Potzblitz V24.2b JAN 1st 2024

[Robotron]

At the moment, NOTHING motivates me deploying my subs in the atlantik...

Well, one less issue for your opponent to worry about then I guess.

[Unwichtig]

Well yes I don't care.
But that was not the point.

My convoys are safe and the USA never join my opponent. That has indeed never ever happened. I get 200 pp every few turns and never loose a Submarine. And that's actually not realistic which is why I raised the point.

I think with current game mechanics it's more efficient to deploy subs on the northsea. I don't mind my opponents knowing where I have my subs, they know anyway as they can almost never sink my convoys. The Submarine shield works too good in the game.

Many players many tactics I guess.
Maybe I am wrong as well. Whatever.

I actually like the suicide idea against light cruisers and then build fresh subs instead of returning them. To prevent that, repairs for subs need to be up to 10 immediately. Otherwise that mad tactic would return into the game.
It does support my way of playing even more

Never mind. I ll try the atlantik option now and check if it's better than what I do right now.

[Unwichtig]

Oh, in that case there might be a dire need to mod in an "Entente deploys Q-ships" event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

Great Idea!!!
I like it. Could be the solution - When played, adding some extra penalties for german subs i.e. when attacking or something like that.
Could be in play maybe mid-war?

Question: Is it possible to prohibit submarines from being in position next to each other?
So that a ship can only be attacked from 3 submarines at a time?
And submarine shielding around convoys dont work anymore?
I cant imagine its possible, must be hard to put that into the game.
Would make a huge difference though.

Justification could be that subs prevent operating in the same areas adjacent to each other to prevent underwater collisions.
Whis is extremely realistic by the way - submarines had no possibilities to "build the subsurface picture" and in order to prevent too many subs in a small area they were often given designated sectors and patrol areas to prevent mutual interference.
But okay, that probably too much detail for the game.

[Robotron]

No, it's not possible to prevent units from being adjacent to other units.

The situation with submarines ganging up on warships instead of convoy hunting seems problematic to say the least. I don't like it at all.

Seems like it's necessary to raise subattack stats for BBs and BCs and give them access to anti-sub techs representing a screen of recon vessels.
I'll also remove the efficiency loss from running into a submarine ambush, it's way overpowered and unrealistic.

[Unwichtig]

Yes good i agree. To be honest i also dont like subs ganging up, whatever it takes, prevent it.
I agree, i tried this sub-screening-tactic in various scenarios and it seems working too well.
No way subs could have coordinated that tactic in ww1 and no way they could catch up in speed with surface vessels.

3-4 full strengh, upgraded subs waiting to pick the norwegian (and swedish) convoy up and escort it to wilhelmshaven/Danzig?
And the royal navy is just watching and cant break the defence? They can max. damage 1 or 2 subs 3-4 points, thats it.
Once convoy arrives, subs get modernized and repaired in 1 turn and do the same again?
nah, thats stupid.
My subs are back on 10 again when picking up the new convoys, the RN and russian ships are still in port for additional repairs.
German Navy wins like this. This is almost like cheating.

Thats the reason why i asked to reduce the sub repairs in port to make the process take longer and block german ports longer as well (so subs need to wait outside port longer until harbour is free again).

Problem is that cocolo also has a point with his opinion.

I dont know if other players feel the same.
I think germany needs a penalty if no subs are in the atlantik.
They were constructed to fight the atlantik battle, so thats where they should be.
Zero UK convoy sunk per year? = collapse point/morale drain/german submarine sunk in bad weather event / i dont know.
That would solve the problem.
This forces germany to chase convoys.

[Unwichtig]

Most classic and during WW1 developed counter submarine tactic for warships operating in submarine areas were the "ZigZag" plans.
This easy principle of non-stop evasive maneuvering and course alterations made it extremely difficult for subs to fire their straight running torpedoes.
Chance to hit sunk singnificantly once this tactic was succesfully implemented by the royal navy.
Its not yet mentioned in the game, but could be an easy tool to negate the german sub-fleet efficiecy when fighting the royal navy in the north sea to break the blockade.
It would re-balance a little and force germany to use the surface fleet instead.

Suggest: Once germany sunk either a royal navy BC or a BB, the event "Implement Advanced ZigZag Plans" could be added and played by Entente.
From now on, BC and BB get a significant defence boose against submarines making it almost useless using them against Major combatants.

So players will use them to attacl less coordinated convoys instead? (Which would force the subs out of northsea.
(Thats also not completely ahistorical - Intially German subs were conducting combat patrols in the northsea 1914 sinking a few armoured cruisers. This then did force the RN to advance in tactics and implement better asw weapons making the subs in 1915ff less effective.)
The ZigZag plan was one of the countermeasures.

[Unwichtig]

Final idea tonight, a little crazy:

I am not aware this happened in WW1, at least i could not find anything, correct me if you know it did (!?), but it would be another great solution for the subscreening problem if the UK could hijack or capture a German submarine.

Submarine ambush...If an Entente Light Cruiser gets ambushed, how about having a min. chance that the sub is captured?
LCs are great asw ships, fast, can evade and have good sub attacking stats. They could use this to chase down and hijack the sub.

Sub then disapears and ends up in the UK troop deploy line...there you go. UK gets a sub ´for free´ next turn.
They cant build any subs anyway, so its not a massive thing. Still, with this, CP thinks twice to surround convoys with subs etc.
Entente could just give an attempt to positon the LC next to the convoy where the sub is assessed to be.

Yes I know its a little unrealisitc, but at least in ww2 a few german subs were ´hijacked´ and brought to UK.
This should only happen once to per game, i dont want to overstretch it here

[trulster]

Now i need to rethink how this can change. I personally think i can handle subs very well in the northsea - much better than in the atlantik.
At the moment, atlantic seabattles do not take place in my MP games. (which is very unrealistic!)


At the moment, NOTHING motivates me deploying my subs in the atlantik...

Perhaps, just extend the range of the "non-red" supply from the closest German port. Currently (without conquering France in which the game is over anyway) the subs have no range to the Atlantic apart from a couple of hexes west of Britain. Perhaps add a +5 or +10 to range?

[uzbek2012]

How far could the submarines of the First World War have sailed from their bases ?
https://rusmonitor.com/poslednie-zalpy- ... ovojj.html
https://en.topwar.ru/38336-nemeckaya-po ... alyah.html

Location of French submarine patrol lines in the English Channel in 1914
https://warspot.ru/17716-samyy-boevoy-podvodnyy-parohod

[Robotron]

@uzbek: Here's a map about how far CP subs reached historically, pretty impressive actually:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180955191/

Perhaps, just extend the range of the "non-red" supply from the closest German port. Currently (without conquering France in which the game is over anyway) the subs have no range to the Atlantic apart from a couple of hexes west of Britain. Perhaps add a +5 or +10 to range?

I don't think that would change the minds of players who agree with unwichtig that using your submarines to escort your own convoys is more effecient than hunting down enemy convoys to starve Britain. At this point I wonder how experienced unwichtig's opponent in that match might be?

Anyway, I've reverted the "instant repair" feature for submarines and added another mechanism that allows light cruisers have a chance to damage submarines when they move into a hex with a submarine. The chance will be havily modified by experience and anti-sub techs applied.

[Unwichtig]

At this point I wonder how experienced unwichtig's opponent in that match might be?

I d say medium experienced. I am sure that experience players find a way to counter the ´subs in the northsea strategy´.
Its not brilliant at all. Maybe i am even wrong doing what i am doing, but at the momen it just seems to work
(maybe i should play vs a more experienced volunteer? contact me! happy to test.)

I just made an easy decision (in about 6 games, i think i only lost 1 using that way of playing, so it seemed to be rewarding to me which is why i kept improving it):
Subs in the northsea=
+ No early US war entry
+ Very high chance that scandinavian convoys reach germany (about 100-200 pp extra frequently)
+ IF royal navy attacks convoy = will be ambushed and then at least 1 ship sunk by the ´wolf pack´
+ German ports within reach of 1-2 turns, upgrading and repairing subs cant be any quicker, especially after mine damage
+ repairing rn ships took longer than repairing subs = in the long run, germany spends less PP on ship building
+ Never lost a sub on northsea. Damaged? immediate repair. = Zero PP loss due to re-consturction of subs
+ superior german surface fleet can be used against less developed russian baltic fleet instead without risk (as its now sub-free since entente has no subs)
+ almost zero risk of loosing a BB or BC against russia = no morale loss or collapse points
+ No multi-turn transit & re-transit into atlantik, which looked like a waste of moves to me
+ Protecting atlantik convoys seemed to be impossible anyway, so i stopped trying long time ago and focus on achievable things instead
+ sinking the Royal navy in the north sea is easier than in atlantic, as german surface fleet can support huge attacks whilst being shielded by subs (=BB conducts first strike, subs finish it off)
But:
- UK and france are always at full supply
- War normally takes much longer, at least early 1917
- UK can construct massive army and send it to ottoman. ottoman normally suffers heavily under this plan
- Once france is conquered, many off the above aspects are negated as transit times get shorter anyway.
- It all becomes extremely predictable for the opponent
...which is why i will deploy all my subs in the atlantik from now on

By the way, the smithsonean map is a nice overview of sub activities. Impressive indeed.

Whatever. Its a game and i am sure many players find their own way of playing it.
Surely cutting UK off supply is great as well.
I think your newly implemented changes will be good.
I ll rethink and do a few atlantik campaigns now.

[Robotron]

@unwichtig: we really need to look out for tactics that have the potential to be "exploited", all the more with a view to multiplayer matches.
New players are rare enough and to have them scared away by stuff that's really not working as intended, like in the standard CTGW, would be sub-optimal.

*looks at the download count for the last scriptfix*

Aw, whatever.

*opens up a beer*

[imp44791]

It's good that you have started to discuss the naval war. This follows up also on my previous comments on the Tirpitz event. Note that these are all my ideas of how the historical situation COULD be simulated by the game system. I have no idea if they are possible in terms of modding, and of course I appreciate the hard and thankless work that might be needed in some such cases. So poor Robotron may just say out "too much work- forget it!" and of course he will be right. But it's worth a discussion I think.

OK. Long post. Sorry.

The way I see the naval war in simulation terms is as a *very* abstract abstraction. This is especially so when it comes to the submarine campaign. The automatic replenishment and upgrading at port seriously unbalances this abstracted simulation, whereas the "tactic" of suiciding spent boats and replenishing with newly built ones in fact approximates what happened in reality. It is also a good tradeoff: if the player opts to play it cautious and stay in the North Sea, and nurtures his original u-boats to high experience, well great, but the convoys do not get bothered. If he goes with an aggressive policy of interdicting convoys with one-way death rides, well, fine, but he has to pay the cost of new subs and of having raw ones in their place. For me the simulation works as was originally set up (minus the instareplenishment). Perhaps the red zone for no supply could be extended a bit, but even with Antwerp out of German hands, it's still possible to station boats on either entrance of the Irish Sea, which was indeed where many boats were placed. With Antwerp in place, the white zone should include the west of Ireland, considering the historical pattern of sinkings around the Western Approaches. Another adjustment that could be made is to make subs more expensive and require 1-2 more turns to be built- this would discourage players from just suiciding them and getting new ones every 3 turns. Also, weakened/attrited U-boats are easier prey to surface ships, while nurtured, experienced ones close to their bases are more dangerous and resilient. This is as should be.

So, to recap: my view is (a) take away instarepair; (b) make subs a wee bit more expensive (if possible); (c) make sub build times a wee bit slower (4 turns?). Again I don't know if b and c are moddable, I'm a historian, not a modder!

On to the surface war. The problem here is that the abstraction breaks down too much because of the granularity of the battleship (esp. dreadnought and pre-dreadnought) counters. Now, everyone knows the 27-17 score in North Sea dreadnoughts in 1914 (I am not counting the two Ottoman ships) and also the 10-5 score in Battlecruisers (including Derrflinger, Lutzow and Tiger, but excluding Blucher -which does not deserve to be called a BC- and Goeben for obvious reasons). So, the normal way to simulate it is 2 DN counters for Britain and 1 for Germany, and then 2 and 1 respectively for the cruisers.

1st problem: dreadnoughts are undervalued this way vs battlecruisers, unless we want Britain to start with 4-5 DN counters and Germany with 3. With the game using a 1UPT system (no stacking) this is not a good idea.

2nd problem: smaller national dreadnought fleets also get a full counter corresponding to variable numbers/quality of ships. So we have the current situation: France (7 ships, some rather indifferent), Austria (3 - very good quality), Italy (6, 2 of them very good), Russia (4- a bit quirky, but modern) all get one counter each. I think the US also gets 1 counter, but I've never had the US fleet be a factor in my games.

3rd and trickiest problem: Goeben. 1 ship with 1 escort: 1 BC counter.

4th problem: The old ships, ACs and PD battleships. There were oodles of those in the books for everyone, and in ridiculous numbers. There is no way we can represent those with counters that are commensurate to those of BB/BCs. The British alone had 39 (on paper) of those still active in 1914. Also, PD battleships were in various states of (dis)repair for all nations, and many were hand-me-downs from the major navies when they modernised.

5th problem: The light cruisers. This is a bit odd in what they are representing. Are they ASW forces? Are they blockading agents? Do they correspond to actual light ships in the war (then the numbers are insanely inaccurate).

What I suggest is the following.

1. The most important bit: View naval counters as *strategic* forces, not as numbers of a single-type ships. They represent the effectiveness of an independent naval force in general, including mix of technologies, number of escorts, etc. So, to give an example, I would simulate the North Sea battlecruisers in 1914 as 2:1. The numbers are close; the German ships were arguably better; but the British had more escorts, bigger calibres, and didn't have to lug along the Blucher which in a way *subtracts* value from the Germans. Also, the British had TWO missions for the BCs. One was to match/overwhelm (if concentrated) the German BCs. The other was to hunt down raiders/raid themselves (e.g. Helgoland, Falklands). Two independent counters allow this. Now, if the German wants to build more BCs and the British doesn't once the game starts it's another matter. But in the beginning this should be it.

2. Taking this further: What does building more ships during the game correspond to? I would argue it means "adding a mission/theatre of operations" to the existing ones, not adding more ships. Smaller powers with existing BBs in 1914 should not be allowed to build battleships. They have one mission: France to match the Austrians. Italy likewise. Austria to try to dominate the Adriatic. Russia to threaten in the Baltic (but there is a caveat, see below). The USA to come over and reinforce the blockade. Considering some of these powers also come into the war late, they simply don't have the doctrine/scope to add more theatres. This extends also to light forces. Why should Austria build more light cruisers? What does this correspond to? Raiding in the Med? Well, it already has a couple of those counters (which I would reduce, probably taking the AC away). That's sufficient.

3. Russia and France are trickier. Russia historically wanted to have battleships (not just Dreadnoughts - this goes all the way back to Peter the Great) in the Black Sea as well as in the Baltic. They were indeed building a whole class (the Imp. Maria) in 1914, though only one took part in the war. Do you give them the right to buy battleships? What if they just do so in the Baltic? I think I have a possible answer, see "Goeben" below. France, was still building dreadnoughts in the war, though it killed the 2 classes that were meant to come had the war not broken out (with the exception of a carrier conversion which we don't worry about). I will answer this later, but in brief, I would remove the right of France and Russia to build ships in the game if it can be done. The fleets they have at start are what they have - lose them, well tough.

4. Old ships. Simulate only those who played an important strategic role in the naval war. This means: a. the German Baltic battleships and the 2nd Battle Squadron (the old ships which took part in Jutland) deserve their one counter which they already have. b. The British AC squadrons which played roles in both Jutland and (more importantly) the Channel blockading force deserve at least two counters, also to reflect that the RN had retired all older battleships from the Grand Fleet, unlike the Germans who tried to make up disparity in numbers by putting their most modern PD class together with the dreadnoughts. c. Armoured cruisers for minor powers deserve to be there only in the case they were the best ships the country had (Greece is an excellent example of this, though Averoff was almost as strong as a late-design pre-dreadnought). d. British pre-dreadnoughts around the Empire, especially the Med, need their own counters to reflect the standing forces there

5. Light fleets. Remove them unless they have an independent mission that makes sense for the war. Britain and Germany do (ASW, blockade, convoy escort vs raiders, raiding). The rest just need 1 such counter to reflect their own possible need to raid/counterraid. Why does Austria need both an AC and a LC counter (and also a PD)?

6. Any other historically important forces should be event generated either to simulate an important campaign (e.g Gallipolli PDs, Sturdee chasing of Von Spee), or as a response to an opponent event that deserves a historical response. The biggies are the Tirpitz event, Goeben (of course), and the Adriatic subs. It's not realistic that Britain does not respond automatically to all of those. I'll treat them below.

7. Tirpitz. I have said before this is unbalancing. The way to represent in my opinion that best reflects what would happen IRL is: (a) there is no BC option, just dreadnoughts. The Germans half-heartedly finished two (the last Derrflinger class, laid down before the war, and the first and only Mackensen). There was also no obvious mission for more BCs. I would still allow Germany to build more BCs during the game, reflecting a new strategic plan (but see below for costs). (b) If the German gets the cheap dreadnoughts, then the British (whether in the war or not) must respond with a dreadnought building event of their own, and also get the relationship with the CP drastically worsened. Sudden German battleships upset the British public even before the war (a.k.a. the "We Want Eight and We Won't Wait" campaign in the press); sudden German ships with Europe in actual war? This event should have a downside.

8. Goeben. Finally. I have no idea if this is possible in terms of modding but one way the game could represent this is as follows. (a) Turkey starts with a PD in Istanbul. Austria starts with just its dreadnought counter, the AC counter and one LC counter. Remove the PD battleship (it should reflect a mission, remember? What was the independent mission for Austrian PDs?). Russia starts with a PD in Sebastopol (no LCs - what do they stand for?). (b) Goeben event fires with the existing options. (c) Option 1: a LIGHT cruiser counter spawns in the Med. The player decides whether to move it to Turkey or Austria. If it moves to Turkey, the Turkish PD is replaced with a BC counter. If it moves to Austria the Austrian AC turns into a BC. If he hovers, he gets hunted down easily. A LC counter reflects that these were 2 solitary ships, ok, one of them very powerful but without DDs or other support ships, and without access to coal. You hover, you die, as should be. Also RUSSIA gets a strength 1 dreadnought in place of its (strength 10) pre-dreadnought in Sebastopol. This is to reflect the Imperatritsa Maria. (d) Option 2: as is. If Spee escapes and Goeben option 2 was chosen, he is a weakened, red BC counter (of tech level I) that can try to break through back to Germany. He does this, well, the German player deserves his additional BC.

9. Adriatic subs. I have no idea how to penalise the Germans properly for that. Is it possible to kill two random subs of theirs? At least use up oodles of PPs.

10. In general: capital ships should be (a) bloody expensive; (b) take yonks to complete. Again remember: a counter corresponds to a whole squadron/task force/mission. There is a reason why navies didn't pump out ships during the war. They completed what they had laid down in some cases, in others (most) they just tinkered with them on the side or entirely abandoned them. The current situation is completely and utterly unrealistic, particularly for battle fleets. Remember, the BB/BC counter represents whole squadrons: a number of capital ships plus destroyers and LCs. The building cycle in peacetime (i.e. with full access to raw materials and labour) for single capital ships was around 2 years. Example: Derrflinger, laid down 3/12, commissioned 9/14. Lutzow, 5/12, 8/15 respectively (war disruption). Hindenburg 10/13, 5/17 (even more disruption). That's the three ships of the envisaged new squadron. From laying down to completion = FIVE years. Count in these all the destroyers and LCs that would screen the squadron. The British were faster, but not by that much. Example: 5th Battle Squadron (Queen Elizabeth class). First ship (QE) laid down 10/12, last ship completeted 2/16. 5 capital ships, plus escorts = 3.5 years. But some of these were already laid down before the war, so reduce the gap a bit to abstract the existence of laid down ships. Let's call it 2.5 years for new BBs and BCs. And ridiculous PPs (150?). If Germany wants to build more battleships, it should burn the equivalent of a couple of convoys. These are precious, so is this the best use for them? Perhaps. Give the player hard choices.

OK, this is long enough. Once again, let me say how much fun this mod is. Well done and many, many thanks.

[Unwichtig]

Good morning,

Ah, i just forgot to download the scriptfix, so its +1 now
And i ll inform my MP partner as well. So +2 downloads
I think there are more players than u think, most of them just dont write as much as I do
Some players just post very rarely and i think a script fix is often overseen when its somewhere in the forum on a previous page.
(Because i write so much, thats often the case, i guess).

Anyway...idea
I personally like it a lot
At the moment the northsea and the balticsea battles are very much seperated as denmark does not allow any ships to cross its straits.
That gives the imperial german navy a huge advantage (from my opinion)
The powerfull german surface fleet can easily deal with the russian navy now - No help is available for russia.
And germany does have excellent port access everywhere in the baltics.
German BB and BC are safe in the baltics and almost impossible to sink there.

Only submarins can dive under the danish armoured cruiser south of the kattegat - which was often the case when entente still could build subs.
Since that is no longer the case (which is good)...the russian navy is doomed to be sunk and the baltic convoy is incredebly easy to defend.

As i have been thinking about a danish event for a year now...i keep trying...how about:
"Entente pressure denmark to open straights"
Effect: The Danish Cruiser moves to another hex and the Royal Navy Surface Fleet can support the russian navy OR the russian navy can evade the baltics and strenghten the british blockade instead.

This would allow many more, very interesting options especially for entente.
It would also make it necessary for germany to patrol the straights for shipping (probably with a sub?) or block them themselves (which would require 1-2 ships that are not available for other stuff) It would lead to higher threats for the german BB and BC and even give RN a 2nd option how to operate.

Yes, it is a little a-historcial, But so what? Its not entirely unrealistic. Basically denmark just approves not to interfere with entente shipping in their adjacent waters.
The event could shift denmark very little towards entente.
Entente could pay 10 PP (once) to pay denmark for this approval to have a little cost factor there as well for entente, otherwise its a no-brainer.
(maybe sweden moves equally very slightly towards CP as they would no like increased naval activity close to their homewaters - which this event would lead to)

Okay thats it. Continueing the atlantik campaign now

[imp44791]

Well, the Kiel canal was supposed to be this great advantage for Germany, giving it interior lines vs both its naval opponents. The Russian fleet accordingly stayed bottled up most of the war and there were a couple of skirmishes in the Riga area. The game works well there: the main task for the German fleet is to escort in the Swedish convoy. The Russian player (even the AI) tries to disrupt with a hit and run. A human player can coordinate the British and Russian fleets when convoys are coming in - after all, interior lines are great but you can't be in both places at the same time.

Only my opinion, but Germany should enjoy this advantage. If a counterfactual "British put pressure on Denmark" event was there, I would put a heavy relations penalty with the Entente and Denmark, or perhaps have a counterevent by Germany where the German Army marches in to restore the plugging up of the Sound. Which was one of the reasons the British did not contemplate doing this - it would only get the Germans in Denmark.

[Unwichtig]

@imp4491: Very interesting post. I have a few comments on that. My response takes time your suggestions sound well thought through, but also complex.
Impressive history knowledge, thats nice. Some of your suggestions will interfere with ´gameism´ requirements (i think). I ll explain later why - from my opinion.
Some suggestions sound good to me. Give me a moment and i ll respond in detail.

Here is a Crashfile from a MP game that cant continue at the moment:

I play CP, Turn 41 (i think), ottoman empire surrenders (thats what my opponent told me, he saw the event when ending the move).
I click replay to see his move, when its finished the game crashes when the popup windows appear.
Assumption is that it has something to do with the ottoman surrender!?

ctgw.rar

(1.15 KiB) Downloaded 36 times

[Robotron]

@unwichtig: are you sure you applied the new scriptfix to your match? This looks like the exact same bug reported by imp44781 that I fixed just recently.

[Unwichtig]

Wow that’s another very detailed post.
Few comments on that from my perspective. Its more a general opinion and not just related to imps comment (*amazed how much I wrote*):

1. You point out some very well explained, fantastic shortfalls in terms of the ´a-historical´ balance of powers between the fractions. I can follow your thought process and it’s nice to see that there are other people out there that love the mod whilst trying to support robotron making it even better…
(Well, he does all the work, we just discuss, suggest and report bugs ) Sorry robotron.

2. Generally I think there is always a very fine balance in strategic, historical wargames. They can either be historically correct, realistic and detailed.
These games are often complicated, hard to learn, require players to monitor tons of facts and stats etc. Hearts of Iron 4 or War in the East are good examples for that.
Or they can be slightly artificial, abbreviated, easy to learn and less detailed allowing the player to do all sorts of things that never happened. These games are often easier as the player is not required to know anything about history at all – Just plug and play.

3. For me, Potzblitz is a perfect example of being somewhere in the middle. The game is pretty accurate in terms of adding hundreds of historical correct events (never seen a game with more events!) – I can hardly think about any key important ww1 related events that have not been covered in this game. At the same time the effects are all easy to understand and their effect can be seen and felt on the battlefield immediately. No event leaves behind a question mark in terms of “what the f*** just happened?”.
But it is at the same time a-historical, allowing players to do weird stuff that actually never happened. (Aufmarsch Ost, Rupprecht Plan, Send Goeben to support East Asian Squadron, UK delivers the Battlecruisers to Ottoman, Austria ceding Transylvania and Tirol to calm down Italy and Romania etc.) That’s epic. Its these ahistorical events that keep me going – which is why I keep suggesting new stuff just to see how it plays out.

4. I think it is very hard to create a game that is both – Easy to learn, packed with action, a high replay value and realistic at the same time. This package will never work –
A game is both extremely realistic and historically correct – the downside is often that the game flow feels stove-piped, has no big surprises, does not include ´what if´ scenarios and all you do is replay exactly what really happened. For me, this is how the old CTGW felt.
So I stopped playing it long time ago after finishing a campaign with each fraction. Yes, I replayed once, but the game followed the same pattern. All countries joined the same fraction all the time etc.
When I found the Potzblitz addition, I was amazed that every single game feels different.
I easily played 20+ full campaigns in SP and approx. 15 MP games.
If the same stuff happens all the time, especially experienced players lose their ´will to replay´. Actually I would switch to a different game immediately. So basically the fact that this game includes a-historic events and scenarios is exactly what kept me going. From my opinion, its exactly that what makes the game unique.

5. During the last year I suggested all kind of weird events (mainly with the intent to have an effect in the game that requires the players to CHANGE their gameplay and adopt them into their new plans. My suggestions are aiming to change the ´gamism´ instead of making the game more historically accurate. This does indeed lead to some ´silly´ event suggestions – especially from a historian point of view. I understand that, sorry 
But: I fully agree with you – All events, even the ahistorical ones, should be at least ´imaginable´ or have a reference in terms of ´the people in charge during ww1 considered this an option but did not do it because there was a better alternative available´.Thats why the best events are the ones that represent the ´2nd best option´ that a government/a general/admiral did not decide to do (like the strict continuation of the old Tirpitz plan even during the war)

6. I.e. my Danish strait passage event suggestion was not historically correct, but I can imagine that people at least considered it as it could have taken away the German advantage of using their entire fleet in both North and Baltic Sea whilst Russia and UK were separated. You have a point, it was not done as it would have dragged Denmark into the conflict etc.
But from a “gaming” perspective, I would like to see what happens if players play this event. Would CP declare war on Denmark to block the strait by themselves? Will there be seabattles in the Kattegat? Will the Russian navy try to break out and merge with the Royal Navy? Will the RN help the Russian navy to sink Baltic convoys? I don’t know! And I can’t find out if the event is not added.

7. So I see the game from a “Gaming” perspective rather than from a historical correct perspective. Few weeks ago I even suggested that weird event that “Wilhelm zu Wied refuses to leave Albania and desperately takes control of the country”, then joining on side of CP. Of course that’s madness, but if the event is added, Serbia would have to completely change their course of action which is what I would love to see how this plays out.

8. Changing Cost & Construction times of units: I am not the modder, but I know that we discussed many changes in that relation here already in the past which had been implemented as well. So yes, changing this stuff (construction times and cost etc.) is possible. Significant changes have already been made if you just compare the basic CTGW versions with the Potzblitz version. Actually almost everything changed and is far away from the original setting – which it needs to be. (Dreadnoughts used to cost 80PP and take 24 turns to construct, then it was reduced to 60PP and I think 18 turns, not its only 12 turns I think)

9. Two main reasons for that are that the original game takes 118 turns whilst the Potzblitz MOD only has 60 turns. Long construction times would make it impossible or very useless to build expensive stuff as there would not be time to use it anyway. Secondly, the basic game did not have any events that added units – the Mod has! Often enough units are spawned onto the map if the correct events are played – So many units are constructed by events and not PP. (Germany has the Tirpitz plan that spawns a BC or Dread, but it does stay balanced as other countries have other events that add units as well. Russia can expand the black sea Navy and gets a Dread for free. Austria can commission Adriatic submarines which add two subs to their fleet for free. UK can commission the Royal Airforce which adds a zeppelin and a fighter aircraft for free. The French can play multiple events i.e. foreign legion/French army of Africa that add armies as well. Some events even add multiple army corps to a country (brussilov offensive etc.).
The list is much longer…which is why I think it all stays balanced as all countries get some units for free. The question is not what to construct, but more how to use the diplomatic points – and this leads to huge varieties in gameplay. Players must find out which event suits their plan mostly and play them accordingly. That’s amazing and should stay like this. Austrian Siege Howitzers and Construction of Rhinebridges work fine with the Schlieffenplan but are useless for the eastern option. Germany strikes east works very nice with the Shelling of Sevastopol event etc. So I don’t think that all players will play the Tirpitz plan anyway.

10. 75% of the game is what you construct with PP, 25% is what you play as event. And my overall impression is that this is pretty balanced all together. The extra BC for Germany seems to be strong, but if you don’t give it to Germany, Germany hardy has any PP left to buy one anyway because they are fighting against dozens of Russian army corps in the east. And when Russia is finally defeated (1916/17) it is too late to build one as there are not enough turns left in the game. So why not add an extra ship at game start?
11. If we play the naval campaign for real (sorry, I am not a historian), the Austrian navy would hardly leave the Adria, the German surface fleet would never leave the Northsea, Graf spee and his armored cruiser would never make it back to the Atlantic, a Russian amphib landing in Constantinople would not take place etc. It would be realistic, but also boring after 3 games. I personally like it having the option to build all kind of ships with all countries – Its then the ultimate decision of every player to find a way to defeat the enemy. If there is a naval way doing so, its great to find out. But I agree – it is not realistic to commission a brand-new BC squadron during a war, so especially in the naval war it is a little weird what a newly constructed ship actually represents.
But it’s the same for the army. I.e. 3 German Paris Guns guns (I assume 1 strength 10 railroad unit in a hex equals only ONE real railroad gun, right? I am not aware that 10 of them were queuing up on a single railroad – just kidding) shelling an entire army corps almost into certain death? That also did not happen – but its always a big part of the game! (=Positioning the own guns, creating traps for enemy infantry, protecting own railroad guns with airforce, achieving long range superior firepower i.e. killing enemy artillery first etc.) The mechanics work very well and lead to interesting situations – historical accuracy is often sacrificed here. You are right about that. I kind of accepted that.

12. The GOEBEN Event chain: I fully understand the point with the Goeben event chain – it is indeed actually overpowered having strength 10 BC spawning in the western med which is equally strong as the dozens of BCs in the north sea despite the fact that its only one ship. But practically, if you weaken the ship or make it a light cruiser, it will never make it to the black sea. I accepted this kind of unrealism due to game mechanics. Everything weaker than a strength 10 BC will have a hard life getting to the Dardanelles on time and consequently a great part of the game – ´The hunt for the Goeben´, would be lost.

13. The subs in the Northsea and Atlantic: I did not like the way I deployed them myself. So my suggestions are aiming to reward players for hunting convoys in the Atlantic a little more. I think 15PP for a sub is okay, maybe 20PP, don’t know. Construction times are also okay I think. It was mainly the rapid instinct repair modernization replenishment mechanic that I did not like. This made subs ultra-flexible. I would be happy with initial repairs of 4 points per repair. (And, sorry for another event idea: Maybe later 8 if Germany “constructs additional submarine dockyards” via an event which would simulate the increased German efforts to focus more on the submarine service starting from 1916ff).
And probably a morale penalty or even collapse point for Germany once 3 consecutive convoys arrive at UK. So basically Germany must sink 1 out of every 3 convoys to stay safe. If not = collapse point. With this mechanic, there would be a huge Atlantic battle and no capacity for shielding operations around own ships anymore.

14. Sorry for my massive post. I guess that’s lockdown related. *Opens up another beer* Let me know if you want to play a MP game!? I am available. Welcome to Potzblitz madness 

15. Thanks robotron for making this discussion even possible.

[Robotron]

@unwichtig: I believe you have overlooked my last last question, so I'll repeat:

are you sure you applied the new scriptfix to your match? Your reported bug looks like the exact same bug reported by imp44781 that I fixed just recently.

[Unwichtig]

@unwichtig: I believe you have overlooked my last last question, so I'll repeat:
are you sure you applied the new scriptfix to your match? Your reported bug looks like the exact same bug reported by imp44781 that I fixed just recently.

oh yes i am sorry. All good now. You are right i did miss your question.
My mistake, that was the scripfix from 2 days ago that i did download but not immediately copied it into the data folder immediately.
My MP opponent is also aware of it now. We are cracking on already.
Game continues and the kaiserschlacht rages on.