Discussion on TGW v1.05b

[Allenby]

1. Bulgaria should join the Central Powers even if Serbia doesn't exist. I think they would have to gain Macedonia and the CP certainly need them because of the land link to Turkey.

I agree with the idea that Bulgaria's war entry should not be totally dependent on Serbia's status.

2. Italy goes to war with Austria with 0 divisions on Austria's front. This is just an AI file fix I guess, though it might require some tweaking of the war with Sanusia (would the AI mass troops on Austria's border when at peace with Austria and at war with Sanusia).

The amount of troops Italy places opposite Austria-Hungary does vary, but it generally does place a disproportionate amount in Libya. Altering the AI file might help.

3. Turkey collapses too easily. This is a product of the British having little trouble taking Constantinople by marine assault when Gallipoli was such a disaster historically.

I've given Constantinople an extra coastal fort, which ought to strengthen their resolve a little.

The British AI is set to give Constantinople great importance. Perhaps another British AI file can be written that ensures that they don't target the city if it hasn't been taken by 1916?

 

[JScott991]

The Habsburgs were prohibited by agreement with Hungary from annexing any of Serbia to the Empire. Therefore, they would have been quite glad to turn over part of it to Bulgaria and that is in fact exactly what they did and what they had been proposing to Germany/Bulgaria since after the Second Balkan War. Germany, unwilling to sacrifice the interests of Rumania, did not really agree to a pact with Bulgaria until the war started.

But Macedonia was part of Serbia - if Austria annexed Serbia, then Macedonia belongs to the Habsburgs, and I don't think Sofia would knock on Vienna's door demanding Macedonia.

However I agree that the Balkans should be given more opportunities to flare up. If Romania entered the Entente, perhaps the CPs can promise Bulgaria the Dobruja to entice them.

There are in fact events that have an option b which allow for a German or Austrian annexation of Poland but these must be fixed.

 

[unmerged(20324)]

Outstanding

i just upgraded to the current version and was extremely happy to see the upgrades and changed graffics. the medical and war animals techs were nice. i have played AH and France to there conclusions, both were great. Only wished the germans were more offensive with there army's(except when i was france, i liked the 140+ division in belgium just sitting there).
Overall TGW is better than HOI and Vicky in my humble opinion, you have taken a little known era and made it playable for the mainstream gamer. keep up the great work!

 

[Shadow Knight]

i just upgraded to the current version and was extremely happy to see the upgrades and changed graffics. the medical and war animals techs were nice. i have played AH and France to there conclusions, both were great. Only wished the germans were more offensive with there army's(except when i was france, i liked the 140+ division in belgium just sitting there).
Overall TGW is better than HOI and Vicky in my humble opinion, you have taken a little known era and made it playable for the mainstream gamer. keep up the great work!

We are always appreciative of feedback, both positive and negative. It is good to hear you have enjoyed our the results so far.

The German army AI might have fallen asleep (it happens sometimes with the EU/HOI engine) and a simple closing and restarting of the game can fix that. It also could be an AI issue, but I don't really know much about that to make a judgement call.

 

[JScott991]

The Bulgaria entry after 1915 is an easy fix. The German AI does not seem to have any entry to influence Bulgaria. If you add BUL to the list of nations to be influenced, then there is a chance Bulgaria will enter the war even if Serbia is not present.

They also still receive Macedonia under the current format, even if they don't fight the Serbs. I think that works correctly.

 

[Bizon]

OK, after a few months break from playing The Great War (I think I stopped when 1.02 was out or something like that, having spotted there so many bugs and flaws), I gave your mod a second chance. And I have to say that I'm kind of impressed. You've corrected many errors, introduced a lot of improvements and last but not least, TGW's graphical interface is surprisingly great (and unfortunately I usually have big demands). The Great War = great work.

But there is also some room for improvement of course. In my spare time I sometimes run some hands-off games of different mods (CORE,SuperAI, and now TGW). Some ideas for TGW:

--------
The Trench Warfare:
I must assume, it is a perfect idea. However, around 1915/6 it makes war on western front practically come to a point when neither side makes any actions. Playing further, in 1923, Germany and France have hundreds of divisions on the front and they are doing nothing, not even trying to attack (haven't made a single attack for about 5 years or so). The same thing, on smaller scale, happens on Austrian-Italian front.
I have few ideas that could possibly help solve that problems:

• The first is simple, quick but certainly too straightforward and having no historical explanations. Around the beginning of 1918 the forts are removed and the forces start fighting. The strongest wins. Easy to implement, rather impossible to explain who and why got rid of these forts
• Second option: countries fed up with war get more and more severe dissent/supply/ic/whatever hits. That should really happen in case of central powers as long as they haven't taken Paris/Rome/London earlier. I mean really considerable punishments, not a -500 supply stockpile jokes or so. Just enough to bring countries' industry to stop and making it harder and harder to supply units. A country that is able to supply/reinforce its units longer wins. If you increased the amount of ic necessary to supply a unit (like MathGuy proposed and as it was introduced in SuperAI), that would help A LOT. But I don't insist, I know that serious balancing issues would come up then. This option certainly more historical since logistic issues of a few years war can be painful.
• The last thing, probably the best in terms of logic (especially as an addition to the second option introduced). Countries get tired of war and want to make a quick end. New AI files are loaded and as long as you guys can script it well (I believe you can), the forces start making some reckless attacks. Again, the stronger should eventually win, regardless of losses.

And remember that while trench warfare stops French troops from miraculously sweeping through German lines into their country (which used to be annoying and I am happy not to see it in 1.05 ver), these countries actually fought hard, not sitting pointlessly idle. Please, try to simulate it in some way.
--------
I think while you take care of most of pure WWI events, you can put your attention to some side issues. One conflict that comes to my mind (I know it would be bloody hard to simulate) is Polish-Bolshevik conflict around 1920 (which falls into TGW's timeline and I think for many reasons it should take place in TGW). That would enable Poland to fight for its historical pre-1939 borders with control over the east. However, what is see now is that the forces that Poland gets after becoming independent are very small and are no match for the Soviet army (and I don't ahve to say that it is historically inaccurate). So.. it's a matter for future consideration.
--------
Unlike the mods concerned with IIWW and vanilla HoI itself, in TGW war can really go in various unhistorical directions (UK staying at peace, white Russians not appearing, Italy having a lot of alliance options). I know it may be quite a boring task to code that (and it is certainly not a top-priority change in TGW), but letting player on the very beginning to choose their way of playing would be perfect. What I mean is that there could be two options: choosing one, all of the major events would go in historical way (in events, AI having possibility to go in a historical way ONLY) and the second option would leave the possibility of making unhistorical choices to AI, just like it is now. I know that would mean A LOT OF WORK to you but... worth considering to me.
---------
If anyone have read this post, thanks for attention and hope you'll find some of the ideas useful. Keep making this great work!

 

[Allenby]

I gave your mod a second chance. And I have to say that I'm kind of impressed. You've corrected many errors, introduced a lot of improvements and last but not least, TGW's graphical interface is surprisingly great (and unfortunately I usually have big demands). The Great War = great work.

Marvellous

• The first is simple, quick but certainly too straightforward and having no historical explanations. Around the beginning of 1918 the forts are removed and the forces start fighting. The strongest wins. Easy to implement, rather impossible to explain who and why got rid of these forts

• 
  
  I had something like this in mind, although it wasn't so radical as to remove them all. My idea was to sporadically remove forts in certain provinces for a set amount of time to encourage combat, before putting them back again.
  
  The 1918 idea of removing them all intruiges me, although making it gradual might be more suitable, starting in mid-1917, for example. Alternatively, removing one 'line' of forts whilst keeping forts in the rear provinces strong, may also encourage greater combat.
  
  What explanation to use? I'd suggest having the events describe how experience of trench warfare has made (unnamed) attacking techniques more sophisticated, and thus, more successful.
  
  
  

  [*]Second option: countries fed up with war get more and more severe dissent/supply/ic/whatever hits. That should really happen in case of central powers as long as they haven't taken Paris/Rome/London earlier. I mean really considerable punishments, not a -500 supply stockpile jokes or so. Just enough to bring countries' industry to stop and making it harder and harder to supply units. A country that is able to supply/reinforce its units longer wins. If you increased the amount of ic necessary to supply a unit (like MathGuy proposed and as it was introduced in SuperAI), that would help A LOT. But I don't insist, I know that serious balancing issues would come up then. This option certainly more historical since logistic issues of a few years war can be painful.

  
  I think there may be some gameplay issues there that get to the very heart of the purpose of the game itself. If one simply sees it as a war game, then one might encourage people to fight to the death, however unrealistic, but if, however it is seen as something a bit more than just a war game, then we might consider something like dissent hits in the absense of success that takes a country to its very limits by 1918/9.
  
  Countries can be defeated if their dissent grows too high, but the mod still has relatively few devices, connected with events in the war, that can see that happen anyway. Problematically, being beaten because of dissent hits sustained by events, is likely to be quite controversial with those playing it.
  
  
  

  I think while you take care of most of pure WWI events, you can put your attention to some side issues. One conflict that comes to my mind (I know it would be bloody hard to simulate) is Polish-Bolshevik conflict around 1920 (which falls into TGW's timeline and I think for many reasons it should take place in TGW). That would enable Poland to fight for its historical pre-1939 borders with control over the east. However, what is see now is that the forces that Poland gets after becoming independent are very small and are no match for the Soviet army (and I don't ahve to say that it is historically inaccurate). So.. it's a matter for future consideration.

  
  The Russian Civil War is scripted, so too is the Franco-Syrian conflagration and the Greco-Turkish war, so I don't see why the possibility of a Russo-Polish war should be discounted.
  
  
  

  I know that would mean A LOT OF WORK to you but... worth considering to me.

  
  We have enough trouble as it is now without having to do that much :wacko:
  
  
  

  If anyone have read this post, thanks for attention and hope you'll find some of the ideas useful. Keep making this great work!

  
  Thank you. My regards.

 

[unmerged(24028)]

Russian Revolution - COMPLETELY unpreventable!?

I have tried it... And tried it... AND TRIED IT! In every version of TGW I have repeatedly played as Russia, and I have NEVER AVOIDED THE REVOLUTION! I can devote every single resource into Consumer Goods to get the Dissent below 20% to stop the chain of events in mid 1917 that causes the Revolution. Most the events (Last I checked) would not happen if you had below 20% dissent, and so I try. And I try... And I try... AND THE REVOLUTION ALWAYS HAPPENS!

Is it totally unpreventable!? My war is always going well too. I always start to get the upper hand on Germany in late 1916 (Occupying East Prussia, inching towards Berlin, France hanging in there, Austria on the fritz) just in time for the whole thing to come crashing down when the bottum falls out! I try it over and over, and without cheating I can't possibly get Dissent below 20% after that horrifying chain of events goes into action and causes the state to deteriorate like a paper towel in a bowl of water!

I'm upset, and I want to prevent the civil war! It shouldn't happen when I have a happy, fed army of 230 divisions, technology rivaling Germany's, and lots of supplies to spare!

Has ANYONE ever avoided the cursed Soviets!?

Death to the Bolsheviks!
God Save the Tsar!

 

[unmerged(30762)]

I have. I won the war in 1916. The event is meant to take effect as Russia would have severe discontent historically if the war was not a quick victory. If you are not winning the war quickly, this event is increasingly more likely. I actually have never experienced the event myself except by typing the event code into the F12 window. Ill remember never to do that again.

 

[unmerged(30762)]

Concerning The idea of a bolshevik takeover, afterwards Lenin announced the total disbandment of the Russian Army. The olny formation they had left of experience was the Latvian Rifles. I think when the revolution hits to remove nearly all of Russias units shortly after with an event should be done. There also should be a clearing of dissent when the revolution hits. This would allow the Red army to have time to build for and during the Civil war. This would also solve the polish problem.

 

[ptan54]

Precisely.

And if you aren't doing well, you'll get another spate of dissent increasing events in early March 1917.

I believe the October revolution now fires with dissent less than 20 - I think if it's 5 or 10 or more it will happen if the March revolution has happened.

As Stephen will point out, anything short of a total victory will cause the Tsarist economy to creak and break under the duress of war.

Would Comrade Gzavich move this thread to General Discussion on 1.05 please?

 

[Allenby]

Concerning The idea of a bolshevik takeover, afterwards Lenin announced the total disbandment of the Russian Army. The olny formation they had left of experience was the Latvian Rifles. I think when the revolution hits to remove nearly all of Russias units shortly after with an event should be done. There also should be a clearing of dissent when the revolution hits. This would allow the Red army to have time to build for and during the Civil war. This would also solve the polish problem.

What if the Bolshevik inclined Russian player decides he wants to keep his army?

 

[Gwalcmai]

There's also the slight problem of not being able to specifically target a unit, or a unit type, for removal. So, instead of removing the army you might end up having no navy or airforce.

 

[Allenby]

Does anybody else have any thoughts regarding which solution to the Russian Revolution problem we should use?

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

-5000 manpower? That way, they cannot reinforce their units, which will lead them to slowly decay...

 

[unmerged(30762)]

Actually, the Russian army kind of disbanded itself... The communist takeover had conviced soldiers to beleive the communist promise to re-distribute land that there would be land for the taking in their home regoins. Therefore the Russian army simply packed up and went home. As Lenin put it, they "voted for peace with their feet." It was the official disbandment that made it legal .

 

[unmerged(30762)]

-5000 manpower? That way, they cannot reinforce their units, which will lead them to slowly decay...

I dont like it... Perhaps there could be a command to remove a certain number of divisions from their forces. Ive seen it before, merely events that strike at random places. Perhaps the number of randomly removed divisions would be of such a number that Russia would never have such a number so it would result in total disbandment. It would require testing but I beleive its worth a shot.

I would go against anything slamming the manpower, as that would liquidate the bolshevik's ability to fight the civil war.

 

[StephenT]

What explanation to use? I'd suggest having the events describe how experience of trench warfare has made (unnamed) attacking techniques more sophisticated, and thus, more successful.

Would these commands work as an event trigger?
OR = {
technology = 11306 # Armoured Warfare
technology = 11402 # Infiltration Tactics
}
Mind you, I suspect it will be much easier to have the invention of either of these land doctrines remove all fortifications, rather than to code a complex chain of events to remove only those fortifications in countries at war with the one developing that tech...

 

[StephenT]

Regarding the Russian revolution, I'd actually be quite sympathetic to an event that randomly wiped out 30-40 Russian units. Or even three or four such events. It doesn't really matter if they're infantry divisions or warships - since the crews of the Russian Navy were just as mutinous and rebellious as the soldiers.

Not sure YourNickname would appreciate that, though.

However, bear in mind that one of Trotsky's first acts as People's Commissar for War was to reinstate as much of the old Tsarist officer corps as possible (including General Brusilov) and raise a mass army millions strong. So rather than penalise SOV manpower, we should actually be giving them a huge bonus...

 

[StephenT]

Countries can be defeated if their dissent grows too high, but the mod still has relatively few devices, connected with events in the war, that can see that happen anyway. Problematically, being beaten because of dissent hits sustained by events, is likely to be quite controversial with those playing it.

I always thought that the 'Christmas' events were a good idea badly implemented (since they tended to happen in the middle of the year, with no explanation). To be fair to the player, though, we would need to make sure that they affected everybody the same way - so we're talking about a series of events for every major power, triggering on the same date each time (25 December?) if they're atwar. Call them 'War Weariness' events.