A proposal for an Historical Mod

[Aryaman]

Here are some ideas I have for an Historical mod, feel free to comment and add ideas.

HISTORICAL MOD for CTGW

General overview
I would like to make a mod that is as historically accurate as the game mechanics allow, regarding the units involved and the balance of power among countries and armies. The Mod will be only for the 1914 scenario (The whole war scenario)

Land Units
a) Upkeeping cost
It will be eliminated. Upkeeping an army in WW1 still involved mainly feeding people and animals, and I want to use PPs for representing the industrial power of Nations. That also will allow to eliminate some problems in the present game, like having underdeveloped Serbia to produce many more PPs than Belgium.
Eliminating the upkeeping cost will be a radical change in game design. As it is presently armies are limited in the units they can field by upkeeping cost, so that a nation losing units in battle have also reduced costs, so new units can be built.
In my Historical Mod all units historically available will be deployed from the start, using the Army Corps as a scale level. That means many more units than in the original CTGW, allowing the player to create some double lines in sectors of the front.

b) Infantry basic type units
-They will be 2 basic infantry units, Regular Corps and Reserve Corps (called Garrisons in the present game)
-Regular Corps will have higher attack statistics but similar defense statistics to reserve Corps. They represent a concentration of artillery and support units required for offensive operations not available to Reserve Corps. However they represent a similar number of soldiers, so they will need the same amount of manpower to be built or receive replacements.
-Both will require a much longer time to be built than in the present game. They will also cost many more PPs than presently, the Regular Corps triple that Reserve Corps.
-The cost of replacements will be considerably lower than that of building new units strength point per strength point, so that in game terms players will be encouraged to rotate units from the front and rebuild it up to strength as the normal strategy.

c)Infantry units
-Every country will have a particular type of Regular Corps and Reserve Corps to reflect the different level of quality and general proficiency of the different armies.
-There will be a unique type to represent the BEF, that type will be stronger than any other in defense statistics, but the unit type will have a very high cost of replacement, to reflect the high professional level of the forces and of the required replacements to keep the unit at the level of proficiency. That unit will not be available to build to the Entente player, or to rebuild if destroyed, and it will be upgraded to the normal Regular Corps with no cost. So the Entente player will have to choose between high costs to keep the proficiency of the unit or to reduce it to the normal level to be able to replace it at the normal cost.
-The BEF units (2 Corps) will be availble to the Entente player in and around Calais the first turn Britain enter the war.
-If possible, separated Canadian and ANZAC units will be available for the British army, with slight better attack statistics and considerable higher building and replacement costs.
-Upgrades will be very expensive. They will be classified in 2 types, offensive and defensive. Offensive upgrades will be much more expensive than defensive ones and only available to Regular Corps. They will be a very important part of the player budget.

d)Artillery units
-Artillery units will be much more expensive to build and replace, and will take considerably longer to build.
-All countries will start with a zero ammunition production capacity. Only Germany will have a reserve of 10 ammo units.
-Germany Artillery unit will start with a strength reduced to 5
-Artillery upgrades will be reorganized so that artillery become really lethal only after 1917.
-The general design philosophy is making artillery a long term investment, that only the big powers can afford.

e) Combat mechanics
-The defensive bonus of Mountains will be greatly increased.
-The penalization for moving and attacking in winter will be also greatly increased
-The penalization for moving in good weather will also be increased.
-Cities will have a defense bonus if possible
-Some fortifications will be added to the map for historical reasons, Paris being the most important.
-Units should suffer a high loss of efficiency before losing strength points in combat.

[stockwellpete]

Some very interesting ideas there - particularly the Corps and Reserve Division concept which would seem to be much more historically accurate than what we have now.

I have one big idea that I have been thinking about over the last few weeks that might be moddable. I think the game already has a really good "historical feel" to it, but the question for me is - can we bring more history into the game? At the moment there are a series of events that occur in the game when certain major things happen - and the newspaper screen comes up and tells you that poison gas has been used, or a nation has lost its main battlefleet, or a revolution has occurred in Russia etc. These are what might be termed "primary events" and they are all good, as far as I am concerned.

But what if we had a series of "secondary events" in the game where each individual secondary event might only occur in one in every four or five games? Some might be linked to what individual nations are doing in the game, while others might be completely random. There could be a number of benefits to the game idea - firstly they would increase re-playability by adding an element of uncertainty; secondly, they would slightly increase the chance of "events" thwarting the best-laid plans of players (in the shorter term, anyway); and thirdly they would introduce some of the political heavyweights of the conflict who are currently completely absent from the game (think of people such as Tsar Nicholas, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Clemenceau, Franz Joseph and Lenin to name just a few).

At the moment I have 26 such "secondary events" but I am sure that there are many other that might be considered. I was thinking that eventually there might be a pool of about 20 of these events, of which, maybe 4 or 5 might appear in any single game (it would depend on player's strategies to a certain extent, of course).

The list is not ready yet but I am working on it quite regularly now. But just to give a taster of what I am getting at. If the Central Powers player builds a new naval unit for Germany in 1914 or 1915, or the number of naval repairs undertaken by Germany reaches, say, 5 strength points by the end of 1915 - then there is the possibility that at least one of the two following secondary events might be triggered (because Germany is pursuing an active naval policy) . . .

i) Deutschland merchant submarine breaks the naval blockade and arrives in New York to tumultuous welcome in 1916 (exactly when in 1916 can vary) - German national morale +3
ii) Lord Kitchener is drowned off the Scottish coast by German u-boat in June 1916 - Britain national morale -2

There might also be scope for adding a "Lusitania event, May 1915" to this sequence too. I am not actually sure if there is one in the game already or not as I have not played a game where the Germans have pursued an aggressive submarine campaign in the Atlantic.

I have no idea whether something like this is moddable (maybe a simple version is), or whether it is something that the developers might consider in due course. The mistake would be to clutter the game up with trivial details - and in recognising that players have different views on how much history they actually want in a game, this idea might work best if it was an option that you could turn on or off at the start of a game.

[Umeu]

some good ideas, from a game balance POV, i want to add that if you decrease the lethality of artillery, with which i greatly agree, you should also lower the cost of bombarding the enemy. or greatly reduce the cost of buying increased ammo production. i guess the latter will be better if you set everyones ammo production to 0 (why actually? didnt they produce any ammo at the start of the war?)

there is a lusitanna event, it happens when germans sink like 10 pp worth of convoys. however imo that sub campaign really needs some work, but probably the devs will work on that themselves.

[Aryaman]

some good ideas, from a game balance POV, i want to add that if you decrease the lethality of artillery, with which i greatly agree, you should also lower the cost of bombarding the enemy. or greatly reduce the cost of buying increased ammo production. i guess the latter will be better if you set everyones ammo production to 0 (why actually? didnt they produce any ammo at the start of the war?)

there is a lusitanna event, it happens when germans sink like 10 pp worth of convoys. however imo that sub campaign really needs some work, but probably the devs will work on that themselves.

The idea a bout Artillery is that it represents heavy artillery battalions with explosive shells, that was not in store except for Germany and in limited quantities. From a balance perspective Germany superior quality should be anough to take Belgium with little help of artillery

[Umeu]

but they did use the big bertha heavy caliber gun to take down the fortresses of liege and antwerp. imo the first gun available to the germans should be a railway gun and it should be as effective as is now. you are right that you dont need artillery to conquer belgium and make some good headway into france, mainly because the artillery cant keep up the pace of the infantry advance anyway.

[stockwellpete]

Aryaman, regarding my "big idea" above, is adding more events something that is moddable by you? I know in the game they come with a newspaper graphic which might be difficult to mod, but maybe they could be used as just a text message at various points? I would imagine linking these "secondary" events to the behaviours of players (a player does so-and-so and that triggers an event) would be quite difficult and something the developers would have to consider. But might a simpler system work where there is no such linkage with player's decisions? Instead, you could have a roster of maybe twenty of these events that might occur exactly when they did in the war, but there would be a variable factor that would mean that only some of them came up in each game (like "chance" cards, I mean). Maybe something as simple as a "Yes-No" decision for each incident?

I would also be interested to hear the developer's views on this idea. The purpose of it would be three-fold really - to increase re-playability; to add more historical atmosphere; and to add more unpredictability (at the moment if you get behind in a game it is very hard to recover).

[Aryaman]

Aryaman, regarding my "big idea" above, is adding more events something that is moddable by you? I know in the game they come with a newspaper graphic which might be difficult to mod, but maybe they could be used as just a text message at various points? I would imagine linking these "secondary" events to the behaviours of players (a player does so-and-so and that triggers an event) would be quite difficult and something the developers would have to consider. But might a simpler system work where there is no such linkage with player's decisions? Instead, you could have a roster of maybe twenty of these events that might occur exactly when they did in the war, but there would be a variable factor that would mean that only some of them came up in each game (like "chance" cards, I mean). Maybe something as simple as a "Yes-No" decision for each incident?

I would also be interested to hear the developer's views on this idea. The purpose of it would be three-fold really - to increase re-playability; to add more historical atmosphere; and to add more unpredictability (at the moment if you get behind in a game it is very hard to recover).

Adding events can be very good, but so far I haven´t taken a look at the events and how they can be modded. I will first test with units and then go to other things, but certainly a list of possible events would be very useful

[stockwellpete]

Adding events can be very good, but so far I haven´t taken a look at the events and how they can be modded. I will first test with units and then go to other things, but certainly a list of possible events would be very useful

OK. I shall continue working on this idea then.

[Aryaman]

but they did use the big bertha heavy caliber gun to take down the fortresses of liege and antwerp. imo the first gun available to the germans should be a railway gun and it should be as effective as is now. you are right that you dont need artillery to conquer belgium and make some good headway into france, mainly because the artillery cant keep up the pace of the infantry advance anyway.

Big Bertha was not a railway gun, but I understand your point. Maybe we can consider using railway guns as representing the heavy siege artillery, but we should then give them statistics accordingly. Still we have the issue of the German advantage in heavy field artillery, so maybe we should have 2 German arty units instead? We will see.

[Umeu]

but they did use the big bertha heavy caliber gun to take down the fortresses of liege and antwerp. imo the first gun available to the germans should be a railway gun and it should be as effective as is now. you are right that you dont need artillery to conquer belgium and make some good headway into france, mainly because the artillery cant keep up the pace of the infantry advance anyway.

Big Bertha was not a railway gun, but I understand your point. Maybe we can consider using railway guns as representing the heavy siege artillery, but we should then give them statistics accordingly. Still we have the issue of the German advantage in heavy field artillery, so maybe we should have 2 German arty units instead? We will see.

hmm i mistook the gun called big bertha by the germans (a howitzer) for the gun called big bertha by the allies (rail way gun, actually the Paris Gun or gun that fired upon paris.)

but ye, artillery should resemble big bertha type guns or heavy artillery batteries which are used for big offensives. id say, guns expensive for upkeep (aka not many of them in an army), no ammo production for nations (takes a while for artillery to be used en masse) but lower price for buyin ammo?

the german advantage in heavy field artillery can be resembled by better attack for the germans? perhaps make an offensive upgrade which improves the field artillery issued to the corps. imo there is no real need to display field artillery seperately. however since the railway gun really is only a fringe unit that never really had any impact historically and since it will finish so late in the game and has only limited effectiveness, also will never be useful in game, you could consider using the slot for respresenting something more useful. because technically only the germans had a railway gun like the one in game is supposed to resemble.

instead of the super long range railway gun it could be used for the more standard railway guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_gun#World_War_I

which was widely in use by 1916 on all sides according to wikipedia.


the railway guns can be given stats with high bombard value to best resemble their role as fort busters, while the other artillery unit can have a slightly higher shock value and ground attack to resemble their role of forcing enemy troops out of the trenches (decreasing efficiency) and inflicting casualties (although alot less than its doing now, sometimes 2 barrages kill like half a unit, if 1 unit resembles corps strength that means like 1 corps has 40.000 troops killed within 2 weeks just by artillery, imo thats a bit excessive.

[Aryaman]

but they did use the big bertha heavy caliber gun to take down the fortresses of liege and antwerp. imo the first gun available to the germans should be a railway gun and it should be as effective as is now. you are right that you dont need artillery to conquer belgium and make some good headway into france, mainly because the artillery cant keep up the pace of the infantry advance anyway.

Big Bertha was not a railway gun, but I understand your point. Maybe we can consider using railway guns as representing the heavy siege artillery, but we should then give them statistics accordingly. Still we have the issue of the German advantage in heavy field artillery, so maybe we should have 2 German arty units instead? We will see.

hmm i mistook the gun called big bertha by the germans (a howitzer) for the gun called big bertha by the allies (rail way gun, actually the Paris Gun or gun that fired upon paris.)

but ye, artillery should resemble big bertha type guns or heavy artillery batteries which are used for big offensives. id say, guns expensive for upkeep (aka not many of them in an army), no ammo production for nations (takes a while for artillery to be used en masse) but lower price for buyin ammo?

the german advantage in heavy field artillery can be resembled by better attack for the germans? perhaps make an offensive upgrade which improves the field artillery issued to the corps. imo there is no real need to display field artillery seperately. however since the railway gun really is only a fringe unit that never really had any impact historically and since it will finish so late in the game and has only limited effectiveness, also will never be useful in game, you could consider using the slot for respresenting something more useful. because technically only the germans had a railway gun like the one in game is supposed to resemble.

instead of the super long range railway gun it could be used for the more standard railway guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_gun#World_War_I

which was widely in use by 1916 on all sides according to wikipedia.


the railway guns can be given stats with high bombard value to best resemble their role as fort busters, while the other artillery unit can have a slightly higher shock value and ground attack to resemble their role of forcing enemy troops out of the trenches (decreasing efficiency) and inflicting casualties (although alot less than its doing now, sometimes 2 barrages kill like half a unit, if 1 unit resembles corps strength that means like 1 corps has 40.000 troops killed within 2 weeks just by artillery, imo thats a bit excessive.

Let´s see, in a WW1 barrage therewere involved field pieces as well as "siege" heavy pieces. Field artillery brigades/regiments were attached to armies and corps involved in any offensive. I think we need to represent both, the massed field pieces by the normal arty unit and the heavy siege pieces (heavy trench mortars and howitzers) with a railway gun reconverted into siege artillery (reducing range to 2 and maybe not making it railway movement but a slow foot movement). I think the best way to represent German advantage in those fields is by half strength units (if that is possible, I still have not tried) that will take however a large investment in PPs to make them full strength and functional (need for ammo production)

[stockwellpete]

Aryaman, another possible idea for your historical mod, and it is at a very basic stage of development at the moment - it is what might be called the "home front" dimension. It would require each power to keep either a garrison unit or an infantry unit in their capital hex to help minimise the possibility of strikes or political demonstrations and other events - so there would be three levels of home defence - "none", "garrison", and infantry - and the risk of unrest would also increase as a nation's economy deteriorated and as the war continued into 1916, 1917 and 1918. If there were strikes, or food riots, then PP production would be badly affected for that turn and the unrest might continue for longer than a turn if the capital subsequently remained unoccupied by a garrison or an infantry unit. In certain extreme cases political events such as the Easter Rising in Ireland might occur. I would need to research this a bit more and try to come up with at least one political event for each nation.

Any good?

[soldier]

Aryaman, another possible idea for your historical mod, and it is at a very basic stage of development at the moment - it is what might be called the "home front" dimension. It would require each power to keep either a garrison unit or an infantry unit in their capital hex to help minimise the possibility of strikes or political demonstrations and other events - so there would be three levels of home defence - "none", "garrison", and infantry - and the risk of unrest would also increase as a nation's economy deteriorated and as the war continued into 1916, 1917 and 1918. If there were strikes, or food riots, then PP production would be badly affected for that turn and the unrest might continue for longer than a turn if the capital subsequently remained unoccupied by a garrison or an infantry unit. In certain extreme cases political events such as the Easter Rising in Ireland might occur. I would need to research this a bit more and try to come up with at least one political event for each nation.

This is a very good suggestion and something that is sadly lacking in the game at the moment. It seems like strikes and civil unrest were very common during the great war, especially during the later years and the major powers were very aware (almost paranoid) of it. It would be good if certain cities could strike and lose their production capacity until garrisons were deployed. At the moment there's no reason to leave any forces at home. I have no idea if this could be modded though but it would certainly be historical and is something I'd love to see introduced into the game either by the community modders or the developers themselves.