My list

Adanac's Strategic level World War I grand campaign game designed by Frank Hunter

Moderator: SeanD

FrankHunter
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am

My list

Post by FrankHunter »

As I understand it, looking it over the threads, these are the issues that have come up since version 1.23 was uploaded?

1. Able to amphib in a contested sea zone. Now fixed
2. Can't build German inf and cav at some point late in the game
3. If France is conquered the Brits are still able to amphib troops to Brest
4. When Unrestricted U-Boat warfare was on and there were 20+ subs operating, they didn't find any merchantmen. (so far I haven't been able to find a problem here as there don't seem to be any merchantmen at sea and the UBoats do find DD's or vice versa)
5. Germany gets abundance of food after Russia falls. (Strangely I haven't been able to reproduce this yet by simply setting Russia to surrender, perhaps the Russian surrender isn't the reason? If anyone has a save of a game before this happened that would be extremely helpful)

Are there any other issues anyone knows about that I should look at?

Thanks!
User avatar
dpstafford
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
Location: Colbert Nation

RE: My list

Post by dpstafford »

Strategic Movement still does not work reliably or consistently. Specifically, for British units on the continent.
User avatar
dpstafford
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
Location: Colbert Nation

RE: My list

Post by dpstafford »

Regular (non-strategic) movement. How is it determined which individual units move first during the execution phase? You are sitting next to a huge a stack of German troops. You know you can't stop them, so you order a move in the other direction to avoid annihilation. Seems to be a matter of chance as to which stack moves first....BEF annihilated again. Shouldn't all non-strategic moves from a friendly hex to another friendly hex execute before moves into enemy controlled hexes?

Same goes for naval units. They should be able to get away without getting shot by a newly arriving attacking force.
User avatar
Lascar
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:00 am

RE: My list

Post by Lascar »

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

Regular (non-strategic) movement. How is it determined which individual units move first during the execution phase? You are sitting next to a huge a stack of German troops. You know you can't stop them, so you order a move in the other direction to avoid annihilation. Seems to be a matter of chance as to which stack moves first....BEF annihilated again. Shouldn't all non-strategic moves from a friendly hex to another friendly hex execute before moves into enemy controlled hexes?

Same goes for naval units. They should be able to get away without getting shot by a newly arriving attacking force.
I see your point there. Apparently the readiness of the units involved affect which move first. Perhaps the attacker's readiness for calculating this should include a penalty for being the attacker moving into an enemy hex.
User avatar
Lascar
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2000 8:00 am

RE: My list

Post by Lascar »

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter


5. Germany gets abundance of food after Russia falls. (Strangely I haven't been able to reproduce this yet by simply setting Russia to surrender, perhaps the Russian surrender isn't the reason? If anyone has a save of a game before this happened that would be extremely helpful)
I was the one that noticed that in a PBEM I was playing. I don't know if I still have that turn file because that is now a few months ago. I thought perhaps it was something in the design after you extended the CP occupied territory into the Ukraine to reflect the treat of Brest-Litovsk.
FrankHunter
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am

RE: My list

Post by FrankHunter »

Strategic Movement still does not work reliably or consistently. Specifically, for British units on the continent.

That would be because British units on the continent are not using British strategic movement capacity. For example, if they're in France they use French capacity.
Regular (non-strategic) movement. How is it determined which individual units move first during the execution phase? ... Shouldn't all non-strategic moves from a friendly hex to another friendly hex execute before moves into enemy controlled hexes?

Prior to movement each unit is "rated" to see in what order they move. Activated units should move before non-activated units. Higher quality before lower quality, higher readiness before lower readiness, troops before artillery etc and there is also a random element added. Activated before inactivated is because it should be very difficult to carry out a strategic withdrawal in the face of an enemy offensive.




FrankHunter
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am

RE: My list

Post by FrankHunter »

I thought perhaps it was something in the design after you extended the CP occupied territory into the Ukraine to reflect the treat of Brest-Litovsk.

Right, Germany should get a few more food because of the extension of the boundary into food hexes that haven't seen any war and are therefore in good shape. But not the amount reported.

I'll just keep trying to reproduce it.
User avatar
dpstafford
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
Location: Colbert Nation

RE: My list

Post by dpstafford »

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter


That would be because British units on the continent are not using British strategic movement capacity. For example, if they're in France they use French capacity.

Yes, I know. And even with ample French rail factors available it is a crap shoot for the UK units to move.
User avatar
dpstafford
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
Location: Colbert Nation

RE: My list

Post by dpstafford »

Prior to movement each unit is "rated" to see in what order they move. Activated units should move before non-activated units. Higher quality before lower quality, higher readiness before lower readiness, troops before artillery etc and there is also a random element added. Activated before inactivated is because it should be very difficult to carry out a strategic withdrawal in the face of an enemy offensive.
Now you are saying that you have to declare an "offensive" in order to have a chance at a clean retreat? Boy, that even sounds, eh, stupid.......

Any chance that you will rethink that? Or at least factor into the equation: moving to enemy hex, not moving to enemy hex....? Moving to, not moving to enemy controlled sea zone??
FrankHunter
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am

RE: My list

Post by FrankHunter »

We know that a "withdrawal in the face of the enemy" is one of the most difficult of operations as the advancing troops are well supplied and coming on fast.

So allowing forces to simply walk backwards in good order faster than advancing forces would turn that on its head. There would be no point in invading Russia if Germany has to pay for offensives but the Russians can retreat at no cost.

User avatar
arichbourg
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:41 pm
Contact:

RE: My list

Post by arichbourg »

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Are there any other issues anyone knows about that I should look at?

Thanks!

To me, ships leaving Constantinople going to Eastern Med, yet being intercepted in the Black Sea, is a bug.
User avatar
dpstafford
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:50 am
Location: Colbert Nation

RE: My list

Post by dpstafford »

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter
We know that a "withdrawal in the face of the enemy" is one of the most difficult of operations as the advancing troops are well supplied and coming on fast.

So allowing forces to simply walk backwards in good order faster than advancing forces would turn that on its head. There would be no point in invading Russia if Germany has to pay for offensives but the Russians can retreat at no cost.
There is no point to invading Russia. Or France either.

You may be on to something. Looks like the game needs redesigned from the ground up. You can start by calling "offensives" something other than "offensives", if you are going to require them for RETREATING units.
User avatar
arichbourg
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:41 pm
Contact:

RE: My list

Post by arichbourg »

They're not retreating . . . they're just advancing in a different direction. [;)]
FrankHunter
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am

RE: My list

Post by FrankHunter »

There is no point to invading Russia. Or France either.

There is if you're the Central Powers.
You can start by calling "offensives" something other than "offensives"

Just call them "activations" instead of offensives.



FrankHunter
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am

RE: My list

Post by FrankHunter »

Same goes for naval units. They should be able to get away without getting shot by a newly arriving attacking force.

I've just checked this and it was a bug. Naval units ordered to return to port should have been doing so before the next battle phase.
FrankHunter
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:07 am

RE: My list

Post by FrankHunter »

I've also added "being intercepted in the Black Sea" to my list too.
EdinHouston
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:06 pm

RE: My list

Post by EdinHouston »

edited
EdinHouston
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:06 pm

RE: My list

Post by EdinHouston »

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

We know that a "withdrawal in the face of the enemy" is one of the most difficult of operations as the advancing troops are well supplied and coming on fast.

So allowing forces to simply walk backwards in good order faster than advancing forces would turn that on its head. There would be no point in invading Russia if Germany has to pay for offensives but the Russians can retreat at no cost.


I agree that the game design would not work well if units could retreat and avoid combat while attackers had to burn HQ points chasing them. That mainly applies to the eastern front because there just isnt that much room to retreat on the western front.

But in terms of military history in WWI, it would be very difficult for attacking troops to actually 'catch' defenders doing a strategic retreat (or just plain running away). The main reason is simply that an attacker is advancing away from their supply while the defenders are retreating back towards theirs. Beaten defenders were consistently able to retreat and avoid total destruction, simply because the attackers could not maintain their rate of advance. Battles happened when defenders chose to stand their ground and fight, not because attackers ran them down and forced a battle. This happened many times in the war, especially in 1918 when Ludendorff's offensives would succeed in smashing the line, but simply couldnt advance fast enough to totally destroy the enemy (and of course the defender could always reinforce a new line of defense to the rear by bringing in troops via railroad far more quickly than the attacking army could advance).

In terms of Russia, one of the reasons for the German Schlieffen (France-first) plan was their concern that the Russian army could simply retreat deep into the Russian hinterlands and avoid a quick, decisive engagement near the frontier. While railroads could bring troops up to the front lines very rapidly, advancing beyond that front line was basically at the speed of marching infantry, ie, the same speed as Napoleon's troops marched into Russia. And we know how that worked out for him, trying to chase down the Russian army and force a decisive battle ;)

Of course, in WWII mechanized forces and airpower totally changed all this, and made it possible to pursue an enemy faster than many of them could retreat, and indeed, to break deep into the enemy's rear before they even began to retreat.
User avatar
06 Maestro
Posts: 3989
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:50 pm
Location: Nevada, USA

RE: My list

Post by 06 Maestro »

Whenever a retreat was forced, many soldiers were lost due to the breakdown in command. In battles where a withdrawal was short, the prisoner count was not that big. On the other hand, where there were significant withdrawals under pressure, there were hundreds of thousands of prisoners (East Front and West Front). To break off action while under massive attack is easier said than done.
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
geoffreyg
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: London

RE: My list

Post by geoffreyg »

I will try to track down a saved game with the failure for CP units in build queue to appear.
Just to confirm I again over the last few days had a failure for British units to strategically move on continent despite ample French and British rail capacity.
I still get the bug where cancelling a move sometimes generates erroneous addtional rail points.
Post Reply

Return to “Guns of August 1914 - 1918”