Some new issues with G

[Mowers]

I have found some issues with the most recent patch over the weekend.

Countries still play events that are detrimental to their allies.

Units some times can move into enemy regions and whilst selectable the region remains belonging to the enemy and your friendly units change colour to the enemy side. (see calvinus save - austro-russian front)

Serbian units can be deployed into Russia as reinforcements. (see northern Russia)

Although the situation is improved, the AI continues to often attack with one unit. The difference is that with the new patch the AI normally attacks with reserves, were it did not do so previously. The problem is that reserves don’t arrive till after the first round. Thus there is more often than not a very high chance that the attack will not succeed after 1 round. The AI really needs to have at least 2 units before attacking even with reserves unless absolutely desperate. This is especially important when it comes to Grand Offensives where it is still using 1 unit only.

Can we confirm 100% that Russia definitely knows to appoint a new government when its national will gets low?

I’ve seen a British beach head in the Baltic states. Yet the German navy doesn’t appear to do much. Can we confirms this is working as designed?

Does Germany definitely know how to focus on one front at a time? Because I am seeing attacks going in on both fronts year in year out.

Please see attached saves.
Mowers

[Drakken]

I have found some issues with the most recent patch over the weekend.

Countries still play events that are detrimental to their allies.

Probably mandatory public events pulled by the allies, no?

[Drakken]

Although the situation is improved, the AI continues to often attack with one unit. The difference is that with the new patch the AI normally attacks with reserves, were it did not do so previously. The problem is that reserves don’t arrive till after the first round. Thus there is more often than not a very high chance that the attack will not succeed after 1 round. The AI really needs to have at least 2 units before attacking even with reserves unless absolutely desperate. This is especially important when it comes to Grand Offensives where it is still using 1 unit only.

Calvinus has mentioned somewhere this is definitely been worked on for the next patch.

[Mowers]

Probably mandatory public events pulled by the allies, no?

ahh, that would explain it...

Is the armenian genocide such an event?

[Tamas]

ahh, that would explain it...

Is the armenian genocide such an event?

Of course

[calvinus]

Serbian units can be deployed into Russia as reinforcements. (see northern Russia)

It's normal. Why should we forbid such placements? Think of English troops that should be placeable in France...

Can we confirm 100% that Russia definitely knows to appoint a new government when its national will gets low?

Yes, I can confirm. All nations can adopt that option when NW level is low.
But remember that the lower is your NW level, the lesser options you can adopt!!!

I’ve seen a British beach head in the Baltic states. Yet the German navy doesn’t appear to do much. Can we confirms this is working as designed?

If the Germany navy did not grabbed the control of the open sea near the beach-head, the supply is granted.

Does Germany definitely know how to focus on one front at a time? Because I am seeing attacks going in on both fronts year in year out.

AI do not concentrate all her efforts in one Front only.

[calvinus]

Units some times can move into enemy regions and whilst selectable the region remains belonging to the enemy and your friendly units change colour to the enemy side. (see calvinus save - austro-russian front)

Which units exactly? Are the movements already planned?

[Mowers]

Which units exactly? Are the movements already planned?

Its' in the early save, just look at the russian units on the austrian border region, some of them are highlighted light blue and are in austrian controlled areas but are selectable as russian units by the russian player.

[Mowers]

It's normal. Why should we forbid such placements? Think of English troops that should be placeable in France...

How do they get from Serbia to Russia? I dont have to transport them, they just appear there.
It just seems a little bit unrealistic for this sort of game where you have gone into such detail in other areas.

Yes, I can confirm. All nations can adopt that option when NW level is low.
But remember that the lower is your NW level, the lesser options you can adopt!!!

Great, good news.

If the Germany navy did not grabbed the control of the open sea near the beach-head, the supply is granted.

Does the German navy know to do this? because I am not seeing it challenging control of the baltic.

Perhaps it would help if the German navy knew to immediately mine the entrance to the Baltic at the begining of the game?

Also mines in general seem to be incorrectly modelle, they appear to play an ahistoric role in the game.

How many ships have you seen sunk by mines in this game? I have never seen a single ship sunk by a mine. Is it just me?

AI do not concentrate all her efforts in one Front only.

Perhaps it would be worth looking into teaching the AI to focus on one front per year in order to improve the model and gameplay?

[calvinus]

How do they get from Serbia to Russia? I dont have to transport them, they just appear there.
It just seems a little bit unrealistic for this sort of game where you have gone into such detail in other areas.

This should require a special rule. I can schedule this task for a future improvement.

Does the German navy know to do this? because I am not seeing it challenging control of the baltic.

I saw this happening in some saves. Probably it's not your case, immediately.
If UK AI sent a fleet to support the landing, GER AI will probably send soon a naval task force to attack them.

Perhaps it would help if the German navy knew to immediately mine the entrance to the Baltic at the begining of the game?

The entrance of the Baltic Sea is controlled by Sweden and Denmark, two netural nations. Germany cannot place minefields in their sea zone!

Also mines in general seem to be incorrectly modelle, they appear to play an ahistoric role in the game.

How many ships have you seen sunk by mines in this game? I have never seen a single ship sunk by a mine. Is it just me?

Indeed this is a point for which I've scheduled some time, just to investigate if everything works fine and fix what is bugged.

Perhaps it would be worth looking into teaching the AI to focus on one front per year in order to improve the model and gameplay?

To be honest, there's already something like that. The "Player Advisor" (general top-level strategy) does some job like this: concentrate here and here (see Logs/Players.html log files if "AI Logs" option is enabled).
But then the "Nation Advisor" (see Logs/Nations.html log file) mostly follows less subtle and more practical priorities...

[Mowers]

Whilst we sometimes appear to move forward 2 steps and then appear to take 1 back your openess to improvements is always refreshingly welcome Calvinus. Good luck.

[calvinus]

Well, I found a bug that made the naval minefields attacks nearly impossible to happen. Now fixed. Next patch.

[Mowers]

Nice, perhaps it would be worth making it possible to mine neutrals regions but with a small cost to their friendlyness towards the mine laying alliance?

Also, would I be correct in saying that you can only mine areas on your own coast line? Perhaps it would be worth being able to mine areas that are not on your own coast line as happened during the war. But have them degrade over time to reflect the non modelled mine clearance ships that would presumably trawl up and down the coast.

[calvinus]

Nice, perhaps it would be worth making it possible to mine neutrals regions but with a small cost to their friendlyness towards the mine laying alliance?

The diplomatic system of the game has already several thresholds for some countries to open/close the access to a few key sea zones (Panama Canal, Skaggerak, Dardanelles, etc.).

I don't think a neutral country would permit such an operation in her national seas.

Also, would I be correct in saying that you can only mine areas on your own coast line? Perhaps it would be worth being able to mine areas that are not on your own coast line as happened during the war. But have them degrade over time to reflect the non modelled mine clearance ships that would presumably trawl up and down the coast.

Actually, naval minefields can be placed only on your friendly controlled coast line, not more possible in open seas. This is a bug fix introduced in 1.08 following several bug reports.

[Mowers]

The diplomatic system of the game has already several thresholds for some countries to open/close the access to a few key sea zones (Panama Canal, Skaggerak, Dardanelles, etc.).

I don't think a neutral country would permit such an operation in her national seas.

My understanding is that both Denmark (from germany blocking the baltic) and Norway (from the UK laying the Northern barrier) were both forced to accept extensive mine field belts in their coastal waters (within a couple hundred yards of their coast) and both sides lauched mine laying operations in neutral waters.

Actually, naval minefields can be placed only on your friendly controlled coast line, not more possible in open seas. This is a bug fix introduced in 1.08 following several bug reports.

Allow me to suggest why you may wish to reconsider this for gameplay and historical modelling reasons.

Indeed much mine laying in WW1 was offensive by nature.

The Russians routinely mined the bosphorus area and the German coastline.
The Turks routinely mined Sevastopol.
The Germans laid tens of thousands of mines all around the whole of the UK.
The British made large minefield belts off the German coast in both what we would consider German coastal regions and further out in the north sea area.
Italy had a mine field in the open seas between Italy and modern day Albania.
Both Italy and Austria placed large numbers of mines on each others coasts.

Indeed more military ships sunk during the war were sunk from offensive mines laid in enemy coastal waters and in the open sea than any other cause in the North sea. I am unaware of any ships being sunk by defensive minebelts (as we currently have) being sunk at all in the north sea, although I amsure there were a few. The only major defensive mine belt which saw a large ememy fleet attempt to enter was in the war was off the Dardanelles.

Indeed it was not only ships that were sunk by mines but submarines as well, 39 percent were destroyed by patrols, 30 percent by mines, and 8 percent by submarines, with aircraft a poor fourth


Such a danger was offensive mining by Germany in British coastal waters that Britain alone had more than 700 minesweepers in permanent operation and the Germans also had a considerable number. Possibly 500 ships swept the North Sea every day, day and night. “Minesweepers were constantly being sent further and further afield as new minefields appeared (in 1917), and by the end of the year, over 1,000 miles of coastal waters in Great Britain and Ireland were being swept daily for mines, the work starting at dawn by different sections of sweepers stationed along the coast”.

For example, Britain laid about 1,000 mines in the Rathlin Island/Skye area, the Germans also presumably laid an equal number.

All this would suggest that mining is currently incorrectly modelled and I feel needs to be re-examined so that we can start to see a naval war that resembles the naval war of WW1.



Which leads me to an additional and new point - [U]Naval Raiding.[/U]

I note that the Germans can raid the UK but no one else is allowed to raid? Is that correct?

If the British fleet had been able to raid Germany (had it not been for the minefields and the threat of the high seas fleet) it would have raided continually the German coast line.

Both the Austrians and Italians would have raided each other had there not been extensive mine fields protecting one another and for the advantage the allies had in the Med.

If the Austrians had been able to break out into the Adlantic (if it was not for the very extensive mine field at the heel of Italy in the open sea) they would have raided British possessions if the British navy was not there to challenge them.

The Russians would have raided Germany if the high seas fleet had not been available.

The Turks did infact raid the Russians (and vice versa) in the Black sea extensively, but there is no point using the Russian or the Turkish fleet as there is nothing within the model they can achieve, when historically there was alot that they did infact both attempt and achieve.

The Italians would have tried to raid France and the UK if they had been at war with them.

My point is that naval raiding ought to be allowed by any power against any enemy country. It simply did not occur because of the introduction of Italy on the side of the Allies and because of the very large scale defensive and offensive mining in coastal and open sea waters. But as this is a game my suggestion is that the model be adjusted to incorporate such an eventuality. Otherwise what is the point of most of the navies?

You appear to have gone to great lengths to build a tactical combat model and made the large effort to list out the various fleets but there is no strategic imperative or options for most of them regardless of the international situation.

My suggestion is that you review this aspect of the model not only so that the model resembles history but for gameplay purposes. You have obviously gone to great lengths to introduce minefields, navies and sea areas but not their utility.

Mowers

[calvinus]

All nations can raid, not only Germany!
Just move your fleet(s) to open sea waters and select the Naval Raid mission. The target will be chosen automatically among the nearest enemy harbors, giving priority to major cities less defended by minefields.

For your proposal concerning Minefields placement, let's see what Philippe says...

[calvinus]

In any case, if Philippe agrees about your proposal, we must introduce the minimal requirements...

If you can place naval minefields in open sea or neutral sea areas, you must have a fleet there!

Otherwise it could be unbelievable to see -for instance- Russia placing mines in ...let's say... Atlantic Ocean... without having any single warships there!

[Mowers]

All nations can raid, not only Germany!
Just move your fleet(s) to open sea waters and select the Naval Raid mission. The target will be chosen automatically among the nearest enemy harbors, giving priority to major cities less defended by minefields.

For your proposal concerning Minefields placement, let's see what Philippe says...

Oh, good news.
So I don't choose the harbour?
I just move my fleet into an open sea region and select naval raid?


Regarding mines, as they currently serve no purpose in the game you might as well remove them or do something to make them have a vaguely historical mission but I'll leave you guys to work out which.

To avoid ahistoical outcomes with mines perhaps a limit in which one can only place mines within a certain range of an owned harbour.

[calvinus]

Also, do we have any idea about the side-effects of such a change on gameplay?

[calvinus]

Oh, good news.
So I don't choose the harbour?
I just move my fleet into an open sea region and select naval raid?

Yes.

Regarding mines, as they currently serve no purpose in the game you might as well remove them or do something to make them have a vaguely historical mission.

No, as I wrote in a post before, there was a bug that made minefields attacks/explosion nearly impossible. Now fixed with 1.08H.

So, with next patch all minefields will have their big impact on naval warfare, maily where coastal guns are deployed!!!

[Mowers]

Also, do we have any idea about the side-effects of such a change on gameplay?

If you are serious about considering a change I will put some real effort into this. If the team decides they are genuinely interested in rethinking the mine model let me know and I am very happy to sit down with paper and pen and come up with a list of problems and their solutions (and maybe even some more problems!)

[Mowers]

Yes.



No, as I wrote in a post before, there was a bug that made minefields attacks/explosion nearly impossible. Now fixed with 1.08H.

So, with next patch all minefields will have their big impact on naval warfare, maily where coastal guns are deployed!!!

But how can mines have a "big" impact on naval warfare when they can only be played defensively? and in ahistoric locations?

Continuing from my above point, historically only offensive minefields had any significant impact on the war bar in Gallipoli where a defensive minefield came into play in a significant manner. Defensive minefields were simply not that relevant in WW1 in a tactical sense. Strategically they did have an impact such as the northern barrier in the north sea, or in the baltic, but as we can not place defensive minefields in seas or in neutral territory even the strategic aspects of the historic role of denfensive minefield are not modeled in game.

[calvinus]

If you are serious about considering a change I will put some real effort into this. If the team decides they are genuinely interested in rethinking the mine model let me know and I am very happy to sit down with paper and pen and come up with a list of problems and their solutions (and maybe even some more problems!)

My only worry is that if human player and AI starts placing mines everywhere, we will have very frequent minefields attacks.

Mines purpose in WW1 game are:

1) defend national ports from enemy raids;
2) damage enemy fleets during movements.

For point #1, placement in coastal sea zones is enough.

For point #2, the purpose is to protect straits and passages (Dardanelles, The Channel, entrance of Baltic Sea). Also for this point placement in coastal sea zones is enough. In fact, with 1.08H the minefield attack bug is fixed and you will see enemy fleets damaged when moving close to that key areas...

[calvinus]

For point #2, the purpose is to protect straits and passages (Dardanelles, The Channel, entrance of Baltic Sea). Also for this point placement in coastal sea zones is enough. In fact, with 1.08H the minefield attack bug is fixed and you will see enemy fleets damaged when moving close to that key areas...

Consider indeed than minefields do not attack only in the area where they are located, but also in all neighboring areas, up to a distance of 3 zones, and including open sea waters!

Thus, once the minefield attack bug is fixed, we will have also open seas protected.

[patrat]

my 2 cents.

imho offensive mine fields irl served to attrite the enemy, thus in that role they were more strategic in nature. offensive minefields didnt really have a operational or tactical role that would make them really belong in this game, at least not in the way suggested.

imo if you must have them, do them as a political action. like the way blockade and the uboat war is handled.

[Mowers]

Consider indeed than minefields do not attack only in the area where they are located, but also in all neighboring areas, up to a distance of 3 zones, and including open sea waters!

Thus, once the minefield attack bug is fixed, we will have also open seas protected.

Now that is interesting. I was not aware of this at all.

Is the effect proportionate over distance? How does it work?

How are you notified of a mine strike?

sorry questions questions and more questions, but this is great news.

[calvinus]

Is the effect proportionate over distance? How does it work?

Yes, see MinefieldTable.xls & MinefieldTableModifiers.xls DBs, rows DS0-DS3.
Two dice are rolled, modified according to distance, the higher you get, the more (types of) naval squadrons are hit.

How are you notified of a mine strike?

Sound effect, explosion animation on map and message.

[Mowers]

Yes, see MinefieldTable.xls & MinefieldTableModifiers.xls DBs, rows DS0-DS3.
Two dice are rolled, modified according to distance, the higher you get, the more (types of) naval squadrons are hit.



Sound effect, explosion animation on map and message.

Thanks, where are these tables? I was unable to find them in the manual.

Also you ought to know that the manual says that mines only affect the area they are in.

[Random]

For what it's worth I think that Mowers' observations on the lowely, under-rated and oft ignored naval mine is spot on and firmly believe WW1G would benefit greatly from a reasonable mine warfare model.

The observation that more warships were sunk by mines than any other cause extends beyond the North Sea and was a feature of the entire naval war. Losses of significant warships to mines equaled losses due to gunfire in the Royal Navy and exceeded losses to gunfire in all other navies. Overall, only the locomotive torpedo sank more warships.

An example is found in the Baltic where on between 10 and 11 November 1916 the Germans lost seven (!)destroyers (V-75, S-57, V-72, G-90, S-58, S-59 and V-76) to a single defensive Russian minefield off the port of Revel.

[calvinus]

Thanks, where are these tables? I was unable to find them in the manual.

Modding/DBs folder.

Also you ought to know that the manual says that mines only affect the area they are in.

Ok, another errata in the manual.