Russian revolutions, making them right.

[Suprass]

Subs.. thay need changes... Four attack and only one step down (in two MP games). A guarantee one step lover to oconvoy after attack and it will be much better. For now... four attacka and only one step down... it is not worth time and money....

You know, you are not a new kid on the block! What do you do, to pack a bigger punch?

I can't tell you. We are at war!

Subs are to weak but not unplayable. As you said- they delaying convoys and this is a good thing (with ground actions at the same time they can make a lot of problems...). But at the start of war they are able to inflict damage at about 50-60% of attack. Someone said that you need 500 pp destryed in convoys- 50 "strenght points" destroyd in convoys- to much. In my best naval war I was able to destroy about 10 steps... I'm not a very good CP player but eaven if I focus on subs I'm unable to force US to enter war.
What are yours feeleing about this. Am I only one that achived so poor scores in naval engagments?

[kirk23]

All aspects of the naval game, is being reviewed and improvements made, Subs will also benefit.

[operating]

[quote="

I can't tell you. We are at war!

Subs are to weak but not unplayable. As you said- they delaying convoys and this is a good thing (with ground actions at the same time they can make a lot of problems...). But at the start of war they are able to inflict damage at about 50-60% of attack. Someone said that you need 500 pp destryed in convoys- 50 "strenght points" destroyd in convoys- to much. In my best naval war I was able to destroy about 10 steps... I'm not a very good CP player but eaven if I focus on subs I'm unable to force US to enter war.
What are yours feeleing about this. Am I only one that achived so poor scores in naval engagments?

My pm to you was retorical, it was meant to say; either, increase sub fleets or update your fleets. I don't mind talking about strategy (to a point), for it's our first game. Madha Harri is always at work! If you want America in the war, you are going to have to earn it.. Of course, I would love to have America in the war, as well as any other neutral nation, but only if it makes sense. If you want to help the bad guys, you can always post those beautiful SS, about PPs, research, troops, the FOG armies, you got stashed away, that would be nice! Aaaahh just kidding!

[Suprass]

[quote="

I can't tell you. We are at war!

Subs are to weak but not unplayable. As you said- they delaying convoys and this is a good thing (with ground actions at the same time they can make a lot of problems...). But at the start of war they are able to inflict damage at about 50-60% of attack. Someone said that you need 500 pp destryed in convoys- 50 "strenght points" destroyd in convoys- to much. In my best naval war I was able to destroy about 10 steps... I'm not a very good CP player but eaven if I focus on subs I'm unable to force US to enter war.
What are yours feeleing about this. Am I only one that achived so poor scores in naval engagments?

My pm to you was retorical, it was meant to say; either, increase sub fleets or update your fleets. I don't mind talking about strategy (to a point), for it's our first game. Madha Harri is always at work! If you want America in the war, you are going to have to earn it.. Of course, I would love to have America in the war, as well as any other neutral nation, but only if it makes sense. If you want to help the bad guys, you can always post those beautiful SS, about PPs, research, troops, the FOG armies, you got stashed away, that would be nice! Aaaahh just kidding!

I know it was retorical. It was a joke from me

[operating]

Been polishing my Russian sword, for a special event not too far in the future.

[operating]

[quote="

I can't tell you. We are at war!

Subs are to weak but not unplayable. As you said- they delaying convoys and this is a good thing (with ground actions at the same time they can make a lot of problems...). But at the start of war they are able to inflict damage at about 50-60% of attack. Someone said that you need 500 pp destryed in convoys- 50 "strenght points" destroyd in convoys- to much. In my best naval war I was able to destroy about 10 steps... I'm not a very good CP player but eaven if I focus on subs I'm unable to force US to enter war.
What are yours feeleing about this. Am I only one that achived so poor scores in naval engagments?

[/quote]

You got me thinking about this convoy puzzle. Some members suggest not to attack convoys, to keep America out of the war, plus it would be of little or no expense to maintain a navy, purely keep to the ground, strategicly sound argument.. However, you (Suprass) are trying to bring America into the war, by sinking convoys. (at present you have the upperhand in our match) Regardless, you want to make a game of it, which is commendable.

Before Suprass and I started our match; he suggested he would declare war on America, if and when Russia surrenders, my first thought was to decline, for it did not seem quite right, as history goes, I opted for a no vote.

Let's say Surpass, gives it good effort to try to sink convoys, but is not successful till well after April 1917. Should America automatically enter the war at that point in time April 1917 (game rules say no)? I'm a new to MP, choose to be Entente, for there is real challange to keep it together. The easist path to Victory, is the ground game for CP, there is no incentive to build a navy for CP in MP, which strikes me as a true statement (in my experience).

If there were more Entente convoys, especially after start of war (increased trade with America/Britian explodes to near 1000%), would present a good case for CP to build a submariner navy and it would also bring into perspective a stronger attack value for wolf packs. Another thought; change size and frequency of convoys.

[operating]

How come Italy/France do not recieve convoys from their colonies in Africa, whereas, the other nations do?

[Suprass]

[quote="

I can't tell you. We are at war!

Subs are to weak but not unplayable. As you said- they delaying convoys and this is a good thing (with ground actions at the same time they can make a lot of problems...). But at the start of war they are able to inflict damage at about 50-60% of attack. Someone said that you need 500 pp destryed in convoys- 50 "strenght points" destroyd in convoys- to much. In my best naval war I was able to destroy about 10 steps... I'm not a very good CP player but eaven if I focus on subs I'm unable to force US to enter war.
What are yours feeleing about this. Am I only one that achived so poor scores in naval engagments?

[quote="
You got me thinking about this convoy puzzle. Some members suggest not to attack convoys, to keep America out of the war, plus it would be of little or no expense to maintain a navy, purely keep to the ground, strategicly sound argument.. However, you (Suprass) are trying to bring America into the war, by sinking convoys. (at present you have the upperhand in our match) Regardless, you want to make a game of it, which is commendable.

Before Suprass and I started our match; he suggested he would declare war on America, if and when Russia surrenders, my first thought was to decline, for it did not seem quite right, as history goes, I opted for a no vote.

Let's say Surpass, gives it good effort to try to sink convoys, but is not successful till well after April 1917. Should America automatically enter the war at that point in time April 1917 (game rules say no)? I'm a new to MP, choose to be Entente, for there is real challange to keep it together. The easist path to Victory, is the ground game for CP, there is no incentive to build a navy for CP in MP, which strikes me as a true statement (in my experience).

If there were more Entente convoys, especially after start of war (increased trade with America/Britian explodes to near 1000%), would present a good case for CP to build a submariner navy and it would also bring into perspective a stronger attack value for wolf packs. Another thought; change size and frequency of convoys.

Subs are weak at the start of war as we all know. They could be a little mor effecive but I can agree that this level is good. If I want as CP player I can upgrade them. Their attack can delay convoy arrival and this is good. But seting US entry depand on 50 convoy steps killed is madnes. I think 15 steps is hard to achive but I'm not an expert of naval war. maybe someone who invest in navy could say how it looks in later war.
Second- avoiding US entry by only ingnoring convoys- hmmm I can do that. If I win I allways win with only small fleet of subs. I can ignre that.

Makeing convoys more valuable pray is a thing that bring a live to sub-war. Or makeing them easier to destroy to give a player a choice- do I risk attack and weakening British and US entry or I don't want US in war but I will have strong British forces- so I let them swim to Entente ports... And to bring a "risk element" there should be a range for ect. 10-20- US entru plausible, above 20 US will enter.

And If there will be a sub-war British will have to escort convoys and then German fleet can find an opportunity to enter open sea... I don't want to change game a lot. I think small "cosmethic" changes will be enough.

[operating]

Suprass says;

Subs are weak at the start of war as we all know. They could be a little mor effecive but I can agree that this level is good. If I want as CP player I can upgrade them. Their attack can delay convoy arrival and this is good. But seting US entry depand on 50 convoy steps killed is madnes. I think 15 steps is hard to achive but I'm not an expert of naval war. maybe someone who invest in navy could say how it looks in later war.
Second- avoiding US entry by only ingnoring convoys- hmmm I can do that. If I win I allways win with only small fleet of subs. I can ignre that.

Makeing convoys more valuable pray is a thing that bring a live to sub-war. Or makeing them easier to destroy to give a player a choice- do I risk attack and weakening British and US entry or I don't want US in war but I will have strong British forces- so I let them swim to Entente ports... And to bring a "risk element" there should be a range for ect. 10-20- US entru plausible, above 20 US will enter.

And If there will be a sub-war British will have to escort convoys and then German fleet can find an opportunity to enter open sea... I don't want to change game a lot. I think small "cosmethic" changes will be enough.

I would agree with you on a number of points, including , not radially changing the game, But, there has to be something to encourage CP to build a navy, otherwise, the ground game get's kind of twisted in MP.

FYI; In 1914 Britian had a larger submarine force than Germany, but that is not represented in the 1914 scenario, later scenarios 1 sub, Yes, but not in 1914, a little bit of an enigma there.

How come Italy/France do not recieve convoys from their colonies in Africa, whereas, the other nations do?

The above quote, I think would be also fair and reasonable to be included in the game. Do I expect it to be so? No! Even though it makes common sense and was in practice during the war.

I like German subs when playing as CP, convoys are predicable and totally out of owner's control, like little fat ducklings, in the view of a periscope. Here's a point I differ from the game; Tactically, wolfpacks were spread out to screen for targets, then pull together, to attack, usually a convoy, I don't get that feeling in this game, at least not a strong one. Perhaps notes by the designers, as to the how and why they came up with the different schemes in the game might help, but that is like pulling teeth, to get answers to.

I would rather be swimming than be on one of those "pigboats" when they go down and drown.

[operating]

Suprass

From my Entente point of view; You display a desire for more potent sub victories (not good for me), however, the balance should be a versatile Entente cruiser fleet. Especially, in the Naval research techs. Currently a hidden sub cannot be spotted unless by chance the whole match, untill your opponents' ship happens to land in that hex (a very low probability % of that happening). With the improved naval techs, I would like to have an increased area (1 hex all directions) of sub detection, around lets say a cruiser. A trade off for certain and how it would affect the gaming model, could be beta tested, if even the idea got that far. Just thinking out loud for consideration in the upcoming patch.

[Suprass]

Suprass

From my Entente point of view; You display a desire for more potent sub victories (not good for me), however, the balance should be a versatile Entente cruiser fleet. Especially, in the Naval research techs. Currently a hidden sub cannot be spotted unless by chance the whole match, untill your opponents' ship happens to land in that hex (a very low probability % of that happening). With the improved naval techs, I would like to have an increased area (1 hex all directions) of sub detection, around lets say a cruiser. A trade off for certain and how it would affect the gaming model, could be beta tested, if even the idea got that far. Just thinking out loud for consideration in the upcoming patch.

I was only thinkig loud... As I said I'm not an expert of naval (sub) war- I wasn't in CEAW as well. Maybe I can't play them properly. If more experienced in this direction players say subs are ok then it's ok.
I'm looking for this aspect of war with CEAW in my mind (subs were more devastating- but there was WW II and this weapon was known and used for over 30 years and more)
I was just thinking that if this is the only way to force US to war it should be reprogram.
If other players think that subs are ok (I can agree with that in some way) I will take it as it is but for now I don't eaven heard about US entry becouse of sube war. Warspite1 said that he has once US in war but I don't know how they come into it.
At the end I will say that I usually abandon this kind of war. For now I try to learn somthing more about it.

P.S. For me most important skill of subs is delaying convoys but this is a hard work.

P.S. II Maybe someone can tell me about how subs fight at... let's say 1917 after investing in naval research (I usually sell naval labs).

[operating]

To me, as a novice MP player, I would be seriously lucky to make it to 1917. For Russia would be long gone and what is left of the Entente is fighting for it's life if it still existed.

And by dropping your naval tech is an example of going over to the "DARK SIDE" (Star Wars) of MP, purely ground ( not World War I strategy ), if a match is to be politically correct. I am confident that others do the same, but I could be wrong. Simply put, there is just going to be NO WAY under those circumstances that America will be in the war, unless in a match CP, out and out declares war on America, which does not make strategic sense! It is a sign that CP is bored..

[operating]

To me, as a novice MP player, I would be seriously lucky to make it to 1917. For Russia would be long gone and what is left of the Entente is fighting for it's life if it still existed.

And by dropping your naval tech is an example of going over to the "DARK SIDE" (Star Wars) of MP, purely ground ( not World War I strategy ), if a match is to be politically correct. I am confident that others do the same, but I could be wrong. Simply put, there is just going to be NO WAY under those circumstances that America will be in the war, unless in a match CP, out and out declares war on America, which does not make strategic sense! It is a sign that CP is bored..

If you want a match like above, declare war on a neutral, right from the start, might be a way to bring on a real challenge if thats what you want, I am open to discussion on this, if you like.

[operating]

How come Italy/France do not recieve convoys from their colonies in Africa, whereas, the other nations do?

France occupied Tunisia in May 1881 (and Guinea in 1884), which partly convinced Italy to join the German-Austrian Dual Alliance in 1882, thus forming the Triple Alliance. The same year, Britain occupied Egypt (hitherto an autonomous state owing nominal fealty to the Ottoman Empire), which ruled over Sudan and parts of Chad, Eritrea, and Somalia. In 1870 and 1882, Italy took possession of the first parts of Eritrea, while Germany declared Togoland, the Cameroons and South West Africa to be under its protection in 1884. French West Africa (AOF) was founded in 1895, and French Equatorial Africa in 1910.

Italy continued its conquest to gain its "place in the sun". Following the defeat of the First Italo–Ethiopian War (1895–1896), it acquired Italian Somaliland in 1889–90 and the whole of Eritrea (1899). In 1911, it engaged in a war with the Ottoman Empire, in which it acquired Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (modern Libya). Enrico Corradini, who fully supported the war, and later merged his group in the early fascist party (PNF), developed in 1919 the concept of Proletarian Nationalism, supposed to legitimise Italy's imperialism by a mixture of socialism with nationalism: "We must start by recognizing the fact that there are proletarian nations as well as proletarian classes; that is to say, there are nations whose living conditions are subject...to the way of life of other nations, just as classes are. Once this is realised, nationalism must insist firmly on this truth: Italy is, materially and morally, a proletarian nation."[11] The Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1935–36), ordered by Benito Mussolini, would actually be one of the last colonial wars (that is, intended to colonize a foreign country, opposed to wars of national liberation), occupying Ethiopia which had remained the last African independent territory apart from Liberia, for five years. The Spanish Civil War, marking a phase of what some call the European Civil War, began in Spanish Morocco in 1936.

I don't know if the above quote is worth spit as a supporting argument about French and Italian trade/convoys lacking in the CTGW, but thought I might give it shot anyway. It strikes me in an odd way, that there is all these ports in the Mederitainan Sea, that are only being used as "comfort stations". Heck, I remember before 1.30 came out, about the lack of ports, ect. Most if not all the ports on the map are trading ports. Why not use them for that purpose?

[villev]

Suprass

From my Entente point of view; You display a desire for more potent sub victories (not good for me), however, the balance should be a versatile Entente cruiser fleet. Especially, in the Naval research techs. Currently a hidden sub cannot be spotted unless by chance the whole match, untill your opponents' ship happens to land in that hex (a very low probability % of that happening). With the improved naval techs, I would like to have an increased area (1 hex all directions) of sub detection, around lets say a cruiser. A trade off for certain and how it would affect the gaming model, could be beta tested, if even the idea got that far. Just thinking out loud for consideration in the upcoming patch.

I was only thinkig loud... As I said I'm not an expert of naval (sub) war- I wasn't in CEAW as well. Maybe I can't play them properly. If more experienced in this direction players say subs are ok then it's ok.
I'm looking for this aspect of war with CEAW in my mind (subs were more devastating- but there was WW II and this weapon was known and used for over 30 years and more)
I was just thinking that if this is the only way to force US to war it should be reprogram.
If other players think that subs are ok (I can agree with that in some way) I will take it as it is but for now I don't eaven heard about US entry becouse of sube war. Warspite1 said that he has once US in war but I don't know how they come into it.
At the end I will say that I usually abandon this kind of war. For now I try to learn somthing more about it.

P.S. For me most important skill of subs is delaying convoys but this is a hard work.

P.S. II Maybe someone can tell me about how subs fight at... let's say 1917 after investing in naval research (I usually sell naval labs).

I think subs are fine- they might have a bit more punch, but sinking 1-3 strenght points off a convoy is already quite a lot: 10-30PP. These were quite primitive subs compared to the ones in the next war, and the submarine war didn't reach the same intensity.

What isn't fine is US entry- and there should be other triggers apart from the sinking of commercial shipping to UK and France. These could be:
-the submarine warfare stuff, two-tiered like now, but with lower casualty requirements.
-Liberal left revolution in Russia (the first one) making it easier for US to ally with Entente, as it wouldn't be siding with a despotic state (times match pretty well, but I'm not sure if this had any bearing in reality. Wikipedia says it had, and there's even a source- and though that's nowhere near good enough for historical research, it's good enough for a game I think).
-things going bad for the Entente and war having dragged on for a few years already: US was supplying a lot of equipment on credit to UK and France, and wanted to ensure that the debts would be repaid.

So, in game terms for US entry I propose these events:
-sub casualties, half the current ones (25/50) -> US sympathy towards Entente increased
-First revolution event triggering in Russia -> US sympathy towards Entente increased
-French/British NM falling below level XX% and the date being Summer 1916, or later -> US sympathy towards Entente increased

[villev]

How come Italy/France do not recieve convoys from their colonies in Africa, whereas, the other nations do?

snip quote

I don't know if the above quote is worth spit as a supporting argument about French and Italian trade/convoys lacking in the CTGW, but thought I might give it shot anyway. It strikes me in an odd way, that there is all these ports in the Mederitainan Sea, that are only being used as "comfort stations". Heck, I remember before 1.30 came out, about the lack of ports, ect. Most if not all the ports on the map are trading ports. Why not use them for that purpose?

I think convoys for Italy and France and Belgium from their colonies are quite justified, although especially the Italian colonies were not economically worth a lot. This would of course mean that Italian production would have to be lowered a bit to compensate for the increased income from the convoys. In any case the convoys should be small, arnoud 1-2 strenght points. Eritrea and Somalia were not quite on the same level as India.

[operating]

I think convoys for Italy and France and Belgium from their colonies are quite justified, although especially the Italian colonies were not economically worth a lot. This would of course mean that Italian production would have to be lowered a bit to compensate for the increased income from the convoys. In any case the convoys should be small, arnoud 1-2 strenght points. Eritrea and Somalia were not quite on the same level as India.

I agree, I did not beleive that these convoys would be worth alot, I would not reduce PPs, only make the convoys very small, maybe a 1 or two, maybe an occasional 3, depending on the receiving country.

Let's take it to another level; I just lost France to you, would that not affect the English/France trade? even though it is not reflected prior to surrender. Did some research about the cross channel trading between those countries during the war, surprisingly COAL was one of the largest commodities traded.

One other thing, I pm you; At the beginning of my turn France had surrendered, all the hexes around Turin showed French, for I knew I had French units north of Nice at the end of my last turn, prompted to think I did not anything to worry about. So I moved the Turin garrison east. Much to my chagrin, you had Turin during the turn exchange, that sucked, so my next turn, all those hexes that were French were for the most part, now are all German. The oddest thing was; my Turin garrison was invisable, so I moved it to make it visable, I thought it was a BUG!

When France surrendered, there was no German units within 2 mountain hexes of Turin, that I found very curious too, so at minimum it should have taken 2 turns before you would have been able capture Turin. How could of that possibly happen? Did you notice that too?

[operating]

When France surrendered, there was no German units within 2 mountain hexes of Turin, that I found very curious too, so at minimum it should have taken 2 turns before you would have been able capture Turin. How could of that possibly happen? Did you notice that too?

It's possible during your turn to have moved one of your garrisons closer towards Turin----Then France Fell-----OK, I could buy that, for that would have been seen during a game turn. Also for the forum to know France went into total blackout fog, including the hexes at the French/Italian border. Which was really weird!

[villev]

When France surrendered, there was no German units within 2 mountain hexes of Turin, that I found very curious too, so at minimum it should have taken 2 turns before you would have been able capture Turin. How could of that possibly happen? Did you notice that too?

It's possible during your turn to have moved one of your garrisons closer towards Turin----Then France Fell-----OK, I could buy that, for that would have been seen during a game turn. Also for the forum to know France went into total blackout fog, including the hexes at the French/Italian border. Which was really weird!

Hi, let's keep this in PM or separate thread, so as not to clog up this one. The hexes bordering Italy were isolated from the rest of the French hexes so they went to German control with French surrender. French went black & foggy because they left your alliance, and therefore became neutral again, behaving like any other neutral country in game. The British units on France also should have returned to your production queue, which I guess they did?

It would be nice if there was an option for replaying previous turns- to clarify stuff like this and also for making an AAR later, or going over the war with both sides visible after the game's concluded.

[operating]

Another solution to this revolution problem; would be to freeze CP troops within 2 hexes of Russia boarder for a couple of turns.