The Great War

[Chuck?]

Anyone up for trying out the '1914-1918 - The Great War v2.1' scenario? I'll take either side.

[Fallschirmjager]

I was just about to start France 1914...but Ill give this one a try

Is it corps level?

And where can I get the scenario?

[Chuck?]

It is mostly divisions. I should warn you that this is a HUGE scenario. You can get it at http://rugged-defense.the.strategist.name/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=492

[Fallschirmjager]

Yuck...way too big


I thought it was just the European theatre

4000 units for 250 turns is just too much to handle

[Chuck?]

There are some other World War One scenarios I think. Want to try one of those?

[Fallschirmjager]

Sounds good

[Wolfe Tone]

Originally posted by Chuck
Anyone up for trying out the '1914-1918 - The Great War v2.1' scenario? I'll take either side.

I wouldn't mind giving this a go as the Allied player. Could you send me the file as I have difficulty logging on at the site you mentioned.

[tklemme]

What were the odds that I wouldn't use this thread to toot my own horn? Very low.

You might check out my scenario, also called The Great War 1914-1918. It's in the scenario section here at warfareHQ (second page). It's quite a bit more manageable than the gargantuan OPART300 scenario mentioned above. You'll also find quite a few more WWI scenarios done by me, and more to come soon.

Todd

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
Sounds good

OK, we can play Todd's scenario instead. The download is available at this site. If you want to play as the Central Powers you can do your turn and email it to me. You can get the email from the TOAW ladder page. If you want to play as the Allies I'll send you my turn tomorrow.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Wolfe Tone


I wouldn't mind giving this a go as the Allied player. Could you send me the file as I have difficulty logging on at the site you mentioned.

Do you want to play Todd's scenario instead? The other one may be bigger than I thought. I started the first turn but after 25 minutes I'm only half way done going through the initial movement phase. Yet the Ottomans, Austrian-Hungarians, and Germans in the east can't even be moved yet!

[tklemme]

If you guys do decide to play it, can you let me know how it goes? For some reason that's one of the scenarios that I never got much feedback on. It's downloaded a lot but I'm not sure anyone ever plays it.

(I don't think anyone ever played Operation Compass 1940 'cuz I received exactly zero e-mails about it. And for some reason, it even disappeared for a long time from all the download sites.)

Todd

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by tklemme
What were the odds that I wouldn't use this thread to toot my own horn? Very low.


Have you no shame? :D

How does the one month turns work out in playtest? Is there really enough combat turns to represent an entire month of carnage?

[Fallschirmjager]

Ok I got it downloaded

Ill begin playing and send you the file tonight

looks like a good scenario

[RhinoBones]

If you decide to continue with the “large” 1914-18 scenario you may want to first do an edit on the placement of reconstituted units. In the replacement deployment editor the setting for reconstituted units needs to be set to “Fixed”, otherwise, the units tend to appear in some really odd places. There was a thread about this problem over at TDG. Check it out for the full story.

On the other hand, if you can’t handle this scenario how do you expect to ever play McBride’s 1914-18 version of the great war. You can bet that his version will not be the least bit easier than the scenario that you are saying is too big.

I do certainly agree, however, that committing to a 250 turn game of this magnitude is more than a marriage. Why not agree to 20 or 50 turns, or maybe to ending on the last turn in December 1914. After all, it is not required that you play the entire scenario just to have some fun.

If you still need an opponent, I’ll commit to ten turns and I’ll do the replacement deployment editing.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Chuck?]

I think that problem has been fixed. The author just emailed out version 2.3 and it states that this has been changed.

[RhinoBones]

Originally posted by Chuck
I think that problem has been fixed. The author just emailed out version 2.3 and it states that this has been changed.

Excellent. Makes life much easier.

Where has the revised scenario been posted? Here on HQ?

Regards, RhinoBones

[Chuck?]

No, it's not posted here yet. You can email the author and he will put you on his mailing list.

[tklemme]

Originally posted by Chuck


Have you no shame? :D

How does the one month turns work out in playtest? Is there really enough combat turns to represent an entire month of carnage?

It seems to work well enough. TOAW was never meant to do scenarios that lasted years and The Great War is exactly what it says in the briefing: A conversion of Ted Raicer's brillian board wargame The Great War in Europe. Think of it as more of an impressionistic view of WWI. ;)

WWI armies dished out huge losses but they were able to recover quickly too. When I playtest it PBEM (which was quite a while ago) the overall pace of the war seemed right. Historically, keep in mind that on most fronts, many months could go by with little or no real battles. That's unlikely to happen with a computer or human players (yet another reason why multi-year scenarios can't be held up to the historical scrutiny that a battle scenario can be).

If Norm ever puts out another patch, I will probably look at updating all my scenarios with regards to the new features, such as loss tolerance and attrition dividers. I've always felt that TOAW doesn't put a high enough value on losses and I'd like to revisit my old scenarios and play with the settings a bit. I'm using very high loss tolerance settings in Eastern Front 1915 (which is about to enter playtesting) so in that scenario, as it was historically, the battle is more about losses than territory (although the Russians lose plenty of both).

Todd

[Fallschirmjager]

I just played the first turn

Overall I like the scenario

I did make the mistake of attacking Verdun frontally though (opps :dead: )

Im about to send off turn 1 chuck



One sidenote

The house rules are plentiful and damanding
Ill do my best to try and follow them

[tklemme]

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager

One sidenote

The house rules are plentiful and damanding
Ill do my best to try and follow them

Yep, they are. When I played I printed them out and kept 'em beside the desk. They do enforce historical accuracy. If players romp around Italy before 1915 or Turkey moved thru Bulgaria and attacked Serbia, things would get very weird.

It would have been simpler if I had had more than 2 exclusion zones to work with, but Norm only gave us 2.

Todd

[Fallschirmjager]

It would be nice if you could exclude an area then open it up later
or even better.....exclude an area when ever you click on the units of a certain nation

[tklemme]

You can remove an exclusion zone with an event. In The Great War I should have used alpine hexes to block off Switzerland and used one of the 2 exclusions zones for Italy until she enters the war.

Maybe use flooded swamp to make Holland out-of-play and used that second exclusion zone for Bulgaria.

I may look at this tomorrow night and make those changes.

Todd

[Mantis]

Originally posted by tklemme
What were the odds that I wouldn't use this thread to toot my own horn? Very low.

You might check out my scenario, also called The Great War 1914-1918. It's in the scenario section here at warfareHQ (second page). It's quite a bit more manageable than the gargantuan OPART300 scenario mentioned above. You'll also find quite a few more WWI scenarios done by me, and more to come soon.

Todd

Give him that... Todd rocks at WWI scenarios. Check it out!

[JMS]

Originally posted by tklemme
You can remove an exclusion zone with an event. In The Great War I should have used alpine hexes to block off Switzerland and used one of the 2 exclusions zones for Italy until she enters the war.

Maybe use flooded swamp to make Holland out-of-play and used that second exclusion zone for Bulgaria.

I may look at this tomorrow night and make those changes.

Todd

Why not use unplayable hexes for Switzerland and Holland, and use exclusion zones for Italy and Romania, leaving Bulgarian and Turkish units as garrison units until their entry into the war? Just my 2 cents.

[tklemme]

Originally posted by JMS


Why not use unplayable hexes for Switzerland and Holland, and use exclusion zones for Italy and Romania, leaving Bulgarian and Turkish units as garrison units until their entry into the war? Just my 2 cents.

The Bulgarian units are set to not move until Bulgaria historically entered the war. Turkey, however, entered the war very early and I wanted to give the Brits the option of their very own Gallipoli, so the Turks activate on their historical entry date. My thought above on making Bulgaria the exclusion zone instead of Rumania was that Turkey would then be unable to move through Bulgaria until Bulgaria joined the war.

Todd

[JMS]

Off the top of my head, I don't know if turkish units fought in the Salonika front. If that is the case, they could be added to the Bulgarian OOB but in any case you can make the border hexes between Bulgaria and Turkey non-playable. That should limit Turkish excursions in Europe.
By itself is not unreasonable, as I suppose Turkey and Bulgaria would be wary from each other.

[JMS]

Here you go:

http://pub158.ezboard.com/ftheworldatwar70879frm2.showMessage?index=55&topicID=685.topic

Apparently, only 2 divisions were sent to the Bulgarians, one of which saw no fighting.

[Wolfe Tone]

Originally posted by Chuck


Do you want to play Todd's scenario instead? The other one may be bigger than I thought. I started the first turn but after 25 minutes I'm only half way done going through the initial movement phase. Yet the Ottomans, Austrian-Hungarians, and Germans in the east can't even be moved yet!

OK....Todd's Great War Scenario version: V3.0 as posted here?

I would like to play as the Allies but if you are already starting another game as the CP then I would take the CP side in our game.

Todd might be making some adjustments over the next couple of days so it would suit me to hold over till the weekend and take it from there.
How does that sound?

[tklemme]

Originally posted by Wolfe Tone


OK....Todd's Great War Scenario version: V3.0 as posted here?

I would like to play as the Allies but if you are already starting another game as the CP then I would take the CP side in our game.

Todd might be making some adjustments over the next couple of days so it would suit me to hold over till the weekend and take it from there.
How does that sound?

Any adjustments I make would be very minor as a way to reduce the number of house rules. You should probably go ahead and start if you want because I have no idea if I will be able to make the changes soon.

Todd

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Wolfe Tone


OK....Todd's Great War Scenario version: V3.0 as posted here?

I would like to play as the Allies but if you are already starting another game as the CP then I would take the CP side in our game.

Todd might be making some adjustments over the next couple of days so it would suit me to hold over till the weekend and take it from there.
How does that sound?

Todd has posted on this question above. It doesn't sound like he is going to have an update soon so we can start at anytime I guess.

No, it would be better for everyone if you played as the Allies. In my other match I'm the Allies so I can take up the Central Powers in this one.

[Chuck?]

My match with Wolfe Tone is over. The result ended in a draw. The front lines in France, Italy, and the Balkans were almost the same as they where historically. The Central Power almost reached Paris but the Entente was able to put up a strong defense to save the French.

Only the situation in Russia was different as the Russians decided to stay in the war. This tied down a lot of German units in the east so no last ditch offensive was possible in the west.

Overall a very good scenario that represents the situation of the Great War well. One problem though is there is no collapse of the Central Powers. They keep getting plenty of replacements right up to the end so the Entente didn't have the ability to move forward in 1918.

[Mantis]

Barring that one problem, it sounded like you had a helluva game in a great scenario!

[JMS]

My match with Wolfe Tone is over. The result ended in a draw. The front lines in France, Italy, and the Balkans were almost the same as they where historically. The Central Power almost reached Paris but the Entente was able to put up a strong defense to save the French.

Only the situation in Russia was different as the Russians decided to stay in the war. This tied down a lot of German units in the east so no last ditch offensive was possible in the west.

Overall a very good scenario that represents the situation of the Great War well. One problem though is there is no collapse of the Central Powers. They keep getting plenty of replacements right up to the end so the Entente didn't have the ability to move forward in 1918.

Depending on the number of turns, the Event Engine Variable could be used for that. If less than a 100, an event loop adding 1 or 2 and an EEV value of a 100 or so (don't think it can be higher) that triggers the collapse. Central powers winning lowers the EEV (another loop), Entente winning does the opposite.

[General Staff]

(I don't think anyone ever played Operation Compass 1940 'cuz I received exactly zero e-mails about it. And for some reason, it even disappeared for a long time from all the download sites.)
Just for the record I played it- and as with the rest of your scenarios liked it. Sad to hear we won't see any more. :cry:

[Becker]

im playing this scenario with polynike(im the germans),
the frontlines are very very different,
im almost through romania killing all russians
my front in the west is very very fresh,paris is very far
my enemy dug in wisely before i could make a difference in his defend strategy

i think it will end in ov for me

[Wolfe Tone]

A great scenario and with Chuck as an opponent I had my hands full fending off his well-planned attacks.
I think he nearly won the game in 1915 when the German army made its main effort on the WF and took a lot of ground. Had it not been for the timely arrival of the new British armies it might have been very different! As it turned out having the Germans within a couple of hexes of Paris for most of the game meant that my war strategy was built around defending Paris at all costs. This was a particular worry as all the indications were that Russia would collapse sometime in 1917 thus allowing the CP to switch massive forces to the WF and end the war in their favour. Lucky for me the Russians stayed in and eventually were able to pile on the pressure in the latter stages of the war.
In Italy the CP made an attempt to overrun in Italy as soon as she entered and before her manpower could be mobilized. I sent the British 2nd army + a few French divisions there to help hold the line until the Italians could manage their own defense. This was enough and the Italians by the end were launching their own offensives against the Austrians with some measure of success though on a very narrow frontline.
Poor little Serbia was quickly overrun but I managed to save most of her army along with that of Montenegro, which retreated back to northern Greece under the protection of an Anglo-French expeditionary force. Just as the war came to an end a partial breakout was being attempted against the Bulgarians and Turks on the right flank with the aim of reaching Constantinople.
The Rumanians came into the war late 1916 but the German and AH armies pushed them right back until Bucharest was surrounded. Then for some strange reason a siege of the city was implemented instead as of an assault as I expected. This worked to my advantage as the Rumanians slowly regained their strength to such a degree that by the closing months of war they were able to first attack and then breakout from their stronghold.
I think that if the game had been allowed to run into 1919 I would have won as I was attacking on all fronts and beginning to advance, slowly I admit but with ever increasing success. Maybe I held off too long in using the Russians as they turned out to be able to at least take on the Austrians on more or less equal terms and the Germans couldn’t be everywhere to bail them out!
I think this scenario is well worth playing but perhaps if there is a newer version Naval units could be included and if possible the Middle East which would be interesting….also let it run into 1919!

[piero1971]

a note on my Great War scenario, is that the first 40 or so turns are quite long due to the moving nature of warfare, once trench warfare sets in, turns go quite fast as it is suicidary to mount constant offensives, and these must be planned for about a dozen turns in advance to be efficient..

on the next version, I will improove russian collapse/revolution rules. remove some of the Decoys for some countries (french/british decoys are silly and useless on the westfront).

anyone has a way to make sure armoured cars are more strong than in the game (on the middle East front for example) ?

[Hellen]

a note on my Great War scenario?

in game on move 6, your scenario is crashing due to invalid parent units.

Apparently something to do with the German XXVII Korps spawning.

I also got a scenario crash with "invalid parent unit" and divide by zero errors with the GE Marine Korps / GE 2 Ersatz Bde

Finally, what is with some of the GE assault units having 1000 of 1 Engineers and 1000 of 1 Rifles assigned? Why are there so many post WWI equipments in the units? (so far I have noted 1930s motorcycles, and German units have some 1916 240mm French mortars with no way to move them. Some naval units have circa 1940 navals in them.)

Seems to me the CP OOB is FUBAR.

Are you still working on it? As it is, it is a bit ... unplayable. Very frustrating as well when game crashes. (this is version 2.3 I speak of)

[piero1971]

in game on move 6, your scenario is crashing due to invalid parent units.

Apparently something to do with the German XXVII Korps spawning.

I also got a scenario crash with "invalid parent unit" and divide by zero errors with the GE Marine Korps / GE 2 Ersatz Bde

Finally, what is with some of the GE assault units having 1000 of 1 Engineers and 1000 of 1 Rifles assigned? Why are there so many post WWI equipments in the units? (so far I have noted 1930s motorcycles, and German units have some 1916 240mm French mortars with no way to move them. Some naval units have circa 1940 navals in them.)

Seems to me the CP OOB is FUBAR.

Are you still working on it? As it is, it is a bit ... unplayable. Very frustrating as well when game crashes. (this is version 2.3 I speak of)

very strange, I played version 2.3 up to 1919 a few times and it never crashed. did you open the editor ? I noticed that sometimes when one opens a game in the editor - even without ghangng anything, but saving it it does some strange things. LEt me check on my next game.

I don't know if I put up the readme file that explains the reasoning behind some equipment - in short it is to simulate Individual units strong attack capabilities on the first turns (to simulate the war of movement of the first 20 turns and then the progressinve settling in of trench. warfare).

CP OOB is very very accurate (except for one unit in Heeresgruppe West that I am removing in successive versions)

some porst WW1 units are done on purpose to simulate (for example
WWI motorcycles - to add recon and mobiolity). TOAW equipment value and dates of entry is debatable and for simulations's sake some twisting is needed.

that said, your points are taken, I will see the reason of these crashes and check them for version 3.0 (that has an updated russian revolution/surrender system)

[Hellen]

did you open the editor ? I noticed that sometimes when one opens a game in the editor

No I did not open the editor.

As far as simulating strong attack ability, it seems to me that could be done using more historically realistic units than ones with equipment such as 1000 of 1 engineers, 1000 of 1 rifles, 1930s motorcycles, French mortars in the German lines two years early and on the wrong side, 1940s naval equipment (well there's no excuse for that I can see).

Sorry to sound harsh, but it looks like just a mishmash of arbitrary "stuff" rather than WWI.

[Chuck?]

I don't know if I put up the readme file that explains the reasoning behind some equipment - in short it is to simulate Individual units strong attack capabilities on the first turns (to simulate the war of movement of the first 20 turns and then the progressinve settling in of trench. warfare).

Is this really needed? 1000 rifle squads per HQ? Maybe there is another way than this.

Also looking at the scenario in the editor, it appears both sides have a force proficiency of 100%. Is this on purpose?

[piero1971]

Is this really needed? 1000 rifle squads per HQ? Maybe there is another way than this.

Also looking at the scenario in the editor, it appears both sides have a force proficiency of 100%. Is this on purpose?

well, otherwise, the Germans in august 1914, get stopped by the Belgians.
hmm, let me see force proficiency, it should be lower for most units.

points well taken, I like feedback!

[Hellen]

well, otherwise, the Germans in august 1914, get stopped by the Belgians.


That's because your entente OOB is FUBAR, too.

It is one the first things I noticed in the earlier version. The Belgians simply did not have the equipment you assigned them.

Have you used any sources at all for your OOB and ToE, or are you just making it up?

I honestly don't see how this scenario will work no matter how much more work you put into it with the existing OOB and TOEs.

[Chuck?]

well, otherwise, the Germans in august 1914, get stopped by the Belgians.
hmm, let me see force proficiency, it should be lower for most units.

points well taken, I like feedback!

How can the Belgians really slow the Germans down? They only have four or five divisions on the map. Where does the slow down occur and on what turn?

No, I was talking about overall force proficiency. It's 100% for both sides.

On the OOB, I think you've got too many rifle squads per division. The Belgians have 1742 for a single division. Todd Kleme only has 1200 light rifle squads for his Belgian division TO&E. Not that Todd is exactly right but this is probably closer to what you should shoot for. 'Home Before The Leaves Fall' only has 172 squads per brigade. 'France 1914' has 600 LRS/Irregulars per division. Everyone is all over the map on this question but you seem to be by far the highest.

[Chuck?]

Also units seems too slow. I'm assuming this is 10 kilometers per hex and 1 week turns. Infantry is going between 18-20 hex per turn. This seems a bit too slow at only 2.5-3 hex per day.

Cavalry is set at 24 hex per turn. This is really too slow for horses at only 3.5 hex per day. In 'Leaves' cavalry has 5 hex per turn. Same thing in 'France 1914' and Klemme's scenario.

I'd suggest you'd look over movement rates in this scenario. This will probably help with the problem of Belgium not be overrun quick enough.

[piero1971]

it0s 5km per hex, but I used 10km to slow things down in 1915-1918(and allow the map to cover all the land I wanted)

squad= 10 men right?

Belgian Infantry division in 1914 = circa 20'000 men.. yes, I did include in it non-line troops..

what slows down germans is of course the forts..

[Chuck?]

it0s 5km per hex, but I used 10km to slow things down in 1915-1918(and allow the map to cover all the land I wanted)

No, inside the editor it is set for 15 kilometers. I'm pretty sure the map scale is drawn at 10 kilometers though. I did the scenario Poland 1939 at 10 km and it bascially matches the same scale as your Poland.

Seriously, I think your units are too slow. Cavalry should be able to travel more than 240 kilometers. As for the forts, the Germans should avoid these with the bulk of their force. Send the units past Brussels and straight for the French border.

squad= 10 men right?

Belgian Infantry division in 1914 = circa 20'000 men.. yes, I did include in it non-line troops..

Well the overall numbers of a division rarely match up with how many rifle squads there are. A lot of men are probably in transport and support. It's best to try to find a TO&E if one is available.

[Hellen]

Belgian Infantry division in 1914 = circa 20'000 men..

most of the Belgian army was in reserve in 1914 iirc

http://www.monmouth.com/user_pages/juneblum/BELG14.html

provides some interesting insight into its structure, and also lists a good bibliography for source materials.

[piero1971]

No, inside the editor it is set for 15 kilometers. I'm pretty sure the map scale is drawn at 10 kilometers though. .

oh yes, you are right, it is 10km per hex, but I set it to 15km. good point on speed, dunno how to make them faster...

Hellen, that was one of the references I used. (I grouped some units together) - oh well... I'll work on this.

[Chuck?]

oh yes, you are right, it is 10km per hex, but I set it to 15km. good point on speed, dunno how to make them faster...


You can fiddle with the movement bias to change the global movement rate. To increase just the cavalry, add some more trucks. Some of your infantry divisions are faster than the cavalry, doesn't make much sense.

[JMS]

oh yes, you are right, it is 10km per hex, but I set it to 15km. good point on speed, dunno how to make them faster...

Hellen, that was one of the references I used. (I grouped some units together) - oh well... I'll work on this.

I agree with Chuck. Change the movement bias to reflect the scale. If you want to give infantry and cavalry differing speeds that are not way off, change all transport in Infantry units to porter squads (which will give you foot movement rates) and all transport in Cav divisions to fast horse teams.

[piero1971]

Hellen,
you are right, the version 2.3 I posted does crash. This is actuially v.2.3.3 and I found the issue v.2.3.x and previous ones did not crash.

OK allow me Xmas to work out that issue and work on the movement factors. Note that movement factors should be "strange" only for the August-October 1914 months, then they come down to the more static warfare of WW1 mode. Also the units that have like 1000 engineers etc. are General's units. This is to simulate the skills and motivation of one general on the field. Perhaps I'll use some units that will not come in the reinforcement to others.
I will check the mortar thing, but I rememer that the 240mm french mortar was to simultae some german mortar not in the TOAW equipment list. Ditto for motorcycle squads - no WW1 era motorcylce squad in TOAW while there were such in reality. oh well, if it was for me I'd add a few hundred equipments to TOAW...

[Chuck?]

OK allow me Xmas to work out that issue and work on the movement factors. Note that movement factors should be "strange" only for the August-October 1914 months, then they come down to the more static warfare of WW1 mode.

Movement rates in 1914 should be the same as 1917. What really slows things down are the dozens of infantry divisions stacked on top of each other, defending with machine gun nest, minefields, gas artillery, and barbed wire obstacles. This is why you have static trench warfare, it has nothing to do with movement rates.

[Hellen]

Hellen,
you are right, the version 2.3 I posted does crash. This is actuially v.2.3.3 and I found the issue v.2.3.x and previous ones did not crash.

OK allow me Xmas to work out that issue and work on the movement factors. Note that movement factors should be "strange" only for the August-October 1914 months, then they come down to the more static warfare of WW1 mode. Also the units that have like 1000 engineers etc. are General's units. This is to simulate the skills and motivation of one general on the field. Perhaps I'll use some units that will not come in the reinforcement to others.
I will check the mortar thing, but I rememer that the 240mm french mortar was to simultae some german mortar not in the TOAW equipment list. Ditto for motorcycle squads - no WW1 era motorcylce squad in TOAW while there were such in reality. oh well, if it was for me I'd add a few hundred equipments to TOAW...

P, not to quibble, but my whole take on the WWI thing in TOAW is, if you have to simulate it..........don't.

e.g. take out all the '30s era cycles. They really weren't a force to be reckoned with back then......it was all in the trenches. It just doesn't make sense to give the Bosceh 300 motorcycles in August 1914. Yeah, they might have had them, parading around Berlin, but they sure as hell weren't knocking it out in the front lines. As it is, your units with 1930 motos just .... are anachronistic. Yeah that's it, anachronistic.

fwiw I would suggest working out a ToE that is more consistent with what was. Yeah, you have to balance that with making it playable as a game, but right now in ver2.3 the "playability" is mucked up by the crazy OOB and TOE for both sides.

Not saying it has to be scratched entirely, but it does need a major revamping I think to give a better immersion into WWI and what it was like. Too much disbelief needed as it stands, if you follow me.

Personally I would like to see it scaled back a bit, more towards a Europe Aflame style, strategy type with more events. E.g. you know the Tzar and Freddie were close friends, and the war with Russia was far from inevitable that cold August. In Fact, Op. Yellow was almost called off. I would like to see the OOB / TOE more flexible and realistic, with options on a strat scale.

Well, I hope I am not too critical of your work, but when one is presented with such a gem as your Great War.... it really is great as it is .... one just has to try to spur you on, this scene has the potential of being THE "WWI" sim, just work it dog

Cheerios!!!!!!!!!!

[piero1971]

points taken, working on it.

[piero1971]

in game on move 6, your scenario is crashing due to invalid parent units.

Apparently something to do with the German XXVII Korps spawning.

I also got a scenario crash with "invalid parent unit" and divide by zero errors with the GE Marine Korps / GE 2 Ersatz Bde
)


I am trying to solve this?.. how to?

[JMS]

I am trying to solve this?.. how to?

Take a scenario dump, put all units in an Excel spreadsheet and check if any unit is repeated. Usually is something like this.

[piero1971]

will do that and check it. i reposted the scenario with some changes, I wonder if it now works without the bugs.

but as I look in it - and found some repeated units that I will correct, i think it can't be caused by units with the same name. I have countless scenarios with many units having hte same name i.s. "artillery" etc. and woirking fine, which is logic, as even if with the same name, in the sofware code, it understands them with unique numbering positions...

It happened once before with an improovement over Todd's Operation Herkules scenario, and it was due to having units placed on hexes later on modified (like placiong air units on airfield) and then in the map editor removing the airfield and forgetting to take off the air unit.

hmm... I wonder...

will check.

[JMS]

TOAW does have a dislike of units with the same names if they are reinforcements or are involved in some way with the event engine.

[JeremyMacDonald]

will do that and check it. i reposted the scenario with some changes, I wonder if it now works without the bugs.

but as I look in it - and found some repeated units that I will correct, i think it can't be caused by units with the same name. I have countless scenarios with many units having hte same name i.s. "artillery" etc. and woirking fine, which is logic, as even if with the same name, in the sofware code, it understands them with unique numbering positions...

It happened once before with an improovement over Todd's Operation Herkules scenario, and it was due to having units placed on hexes later on modified (like placiong air units on airfield) and then in the map editor removing the airfield and forgetting to take off the air unit.

hmm... I wonder...

will check.
I would avoid having units with the same name like the Plague. Your going to see errors etc. if you have such units. They may not always come up but they will come up some of the time.

[Hellen]

I am trying to solve this?.. how to?

just erase them.

I've been combing through the OOB, you have tons of wwII stuff ........

i'll email you all the deletes I'm making, this is a killer scene :)

ever think of starting it early, with events lIke in EA, e.g. Freddie survives assassination attempt, then using DoWs and such??

well somthing to think about.

also ran across this your German air force has too many planes it has 300+, Germany only flying 270 planes at Aug. 1914. The German arty is way off, too. Well I have several books here, will mail you my info. I suggest use era units, but if you need more mobility make the mobility factor higher. Not just throw in tranasport units, I notice you have way to many horses too..........

well I tell you
Cheers!!!!!!!

[Hellen]

ps

I think it would be better to simulate WWI era motorcycles by using the light armored vehicles of "common equipment" or 1914 equipment, instead of 1930s scooters.

Also, just delete the decoy units. Plenty of fightin units to make, without bothering with decoys. They have all the cycles, anyway. so I just delete them. and delete all cycle units and well bunch other stuff. Its a pain deleting but not so bad because when you delete it from a template unit (one that you copy) the editor will make the change in all units copied from that unit.

So it not so bad to fix.

:)

Cheerios!
!!!!!!!!!!!

[JeremyMacDonald]

ps

Its a pain deleting but not so bad because when you delete it from a template unit (one that you copy) the editor will make the change in all units copied from that unit.

So it not so bad to fix.

:)

Cheerios!
!!!!!!!!!!!
You sure about this...thats not something I remember.

[JMS]

I think that is not the case at all too.

Here, German artillery to the end of 1914:

The sources:

A) Handbuch zur deutschen Militärgeschichte, 1648 - 1939

The "handbook" took up ca 2 feet of the book shelf before it was put
into storage by the library, and right now i cannot find out which
volume contains the relevant information.

B) Brisberg: Heer und Heimat 1914-18
Leipzig 1921

C) Ehrenbuch der Fußartillerie


The most important source is A, data based on <B> or <C> are marked.




Field Artillery


assigned to Field army during peace:

450 batteries of 6x 77 mm guns (FK 96 n.A.)
150 batteries of 6x 105 mm (lFH 98/09)
33 mounted batteries of 4x 77 mm guns

or 2832 guns 77 mm and 900 lFH.




On mobilization, the field artillery had 915 batteries equipped with
field guns and 226 using the lFH 105mm
ca 6780 guns <B>


Field artillery assigned to field army:
782 batteries equipped with field guns and 159 using the lFH 105mm
ca 5580 guns


- 102 Feld Artillerie Regimenter assigned to 51 active Divisions
of 2 Abteilungen @ 3 batteries @ 6 guns 77mm or 105 mm leFH(25%)

- 29 Reserve Feld Artillerie Regimenter assigned to Reserve Divisions
of 2 Abteilungen @ 3 batteries @ 6 guns 77 mm
( 3 of these had 3 Abteilungen and 54 guns)

- 11 reitende (mounted) Abteilungen assigned to Kavallerie divisions
of 3 batteries @ 4 guns 77 mm

- 40 Feld Ersatz Abteilungen assigned to 6,5 Ersatzdivisions
of 2 batteries @ 6 guns 77 mm, perhaps some leFH 105 mm ?


for a total of 5382 modern field guns,
including 954 lFH 10,5 cm


i am not sure what type of gun the mobilized Landwehr/Landsturm used:

- 3 Landwehr Abteilungen of 2 batteries @ 6 guns
- 5 Landwehr Batterien @ 6 guns
- 22 Landsturm Batterien @ 6 guns

These would add 198 modern? guns

Note: The 11 batteries shown for Landwehr are not enough to equip the
Landwehrkorps and the mixed Landwehr brigades. At least one mixed
Landwehr brigade had a Landsturm battery added.




Fortress etc would have the remainder of the field artillery:

133 batteries equipped with field guns and 67 using the lFH 105mm






Later developments <B>:


mid- October 1914:

13 new Reserve Feld Artillerie Regimenter raised
2 Abteilungen @ 3 batteries @ 4 guns 77 mm
1 Abteilung @ 3 batteries @ 4 lFH 105 mm
assigned to 13 new Reservedivisions

bring up the total to 5806 (+198?) modern field guns,
including about 1074 lFH 10,5 cm.


End of 1914?
Extra batteries of old field guns C/73 are assigned to field artillery
regiments as ammunition supplies for the modern guns run out.

9 new Reserve Feld Artillerie Regimenter raised
1 Abteilung @ 3 batteries @ 4 guns 77 mm
1 Abteilung @ 3 batteries @ 4 lFH 105 mm
assigned to 9 new Reservedivisions + 216 field guns







Foot artillery, assigned to field army on mobilization


- 26 Fuß Artillerie Abteilungen
of 4 batteries @ 4 sFH02 15 cm
assigned to active corps and Reserve Garde Corps

- 1 Fuß Artillerie Abteilung assigned to Nordarmee 9th?Army
of 4 batteries @ 4 K04 10,5 cm

- 1 Reserve Fuß Artillerie Abteilung assigned to 2. Army
of 4 batteries @ 4 K04 10,5 cm

- 14 Mörser Abteilungen assigned to armies in the west
of 2 batteries @ 4 sM 21 cm

- 5 batteries of 2 - 305mm mortars assigned to OHL

- 3 batteries of 2 - 420mm mortars assigned to OHL




Festungsartillerie (Fortress) in August 1914 <C>:

15 Feld Bataillone (armored guns, coast guns)

25 Reserve Fuß Artillerie Abteilungen 4 Batterien @ 4x sFH02 15cm
10 Reserve Fuß Artillerie Abteilungen 4 Batterien @ 4x K04 10,5cm
4 Reserve Fuß Artillerie Abteilungen 2 Batterien @ 4x K 13 cm
5 Reserve Fuß Artillerie Abteilungen 4 Batterien @ 6x sFH 15cm
5 Reserve Fuß Artillerie Abteilungen 2 Batterien @ 4x sM 21cm

24 Landwehr Bataillone sFH 15cm, probably 24 per Bataillon
47 Landwehr Batterien ?

22 Landsturm Bataillone ?





Later developments <B>:

Reserve Fuß Artillerie Abteilungen armed with sFH02 15cm transfered
from fortresses to Reserve Corps, later two batteries to each division.


Four Reserve corps raised at the end of 1914 had
1 Reserve Fuß Artillerie Abteilungen assigned
of 4 batteries @ 4 sFH02 15 cm


http://www.ku.edu/carrie/archives/wwi-l/2002/02/msg00004.html

By Martin Käser
martin.kaeser@auge.de

[piero1971]

I would avoid having units with the same name like the Plague. Your going to see errors etc. if you have such units. They may not always come up but they will come up some of the time.

you are correct. I edited version 2.3 so to remove the Central Power units repeated (actually to my horror, I found 15)

ont he other points, i.e. artillery, ww2 equipment, etc.:

for all units (Except Army HQ and highger formation HQ) the data is quite correct, believe me. there may be some additional planes here and there to correct some flaws (imho) in the equipment lists of TOAW (i.e. how does one simulate Zeppelins).

note on higher formation and HQ: these are to simulate gernarlship. Some are strong at the beginning and will decline fast (those with 1000/1 equipments or specialists). some are strong in attack (have artillery, etc.) some are brillant generals (hindenburg, brusilov, Petain, etc.) and have strong values, some are morons (i.e. Cadorna in Italy, most French, some English, and some Germans, most Russian)
Shock does not work on such varied terrain and on so many fronts.


on more vents, I am workign on it, but TOAW, while the best wargame software ever, really sucks to simulate strategic level games. So if players, for example want to simulate russia not entering war, they can agree not to play them (and have Paris fall in early 1915 at latest and so the game ends in Central Power victoryy anyway - so not fun). however some latitude could be done with some minors entry, etc.

but my goal is to simulate at operational level the whole of WW1. The idea is to simulate the challenges and evolutions of warfare facing WW1 commanders. From movement, to trench, to waves of technology (in planes especially), tanks, landings, etc. and in all theaters (I just love the middle-east one)... as I played it a few times, after the West front and the East reach an equilibrium, one is scared to launch offensives, as the loss of one division, means thinning lines elsewhere, etc. a real management of attrition is needed.. and to movement again in 1918 or during large offensives..

on motorcyles, and equipment. TOAW misses huge loads of equipments, most of WW1 mortars are non existant, mainly the german ones (hence using equipment of sorts) also, some quipment has limited force, for example armored cars played a little role on the westfront and their values there are correct (useless). but in the Middle East or in Africa, they could cause havoc and psychological shock just like tanks did. hence for example using a strong unit for Hodgson's column. etc.

also replacements are a bugger. Who can say how many combatants/non-combatants ratio concers them? Germany poured, say (I dont' have the numbers with me) 4 million replacements in the Army from 14-18, but who went to what. hence including the full complement of squads in divisions, etc. and splitting the type of squads per nationality (and somewhat adjusting it %-wise to compensate for lower strenghts, etc.). It is a choince of simulation, some like it some don't.


for 2.4 I will definitely finetune some equipment, remove most decoys (except for guerillas - Arabs - Senussi, etc.) but leave some to simulate deception attempts - remember theater recon is at zero at start and will never increase much - i will reduce it further). add some events, and further check entente units that might repeat

in version 3.0 I will overaul russian revolution and ad more events "mission" like. anyone ideas on that?

more soon when I am back from my next business trip. ciao