Slitherine

Hi
I wonder, is ther a plan to implement thsoe casualties caused by disease. They were still a good 30% of the total, and in some campaigns they were determinant, for instance the Allied expeditionary force in Salonica suffered a proportion of casualties by disease and combat that was 30 to 1.
In CEAW there is a shock effect in winter that lower organization level of units, but given the importance of manpower attrition in WW1, it would be better to code an effect on the combat poewer of the unit so that players have to spend manpower to reinforce it

Currently the effect of winter is just higher efficiency loss from moving and attacking. So as long as you sit still during the winter nothing really happens but combat and movement has a much bigger effect on the status of your units.

Randomly losing strength forcing the player to repair all units during winter turns sounds a bit too harsh.

And what about disease? the rate of casuaalties produced by infections in Greece and Mesopotamia was terribly high

Quoting from John Keegan "The First World War" pgs 255-256

The Salonika divisions suffered, nonetheless;
malaria, endemic in northern Greece, caused ten casualties for
every one inflicted by the enemy, and from the mosquito, as long as the
Allies remained in the disease zone, there was no escape. German Journalists
contemptuously described Salonika in 1915 as "the greatest
internment camp in the world." It was worse than that. As numbers
grew, and malaria rampaged, it became a great military hospital, where
casualties from disease sometimes exceeded one hundred per cent of
the strength of some units present.

Regarding the effect of cold weather, maybe an especial rule could be designed for the Turkish army in 1914, that was exceptionally bad prepared for that, again quoting Keegan, pg. 223
The weather, too,
slowed its advance and caused much suffering and death; one division
lost 4,000 of its 8,000 men to frostbite in four days of advance. On
29 December 1914 the Russian commander, General Mishlaevski,
counter-attacked at Sarikamis, near Kars, on the railway between Lake
Van and Erzerum, and triumphed. The victory was complete by
2 January, when the whole of the Turkish IX Corps surrendered, and in
mid-month no more than 18,000 of the 95,000 Turks who had fought
the campaign survived. Thirty thousand are said to have died of cold,
an entirely plausible outcome of a campaign fought in winter at a mean
elevation of 6,500 feet.

Interesting information. We'll have some thoughts about how/if we can simulate this in the game somehow.

I’m all for this – but as something that can be turned on or off by the player in an options menu.

I for one would have it turned on – the more realism in a game the better. but I can understand why some would not want to see their troops slowly disappear because of these reasons.

It certainly won't be something like that. That would force the player to press repair every turn and where's the fun in that. If we simulate these things it'll be by higher upkeep cost, efficiency loss or something in certain regions/climates etc.

In general, the effect of disease in the game I think should be to make more difficult the use of large forces in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East regions that would be unhistorical. The Ottoman armies in WW1 suffered 243.598 KIA, 61.487 MIA and 466.759 casualties by disease (Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War By Huseyin (FRW) Kivrikoglu, Edward J. Erickson Page 211.)This was the consequence not only of the poor conditions in the army, but also of the undedeveloped territories in which the army fought. The British at Kut also suffered a disproportionate high level of casualties because of disease. Overall, Townshend at Kut surrendered 13,309 men, including 272 British and 204 Indian officers, as well as 40 artillery pieces, 3 aircraft, 2 river steamers and 40 automobiles. The siege also cost them 1,000 KIA, 7,000 wounded and 731 died of diseases and starvation

It certainly won't be something like that. That would force the player to press repair every turn and where's the fun in that. If we simulate these things it'll be by higher upkeep cost, efficiency loss or something in certain regions/climates etc.

That is for sure or it gets repetitive micro management, also I tend to see this as an option that can be turned on/off as an option, like in the original commander supply and efficiency dropped while being long enough in hostile terrain eg. dessert or extreme cold, we could add it as at random epidemic events and eg. in some climates the risk and frequency is higher. But having it all the time is not fun from a gameplay point of view. It is a game in the first place, not a historical simulator.

lordzimoa wrote:we could add it as an at random epidemic events and eg. in some climates the risk and frequency is higher.

Now there is an excellent idea

I am in complete agreement, I hate micromanagement. I was thinking rather in terms of game balance, to avoid that a British player could invade the Middle East with a big army. It was not just disease, of course, logistics also played a big factor here.A major problem for the British was the lack of logistical infrastructure. When ships arrived at Basra, they had to be unloaded by small boats which then unloaded their cargo which was then stored in warehouses, which there were not enough of in Basra. Ships often sat for days waiting to be unloaded. Then supplies had to be sent north along the river in shallow draft river steamers because there were almost no roads north. Usually the amount of supplies being sent north was barely adequate to supply the forces in place. A plan to build a railway was rejected by the Indian Government in 1915, but after Kut it was approved. After the defeat at Kut, the British made a major effort to improve the ability to move men and equipment into theater, and keep them supplied. The port at Basra was greatly improved so that ships could be quickly unloaded. Good roads were built around Basra. Rest camps and supply dumps were created to receive men and material from the port. More and better river steamers were put into service moving supplies up river.New hospitals were also set up to better care for the sick and wounded. As a result, the British were able to bring more troops and equipment to the front lines and keep them properly supplied for a new offensive.

Maybe some maintenance cap cost could be designed similar to what CEAW GS has for the Axis troops in North Africa, with an increase with time, in 1915 the British had difficutlies supplying one single division in Mesopotamia but by the end of 1917 they were able to supply 7 Inf Divisions and 1 cavalry division

I am just looking back through some of the older discussions we have had because there might be one or two things to consider for 1.40. This one on disease is quite interesting.