really dont feel the need for any grand changes, the simulation values are great as is. Don't forget that because of the boardgame we have 10+ years of playtime in this system.

Calvinus should have his focus on fixes and AI tweaks, in my opinion.

[Drakken]

This is a strategical simulation of WW1, with details going into some operational aspects (the battles).

I really dont feel the need for any grand changes, the simulation values are great as is. Don't forget that because of the boardgame we have 10+ years of playtime in this system.

Calvinus should have his focus on fixes and AI tweaks, in my opinion.

Agreed.

Especially the AI, ideally I want it to have me fixed on the edge of my seat. :turc:

[Panama Red]

Calvinus:
Is there a chance that you will be releasing the 1.08H Beta Patch for public testing by this weekend ???

[calvinus]

Yes, within the weekend for sure.

[Panama Red]

Thank you.

[Mowers]

I readily admit that my knowledge of the tactical subtleties of late WW1 trench warfare is not very developed, and is indeed influenced by the popular tv culture, as early as 1957 with Paths of Glory which portray the 1917 trench warfare as the same old mincer as before.

One cannot expect the common people to understand the subtle differences between, for example, the "overwhelming pre-charge artillery barrage" of 1914-1915 and the "rolling barrage" of 1916 onwards. We know the difference, but to the layman, it's still an artillery barrage. The board game was built-up around this accepted and widely accepted notion, based on layman's history knowledge in mind which was expected to be the player's average knowledge of the events, and not as a WW1-based military kriegspiel for us academics.

There is a reason why, in the popular mind, WW1 didn't change until the tanks and assault troops arrived to "break the deadlock", whether it was the truth or not. First, and obviously, it was presented with such narrative in history books and post-WW1 war movies.

Second, while tactical advances were made on the field and all powers finally adapted to the "new" way of warfare when the defensive is overwhelming favoured, these were too subtle and not wide-changing enough to fundamentally change the way the war was fought on an operational map. It was a mutated form of the same over the top, crawl into the mud, bite and hold enemy trenches in front of machine gun and schrapnel-loaded artillery exchanges. It may be 1917 trench warfare, but it was still trench warfare.

However, as we have learned better and we know things we didn't at the time, I'd be happy to see the rules amended to take these in account. I am fully ready to be proven wrong, and I'd love to have sources to read about these fundamental changes.

Also, if you could list some practical examples of changes made to the 1917 trench warfare and how they are not implemented, I might help in bringing suggestions.

A key question one has to ask when modeling WW1 is; why if they were able to make tactical breakthroughs which they did repeatedly and increasingly as the war progressed, were they not able to exploit this at an operational level?

My problem is that its almost impossible to analyse the developed model when its hard to determine if the model is working as intended. When the model does truely work then we can get down to the nitty gritty. In that context my view that "the model doesnt work" is not based on a whole lot of evidence. Unfortunately there is no hands off testing tool available in order to run repeated scenarios through the model to develop some stat based pictures of where we stand. So it has to be done by hand. So we wait whilst the game edges forwards to the point at which the model can be tested. In other words, I have few constructive points to add at this time.

My suggestion for reads would be:

'Battle Tactics on the Western Front 1916-18' by Paddy Griffith

It's the core text I was pushed towards when I was doing my war studies degrees and has proven useful in operational analysis modelling work in the workplace.

Then oddly enough I suggest you subsequently read

The Lessons of Modern War - Volume II - The Iran-Iraq War

The same problem, faced by different combatents, and with similiar tactical developments occuring, although, interestingly enough over a slower time frame. It gives good comparison material with which to scrutinize theories and thoughts on WW1 tactical and operational level challenges.

[patrat]

A key question one has to ask when modeling WW1 is; why if they were able to make tactical breakthroughs which they did repeatedly and increasingly as the war progressed, were they not able to exploit this at an operational level?
s.

im no expert on the matter, but i believe a couple of the reason for the inability to exploit the tactical breakthroughs were that once the infantry had advanced to a certain point it would lose its fire support from its artillery (no portable tactical radios in those days). also the fact that by using railways the defender could reinforce faster than the attacker could, since the attackers reinforcements would have to move up on foot.

portable tactical radios and reliable cross country capable vehicles changed that situation in the next war.

ive been meaning to pickup that paddy griffon book,. ive read other books by him and while i often disagree with some of his points, i gotta admit his books are interesting.

[Mowers]

im no expert on the matter, but i believe a couple of the reason for the inability to exploit the tactical breakthroughs were that once the infantry had advanced to a certain point it would lose its fire support from its artillery (no portable tactical radios in those days). also the fact that by using railways the defender could reinforce faster than the attacker could, since the attackers reinforcements would have to move up on foot.

portable tactical radios and reliable cross country capable vehicles changed that situation in the next war.

ive been meaning to pickup that paddy griffon book,. ive read other books by him and while i often disagree with some of his points, i gotta admit his books are interesting.

I would absolutely agree with you.

My personal view is that portable/reliable tactical and formation/theatre level communications combined with an organized, integrated and responsive communications structure are key for integrated maneouvre capability including flexible artillery support.

Cross country personnal carriers I am also fairly convinced about.

Basic tactical assault weaponary I think is an interesting part of the initial tactical equation. It's an interesting debate.

But ultimately I believe it boils down to an ability to conduct professional combined arm maneouvres to achieve an operational level maneouvre capability.

I see no evidence that pure "storm troopers" or "tanks" can achieve anything other than initial tactical advances and British infantry forces repeatedly proved in 1918 that a basic combined arms maneouvre capability had far more tactical and operational level successes than the use of specialist assault forces or specialist tank vehicles.

Griffith's earlier stuff he wrote when he was relatively young, his work matured alot at sandhurst.

[Drakken]

Back on the subject, however...

Calvinus, any ETA on this rumored 1.08H beta patch? Will we see it before the weekend?

[calvinus]

Back on the subject, however...

Calvinus, any ETA on this rumored 1.08H beta patch? Will we see it before the weekend?

I've sent the patch to Philippe right now. He will publish it tomorrow.

Btw, I introduced a couple of improvements in game performance. Now the game looks running smoother and better.

[Franciscus]

Great news ! Thank you, Calvinus

[Moff Jerjerrod]

That's great news calvinus. One thing I forgot to mention ever since I started using that batch file to set affinity to 1 was a slight decrease in the time needed by the AI to process it's turn in game. Further more when you select a save game to load from the main menu it now loads noticeably faster then when affinity was 0.

Off topic and addressed to Mowers: I just finished reading World War 1 by Martin Gilbert and I thought his book was an excellent summary of the war and was wondering if you have ever read this book? If so what are your thoughts?

[Longhairedlout]

Cool thanks Calvinus, I have been reading up on the Austro-Hungarian side of the war, very interesting..... looking forward to trying the new beta tomorrow