Feedback on the Icarus Mod

[shri]

Hi Michael,

The "Stalin" analogy is exactly what came to my mind when i see the "potential of Russia" in this game, the time-frame of 3-4 years is too small to do this. Even Stalin took over a decade to do this (1928 to 1939) historically.

This doubling of Russian economy by 1917 is too a-historical when despite some advances it nowhere reached the game's monster size.

The defensiveness i overall totally agree with your philosophy, my sole point was other than the English, French, German corps (including Canadian, Anzacs but not Indians) the other nations couldn't do firepower maximization by 1917, adding so many machine guns and heavy artillery with near unlimited ammunition proved impossible for the others and maybe it must stay so is my only point. Even the US with it's huge untouched industry struggled in WW1 badly to put a strong army in the field and had to resort to proto "human wave" by making their infantry divisions corps sized in numbers and being forced to borrow tanks from the French.

Regards,
Shri.

[mdsmall]

The defensiveness i overall totally agree with your philosophy, my sole point was other than the English, French, German corps (including Canadian, Anzacs but not Indians) the other nations couldn't do firepower maximization by 1917, adding so many machine guns and heavy artillery with near unlimited ammunition proved impossible for the others and maybe it must stay so is my only point. Even the US with it's huge untouched industry struggled in WW1 badly to put a strong army in the field and had to resort to proto "human wave" by making their infantry divisions corps sized in numbers and being forced to borrow tanks from the French.

Hi shri - if one wanted to reflect that difference in capabilities later in the war, the best way to do reflect that in the game would be to only allow the Majors and Minors that you have named to upgrade their units to Infantry Weapons 2.
(The fact that India is now a separate UK minor in this mod makes it possible to make that distinction on the Entente side). It would mean that German corps would have a significant advantage vis-a-vis Russian corps by early 1917 and UK and French corps would have a comparable advantage vis-a-vis Ottoman corps. It might be interesting to test this out using the 1916 Icarus campaign as a basis.

I'd be interested to know your views on whether to allow the USA to upgrade as well to Infantry Weapons 2. It is quite rare in the game for the USA to get into the war and then have the time to field a significant army in Europe before one side or the other surrenders. Limiting the USA to Infantry Weapons 1 to use against the Germans would make that even more unlikely.

[mdsmall]

The defensiveness i overall totally agree with your philosophy, my sole point was other than the English, French, German corps (including Canadian, Anzacs but not Indians) the other nations couldn't do firepower maximization by 1917, adding so many machine guns and heavy artillery with near unlimited ammunition proved impossible for the others and maybe it must stay so is my only point. Even the US with it's huge untouched industry struggled in WW1 badly to put a strong army in the field and had to resort to proto "human wave" by making their infantry divisions corps sized in numbers and being forced to borrow tanks from the French.

Hi shri - if one wanted to reflect that difference in capabilities later in the war, the best way to do reflect that in the game would be to only allow the Majors and Minors that you have named to upgrade their units to Infantry Weapons 2.
(The fact that India is now a separate UK minor in this mod makes it possible to make that distinction on the Entente side). It would mean that German corps would have a significant advantage vis-a-vis Russian corps by early 1917 and UK and French corps would have a comparable advantage vis-a-vis Ottoman corps. It might be interesting to test this out using the 1916 Icarus campaign as a basis.

I'd be interested to know your views on whether to allow the USA to upgrade as well to Infantry Weapons 2. It is quite rare in the game for the USA to get into the war and then have the time to field a significant army in Europe before one side or the other surrenders. Limiting the USA to Infantry Weapons 1 to use against the Germans would make that even more unlikely.

[shri]

The defensiveness i overall totally agree with your philosophy, my sole point was other than the English, French, German corps (including Canadian, Anzacs but not Indians) the other nations couldn't do firepower maximization by 1917, adding so many machine guns and heavy artillery with near unlimited ammunition proved impossible for the others and maybe it must stay so is my only point. Even the US with it's huge untouched industry struggled in WW1 badly to put a strong army in the field and had to resort to proto "human wave" by making their infantry divisions corps sized in numbers and being forced to borrow tanks from the French.

Hi shri - if one wanted to reflect that difference in capabilities later in the war, the best way to do reflect that in the game would be to only allow the Majors and Minors that you have named to upgrade their units to Infantry Weapons 2.
(The fact that India is now a separate UK minor in this mod makes it possible to make that distinction on the Entente side). It would mean that German corps would have a significant advantage vis-a-vis Russian corps by early 1917 and UK and French corps would have a comparable advantage vis-a-vis Ottoman corps. It might be interesting to test this out using the 1916 Icarus campaign as a basis.

I'd be interested to know your views on whether to allow the USA to upgrade as well to Infantry Weapons 2. It is quite rare in the game for the USA to get into the war and then have the time to field a significant army in Europe before one side or the other surrenders. Limiting the USA to Infantry Weapons 1 to use against the Germans would make that even more unlikely.

//Even the US with it's huge untouched industry struggled in WW1 badly to put a strong army in the field and had to resort to proto "human wave" by making their infantry divisions corps sized in numbers and being forced to borrow tanks from the French.//

This is what i suggested vis-a-vis USA, IMHO they shouldn't get level 2 infantry, their troops in mid 1917 were a untrained, unwashed mob which used civil war era tactics and had no clue about howitzers, tanks, etc. Sure, maybe a few elite units like the Marines performed well and the Rangers were good light infantry, but overall it is their sheer numbers that mattered not their efficiency




//The US infantry division was 28,000 men, almost double that of Allied divisions, which meant in numbers of men that 100 US divisions were the equivalent of almost 200 Allied divisions. This size was a result of one of Pershing's early recommendations, which, along with advice of military missions sent from France and Britain, prompted radical changes in organization of the U.S. infantry division. The need, as Pershing saw it, was for a division large enough to provide immense striking and staying power, one larger in size than most army corps of the Civil War. As determined by the War Department, the division was to be organized in 2 infantry brigades of 2 regiments each, a field artillery brigade with 1 heavy and 2 light regiments, a regiment of combat engineers, 3 machine gun battalions, plus signal, medical, and other supporting troops.// - - - - https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -intro.htm

The German division strength by mid 1917 following the introduction of the "LOSSBERG" Defensive tactics and the "HUTIER" Offensive tactics and the "BRUCHMULLER" Artillery tactics had shifted to less than 10000 men per division (sanctioned strength) and in reality their strength was much lesser.


By the spring of 1915, heavy casualties made reinforcing regiments to their prewar levels difficult. With active fronts in France, Russia, Rumania, Serbia, Italy and Turkey, the Germans, as well as their allies, were having difficulties in fielding units in sufficient numbers to hold the line. The increased importance of artillery combined with the static nature of trench warfare allowed a reduction to the infantry strength in a division.



//In March and April of 1915 the infantry divisions were reduced in size from 4 regiments to 3. In this reorganization, 19 new regiments were created, without increasing the number of men in uniform. The nature of the war also saw a change in the number and types of combat units needed for the war effort. By January 1917, the army was reorganized again. Reducing the number of men in a rifle platoon had reduced the number of men serving in a rifle regiment. In 1914, 81 men made up a typical rifle platoon, divided up into 9 squads. By 1918, a platoon was made up of 45 men, divided into 4 squads. This reduction allowed the formation of new regiments and divisions, again without increasing the number of men in uniform. To make up for the smaller number of riflemen in a rifle company, new weapons were incorporated into the makeup of the platoons in the rifle company. In 1914, each rifle company was supported by a heavy machine gun platoon. After 1915, light machine guns were also incorporated into rifle platoons, and several types of grenades were issued in large numbers. At the company level of command, hand grenade and rifle grenade sections were incorporated. At the Regimental level of command spigot grenade launchers, light trench mortars and flamethrower sections were added. Initially, pioneer specialists attached to rifle companies, at divisional and corps command manned these weapons. These new weapons and the change in tactics greatly increased the firepower available to a rifle company, offsetting the reduced number of men. //

Basically a pre-war "REGULAR" division of strength 17000 (Reserve were only 15000, Landwehr and Landsturm even lesser) turned into a 10000 man division (that too on paper) and yet retained at-least 5X more firepower due to a plethora of light and heavy machine guns, mortars, light, medium and heavy artillery support.


----------
The US never did this in WW1
The Russians, Italians and all minors (except the Anzacs and Canadians) didn't do this.
Infact by March 1918, 2/3rd of the main British army esp. troops commanded in 4th and 5th Armies were without these re-organisations. Ofcourse the French and British fielded Tank regiments/brigades in addition to all this and that made a difference, also a lot of divisions got truck mobile supplies (not all). UK infact due to Haig retained a large cavalry well into mid 1918. Thoroughly useless troops.



The French were far better because of their 1917 mutinies and heavy losses and due to Petain's herculean efforts to fight his own establishment. (Petain imho deserves the higher rating not Foch who was infact responsible along-side Joffre and Castelnau for the "Offensive a la Outrance" nonsense attacks)

[shri]

http://www.worldwar1.com/sfgermreorg.htm

This is a good place to start looking at the major changes Germany did which enabled it to carry the burden for so long nearly alone.

[shri]

IMHO, the USA did 3 big things-

1. Build shipping and destroyers.
2. Patrolled a part of the sea lane
3. Sent a lot of food and materials.

These "ECONOMIC" contributions outweighed their troop contributions and except the Marines, the rest fought poorly and lost a lot of men in frontal assaults. Rolling barrages were not properly used, though Shotguns were used by some to great effect, other things like Snipers, creeping assaults etc. wasn't properly done.

One thing probably can be done is giving mobility to some late War Franco-British formations due to trucks (just 1 extra move, not a lot). There was a partial/semi-motorisation campaign conducted due to availability of petrol from the US and plentiful trucks.

Ludendorff or some other staff officer (maybe Groener) infact remarked in 1917 - the Franco-British trucks vs German railways is the main war now.

[shri]

Michael, i looked into the Industry patterns and found that the UK alone had a meagre 7% increase in GDP, rest all had falls. However, war production did increase due to effects of rationing and wartime concentration.
Still, Russia should perhaps be restricted to have only 1 chit in Industry at a time so that the increase is very very slow.

IRL, 1915 was a major disaster for Russia due to 3 reasons-
1. The replacement Reservist Officer/NCOs were piss poor quality, many couldn't read well (esp. NCOs).
2. The shell shortage was extremely severe (all countries faced it, but UK and Russia had it exceptionally bad)
3. Loss of Trains to transport munitions and food/fodder for the army (Russia maintained a colossal cavalry corps which was thoroughly useless and consumed a lot of food and fodder) meant less trains available for transporting raw materials to factories and this created more problems.

[marklv1967]

Impossible to load the game. I downloaded all the files etc but I keep getting a "could not find directory" error.

I initially put the files under 'Campaigns' and the starting screen didn't even pick it up. I then put them under Community Pack/Campaigns and it does recognise them but comes up with this "could not find directory" error. 

[mdsmall]

Hi - sorry to hear you had problems installing the mod. I am travelling away from home for the next two weeks but after I am back I would be happy to email the mod files to you directly. Perhaps that might solve the problem. Send me a DM with your email address and I will take care of it.

Michael

[pawnmaker]

I was having the same issue, I saved the campaigns in the campaign folder but they wouldn't reflect in the list. I tried opening them in the editor and saving them. Now it seems to work fine. Hope that helps.