Potzblitz V25.0 OCT 18th 2024

[Robotron]

Did you manage to trigger the Tannenberg battle?

[nehi]

Did you manage to trigger the Tannenberg battle?

how? except army (saved thorn and danzig), cavalry (saved koenigsberg - russians even didnt tried to kill it, fully encircled after initial phase, miracle in the east) and lucky ones in fortresses all other germans in the east were anihilated

just later russian focus on krakow saved rest of germany

at point of surrender i finally made coherent line of defense, reserve corps only facing trenched russian armies

before paris was captured, german morale was at 4%, continuously dropping, if i moved them out of west front, it would end +- at turn 9, capturing paris prolonged it by like 5 turns

if russians would kill koenigsbergs cavalry, it could be finished at 5th turn, without any real chance to counter it

btw. how is final score determined? in common games im finishing around 10 000, so i tought its something like a goal to reach 10k, but as i didnt use a single diplo point today, i made 26 900?

[LepetitKipetchi]

Hi everybody,

I have an idea and I would like your opinion :

What if we reduce the attack of all the infantry units to improve the reality of the game ?
After several games, I still finish them in 1916 or 1917 and I have just few units fighting against few others (especially on the eastern front) which is not so real.
In reality, the strategy starting from 1915 to 1918 was to break the front line and to make more damages to the ennemy than they can do. As we know, it was harder to break the front line in reallity than in the game and in a way it is because they had more reinforcement to maintain the front line than we can do.
So if we reduce the attack, I guess we could improve our capacity to maintain our front line and it will be harder to break it also. And the major point is that it will be much more complicated to destroy a unit so we will save them from destruction with having the ability to replace them on the front line like in reality.
If we continue on this way, we could also change the rules for the isolated units (in red) and isolated units on the citys or with contacts with a city (in yellow), we can stop the capacity to reinforce them (they have no contacts with the back lines so it would be normal) but it will take more time to destroy them so we can have a chance to save them.
Also, with this idea after 1915, the front line wouldn't change so much during few years, so you will have to open new front lines or to damage more the ennemy with artillery to destroy their capacity to reinforce their units in few years.

What do you think about it ?

[nehi]

What if we reduce the attack of all the infantry units to improve the reality of the game ?
What do you think about it ?

no

we could also change the rules for the isolated units (in red) and isolated units on the citys or with contacts with a city (in yellow), we can stop the capacity to reinforce them (they have no contacts with the back lines so it would be normal) but it will take more time to destroy them so we can have a chance to save them.
What do you think about it ?

better idea

[Robotron]

@LepetitKipetchi: I don't think changing attack stats for infantry would be a good idea because that will probably mess up the opening moves in 1914 and prevent a German breakthrough in Belgium or further complicate any Russian attacks vs CP. But I do think something should be done about stat boosts from technologies for infantry and artillery.

So in V12.1 I'll give the defensive stats from techs (barbed wire, pillboxes, concrete dugouts) a slight boost (maybe +1 /+2 per tech) while also slightly reducing the effect of artillery techs, especially the effect of poison gas techs vs gas masks techs.

Maybe even reducing the effect of unit experience levels will be necessary. As of now it's 10% combat bonus for level1, 20% for level2 and 30% for level3. Suggestions?

[Unwichtig]

I think thats a good solution (= better defence for infrantry, but only much later in the game)

I agee, if defence of infantry is increased from turn 1 than 1914 becomes pointless.
It is the only year of the war that has at least some dynamic and also war decisive moves in it.
Thats good and realistic. Initially attacking with fresh armies, enthusiastic soldiers and zero supply problems. So speed was initially still an issue.
The opening moves must stay like this - Offensive initially stronger than defence.

I think later its indeed a good solution to add extra defence if the infantry is digged in.
This would then simulate the static trenchwarfare with years of fighting whilst hardly achieving any territorial gains.
Once the initial push is stopped, about early 1915, better techs can lead to higher defence.
I would be happy if entrenchment level protection is increased a little per tech level. Sounds good to me.

I never had an issue with experienced (elite) troop combat bonus, actually i like it as it forces players to ´look after´ elite troops and use them in the most efficient way.
Because they are pretty strong, i realy think how i integrate them into attack and where to positon them next. It adds a nice gaming element.
I d still be happy to reduce the bonus a little, maybe 10/15/20 %? (instead of 10-20-30?)
Thats a little weaker than before but still strong enough to be helpfull in combat.
If its just something like 3, 7, 10% I would almost not realy care anymore about it.
Then its almost not worth planning how and where to use them.

By the way i am playing a nice MP game now, first time with Mod 12. Its great - First time i played the austrian event "Raid on the Adriatic Coast" on italy.
It works and made life of my opponent hard. But thats fair - Italy and greece joined him, i needed that event to rebalance a little.

[uzbek2012]

The presence of machine guns and artillery very much in reality reduced the speed of infantry and cavalry ) But how can this be reflected on the game engine itself ?
https://www.bbc.com/russian/internation ... ew_weapons
https://arsenal-info.ru/b/book/3005399322/11
https://en.topwar.ru/13465-razvitie-pul ... godah.html

[LepetitKipetchi]

I agree that for 1914, we have to keep the game like this for the offensive. The possibility to improve the infrantry defense with new technologies starting from 1915 should be cool to try.
@Robotron, what is your point of view about the isolated units as I mentionned ?

[Robotron]

@LepetitKipetchi: Am I right to understand you are suggesting to remove the ability to repair units in partial supply (yellow) while raising their ability to defend?
What exactly is the idea behind your suggestion?

At the moment units in partial supply can:

attack with 50% strength
defend with 70% strength

If the ability to repair partially supplied units is removed this will greatly help the attacker, causing more morale loss to the defender and will most likely end the game sooner.
However this is in contradiction with your first suggestion to generally improve defense values to help the defenders and to make the game last longer.

What will it be?

[imp44791]

First of all, congratulations and thanks to the maker of the mod. It's an amazing achievement and makes this game a wonderfully nuanced simulation of WW1 that transcends some of the weaknesses of the game (but not the atrocious RNG that makes strategic planning a joke: the proverbial "predict 4:2, result 0:1". I guess it's hardcoded).

A couple of bugs with the latest version (all SP games).

a. I am getting a recurrent crash as the CP on Turn 35 while the AI is moving. Incidentally it's the turn when Brest-Litovsk was played and Russia knocked out of the war. I can provide the save, if useful.

b. If Persia joins the CP (as it did in this game, with Britain never having Abadan or Kuwait), and then moves its unit out of Abadan and then in again, the "Abadan Recaptured" event triggers in favour of the CP.

c. If the Aufmarsch Ost plan is chosen but the game is saved and reloaded before the end of Turn 1, the window giving the Baltic/Polish options in Turn 2 never pops up. The result is that the troops are in their correct "East Front first" positions, but if Kluck/Bulow/Hausen attack the "Insubordination" even kicks in. I also assume that the game thinks more generally that the CP are running Schlieffen for the purposes of end of 1914 plan results.

Going beyond this to possible improvements. After point 3 the suggestions are getting increasingly counterfactual, but I think not entirely ahistorical in plausibility.

1. The "Greek Schism" event sequence has odd triggers - it seems it will trigger if some CP units move towards the Greek border, but not always. In my game as above I had managed to create a front line on the Greek border without it triggering, but not wishing to start a new front I never moved any additional units towards it (not even after sending some of the troops there towards Italy - see below - and leaving gaps open in Macedonia) and nothing happened. May I suggest a trigger based on proximity to Rupel Fortress, as indeed was the historical case? If CP units are adjacent to Rupel, then event triggers.

2. The outcome of this event is a bit gamey anyway. The British corps just teleports to Salonica, even if the whole of the Austro-Turkish fleet is outside. I am not sure how this could be made more realistic. Perhaps spawn a British and a French corps in Egypt along with a couple of pre-dreadnoughts for escort? But I am not sure the AI would know what to do.

3. Regarding the Irish Rebellion event. Spawning a full corps to represent the tiny and rather amateurish IV/ICA militias is over the top. Perhaps spawn a Reserve Unit but have it in supply? Also, if the IV/ICA did take Dublin it is plausible that (a) their numbers would expand as more volunteers could be armed with captured arms (another Reserve unit spawn?), but also that the UVF would joint the fight (spawn its own Reserve unit(s)).

4. Starting with the counterfactuals-in-aid-of-game-balance. Let's start with Romania. If the CP invests heavily and succeeds in drawing Romania to the alliance, they can completely alter the course of the East Front war. They basically have one unit to beat in Odessa and a couple of garrisons. They can basically make a beeline for Kiev/Crimea/Rostov with little opposition. The AI especially is incompetent in shifting forces to the South. Can you consider spawning a couple of Reserve (at least) units, or perhaps an active Corps in Sebastopol?

5. The same holds with the odd sequence for the Caucasus Front. The Bergmann Offensive triggers are odd. In some game they trigger immediately on Ottoman entry (presumably because of the Tabriz event?) making for a tough fight there (as was historically the case). In others (like my last game) the Russians were completely passive, with just the two Reserve units in Batumi and Sarikamish. Once the Enver event game the Turks two good units and Sarikamish was taken, it was an open route to Tiflis/Baku/Tsaritsyn/Rostov. Again, can you consider spawning a few Russian units if an Ottoman unit enters the Caucasus, or even stationing forces there (the Tenth Army, as I recall, was permanently stationed in Transcaucasia)?

6. Italian entry. The event sequence is brilliant and very historical if Italy is already leaning towards the Entente or is strictly neutral. Demand Trento/Trieste, get frustrated by Austrian refusal, eventually drift to war (could be made even faster). But Italy also gets (correctly) influenced by the progress of the war. This can lead to odd, suicidal decisions. In my last game, Italy was up to 72 (sympathetic) with me, mostly due to victory in Serbia and the Romanians running riot in the Ukraine. Then they asked for Trento, and roleplaying the Austrians historically I told them where to get off. So they were annoyed. But annoyed all the way to drifting towards war? Especially when Russia was on its last legs? When my game crashed, the Italians were 2-3 turns away from declaring war on me, with Brest Litovsk about to trigger and Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Persia all on my side and a single measly collapse point between us. Can you consider balancing this event sequence and make Italy truly ambiguous and auctioning its allegiance properly? We could add a (completely fictional, but not unrealistic considering the history) equivalent event chain with demands on Nice, or perhaps even Corsica as well. OK, Corsica is a little silly, but the Nice thing is not altogether crazy: it had only been French for 50 years in WW1, was Garibaldi's birthplace and would even be demanded (unsuccessfully) by Mussolini in 1940. So, if Italy is leaning towards the Entente, or is around 50, then sure enough, demand Trento/Trieste. Playing D'Annuncio obviously shifts opinion towards that side. But if by any chance the course of the war has led relationship in the 60s/70s, then get the Nice sequence instead.

7. Naval war. With the addition of the (nice) Tirpitz event the German navy gets quite nasty and does so early, and a human player easily breaks the blockade. This is even nastier if Britain delays its entry with an Aufmarsch Ost option. Can you beef up the Royal Navy in response, as was indeed the case? In RL the Germans added two dreadnoughts (both of them joining in mid-war) and four battlecruisers (of which Derrflinger and Lutzow were already almost ready). The British added Tiger (almost ready) to match Derrflinger and then Renown, Repulse, Courageous, Glorious, Furious and Hood, to match Hindeburg and Mackensen. In battleships it was even more stark: leaving aside the two Ottoman ships, there was Canada, FIVE 15'' fast monsters of the QE class and another FIVE even more ridiculous monsters of the "R" class. That's 11 battleships to poor Bayern & Baden in the same period. Of course the GB player can buy more ships during the war, but so can the CP. Right now, we have an unbalancing event. I suggest two corrections to it. If chosen (a) move Britain dramatically towards Entente, so that it joins the war some time in 1914 rather than mid/late 1915 as is usual with the Aufmarsch OSt options. There should be a downside to the event, not just give the CP a freebie (literally, if they go Battlecruiser). (b) spawn a "We Want Eight and We Won't Wait" type event (I know it was an earlier slogan, but I like it) to match the German build, even if Britain is still neutral. And make both sides pay for their ships (a reduced cost). Freebies are too powerful.

8. Finally (I promise). I like to play the Aufmarsch Ost plan as a rule, because it's the most intriguing counterfactual. After all the mod-Schlieffen is what the history books record. The Rupprecht thing is just silly IMO, while the pure Schlieffen also very interesting though perhaps overpowered. Making pure Schlieffen even riskier with negative events if it doesn't go perfectly is one way, especially if East Prussia gets roughed up. But more importantly, I would like to see a realistic "East Front First" policy. Let me explain. For an East policy to happen with the situation in the German General Staff in place it would be (a) messy; (b) a comparative slow burn. I mean that it would only take place if the Balkan Crisis continued in its presumed way: Austria attacks Serbia, Russia rattles sabre at Austria, Germany rattles sabre at Russia, Russia mobilises, Germany mobilises, France mobilises. If Germany doesn't precipitate everything with a headlong dash towards Belgium, it's not unrealistic for this process to have taken longer, especially as all the troops were re-routed East. The current Turn 3 free-for-all in the East is not plausible. What is plausible is a Germany Strikes East event that (a) takes the equivalent time of the "Russian Mobilisation Delayed" event; (b) Causes some negative reaction to the Germans due to the sudden change of plans (understrength units? low morale); (c) gives the French the chance to attack early as the Germans are shifting BUT at the expense of moving Britain further away from entry (since the whole "France must be saved" pitch to the public would be less weighty if it were France that attacked first. It makes for a tastier early couple of turns, while the Austrians and the Serbs are fighting it out alone for a wee bit longer.

OK, huge post, I know. I just love what this mod is achieving already and have been contemplating for a time how it could be made even better.

[uzbek2012]

https://bazell.enjourney.ru/fotootchety ... roryv_7908
How can this be shown in the game !?

https://istoriarusi.ru/imper/brusilovsk ... -1916.html
https://en.topwar.ru/20410-brusilovskiy-proryv.html

[Robotron]

@uzbek: The Brussilov offensive is covered in the mod. See manual page 89.

[Robotron]

First of all, congratulations and thanks to the maker of the mod. It's an amazing achievement and makes this game a wonderfully nuanced simulation of WW1 that transcends some of the weaknesses of the game

And big thanks in return to you for writing up such a detailed and constructive comment.

a. I am getting a recurrent crash as the CP on Turn 35 while the AI is moving. Incidentally it's the turn when Brest-Litovsk was played and Russia knocked out of the war. I can provide the save, if useful.

I need the last few lines from the ctgw.log right after the crash has happened. The ctgw.log can be found in your Documents folder, so look in "My Documents\My Games\Commander The Great War". Note that the log is overwritten every time you restart the game.

b. If Persia joins the CP (as it did in this game, with Britain never having Abadan or Kuwait), and then moves its unit out of Abadan and then in again, the "Abadan Recaptured" event triggers in favour of the CP.

Good find.

c. If the Aufmarsch Ost plan is chosen but the game is saved and reloaded before the end of Turn 1, the window giving the Baltic/Polish options in Turn 2 never pops up. The result is that the troops are in their correct "East Front first" positions, but if Kluck/Bulow/Hausen attack the "Insubordination" even kicks in. I also assume that the game thinks more generally that the CP are running Schlieffen for the purposes of end of 1914 plan results.

I vaguely recall this was reported before and just checked the new V12.1 and it no longer happens.

1. The "Greek Schism" event sequence has odd triggers - it seems it will trigger if some CP units move towards the Greek border, but not always. In my game as above I had managed to create a front line on the Greek border without it triggering, but not wishing to start a new front I never moved any additional units towards it (not even after sending some of the troops there towards Italy - see below - and leaving gaps open in Macedonia) and nothing happened. May I suggest a trigger based on proximity to Rupel Fortress, as indeed was the historical case? If CP units are adjacent to Rupel, then event triggers.

Read about the conditions for the event on page 112 in the manual. In singleplayer vs Entente AI the event triggers while moving CP units in that area to allow for the creation of the Salonika front. Else the CP player would just stay away from Roupel fort and be safe.

2. The outcome of this event is a bit gamey anyway. The British corps just teleports to Salonica, even if the whole of the Austro-Turkish fleet is outside. I am not sure how this could be made more realistic. Perhaps spawn a British and a French corps in Egypt along with a couple of pre-dreadnoughts for escort? But I am not sure the AI would know what to do.

Unfortunately the naval AI would not know what to do with the extra units and just sit there. Again, logic must be bent to allow for a more complete game experience. In multiplayer any Entente player worth his salt is able to keep the AH fleet bottled up and easily transfer a corps to Salonika.

3. Regarding the Irish Rebellion event. Spawning a full corps to represent the tiny and rather amateurish IV/ICA militias is over the top. Perhaps spawn a Reserve Unit but have it in supply? Also, if the IV/ICA did take Dublin it is plausible that (a) their numbers would expand as more volunteers could be armed with captured arms (another Reserve unit spawn?), but also that the UVF would joint the fight (spawn its own Reserve unit(s)).

I'm planning to rework this event for V12.1

4. Starting with the counterfactuals-in-aid-of-game-balance. Let's start with Romania. If the CP invests heavily and succeeds in drawing Romania to the alliance, they can completely alter the course of the East Front war. They basically have one unit to beat in Odessa and a couple of garrisons. They can basically make a beeline for Kiev/Crimea/Rostov with little opposition. The AI especially is incompetent in shifting forces to the South. Can you consider spawning a couple of Reserve (at least) units, or perhaps an active Corps in Sebastopol?

No problem.

5. The same holds with the odd sequence for the Caucasus Front. The Bergmann Offensive triggers are odd. In some game they trigger immediately on Ottoman entry (presumably because of the Tabriz event?) making for a tough fight there (as was historically the case). In others (like my last game) the Russians were completely passive, with just the two Reserve units in Batumi and Sarikamish. Once the Enver event game the Turks two good units and Sarikamish was taken, it was an open route to Tiflis/Baku/Tsaritsyn/Rostov. Again, can you consider spawning a few Russian units if an Ottoman unit enters the Caucasus, or even stationing forces there (the Tenth Army, as I recall, was permanently stationed in Transcaucasia)?

Sure can do.

6. Italian entry.

I'll consider the Nice option.

7. Naval war.

The free BC from Tirpitz in turn 3 is a known bug and will be fixed so the unit appears on turn 9. I'll also expand the Royal Navy somewhat.

8. Finally (I promise). I like to play the Aufmarsch Ost plan as a rule, because it's the most intriguing counterfactual. After all the mod-Schlieffen is what the history books record. The Rupprecht thing is just silly IMO, while the pure Schlieffen also very interesting though perhaps overpowered. Making pure Schlieffen even riskier with negative events if it doesn't go perfectly is one way, especially if East Prussia gets roughed up. But more importantly, I would like to see a realistic "East Front First" policy. Let me explain. For an East policy to happen with the situation in the German General Staff in place it would be (a) messy; (b) a comparative slow burn. I mean that it would only take place if the Balkan Crisis continued in its presumed way: Austria attacks Serbia, Russia rattles sabre at Austria, Germany rattles sabre at Russia, Russia mobilises, Germany mobilises, France mobilises. If Germany doesn't precipitate everything with a headlong dash towards Belgium, it's not unrealistic for this process to have taken longer, especially as all the troops were re-routed East. The current Turn 3 free-for-all in the East is not plausible. What is plausible is a Germany Strikes East event that (a) takes the equivalent time of the "Russian Mobilisation Delayed" event; (b) Causes some negative reaction to the Germans due to the sudden change of plans (understrength units? low morale); (c) gives the French the chance to attack early as the Germans are shifting BUT at the expense of moving Britain further away from entry (since the whole "France must be saved" pitch to the public would be less weighty if it were France that attacked first. It makes for a tastier early couple of turns, while the Austrians and the Serbs are fighting it out alone for a wee bit longer.

In the "Aufmarsch Ost" scenario it is assumed that German planning for the attack on Russia as proposed by Moltke the Elder has been going on for years, not a last moment switch of plans to move the whole German army to the east within a few weeks which as you are correctly stating would result in a chaotic situation. I'll not change anything here because a boatload of cross-references to other events would have to be reworked and quite frankly my motivation to invest that much time is quite low at the moment.

Anyway, thanks again for the suggestions. I'll add them into V12.1 but I can't give a date yet when it will be ready.

[imp44791]

There you go:

[15:53:22][25320]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[15:53:22][25320]++++++++++++++++++POTZBLITZV12.04++++++++++++STARTING GAME TURN # 36/10/1916
[15:53:22][25320]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[15:53:22][25320]EVENTCHECKCHECK0
[15:53:22][25320]EVENTCHECKCHECK0.3
[15:53:22][25320]EVENTCHECKCHECK0.6
[15:53:22][25320]+++++++++++++++++++++++++ event:BorderWarEnd
[15:53:22][25320]secret
[15:53:22][25320]secret
[15:53:22][25320]EGYPT FORCECOUNT BRITISH:20
[15:53:22][25320]EGYPT FORCECOUNT TURKEY:20
[15:53:22][25320]EVENTCHECKCHECK0.9
[15:53:22][25320]game/game_deployment.lua:461(global SpawnUnit) game/game_deployment.lua:461: attempt to index local 'faction' (a nil value)

[imp44791]

Regarding your detailed answers. Many thanks for being so willing to consider my ideas. The choices you make of course are your prerogative (it is your mod!) and I appreciate your not wanting to waste time going down some event chain rabbit hole. The big ones are the weakness of the Russian southern sector if Romania enters and on the Caucasus if Bergmann doesn't fire properly. But do also consider shifting British opinion much more quickly towards war entry for the Tirpitz event, as it should have some downside for Germany, especially when going for an Eastern/delayed GB entry strategy. Sure, get the nice ship quick and cheap, but bear in mind this will piss off the British to no end.

Note the log as above. Let me know if you want more lines. And thanks again.

[Robotron]

Here's the fix for your crash problem: overwrite the DATA folder in the game's main folder with the one from the archive.
This will also fix the issue with the extra BC already appearing on turn 3 after choosing the Tirpitz plan.

All other players should also apply the fix. It can be applied to matches in progress.

[Unwichtig]

@imp44791: Wow, impressive post! I enjoyed reading it. Very detailed suggestions with lots of background knowledge.
Very nice that there are some other players out there that take this game ´seriously´- more or less.
Some nice considerations.

One quick queston to all players concerning subs...

Red-labeled, heavily damaged submarines can go alongside in a naval base and be modernized, fully resupplied and repaired to max strength in just one turn.
Isnt that too strong?
All other Naval units must stay multiple turns in port to be available for action again.
I would suggest to add only "5" or "6" Strengh per repair on a submarine to reward to opponent for damaging it so heavily.

Its hard to damage and sink subs anyway - actually its almost impossible. I cant even remember losing a single sub in any of my previous 7 or 8 games.
It seems to be extremely easy to keep subs alive and send them back to frontline immediately.

Okay, "one" sub on a hex is not just "one" but rather representing a group of subs (Is that right?), so actually i am losing some. But can they all be replaced in such a short time? My point is, that i am actually only building a new sub when the next tech level is researched, and then i never ever loose it - even though i use them a lot.

My suggestion would make it necessary that subs damaged down to strength 1-4 have to stay 2 instead of just 1 turn in port which sounds more realistic to me.
Opinions?

If thats not okay, then another solution could be to have a random triggered event "Lost Contact to a Submarine".
This event basically would randomly remove a German sub from the map as it was sunk due to bad weather/technological problems etc.
The Chance that this event triggers could be 1% per turn per submarine in the German fleet. (I.e. 6 subs = 6% chance that a sub gets lost without enemy contact).

Background is that many many subs were not lost during sea battle, but more because technical problems / poor weather performance and lack of experienced crews that did not know how to use them. (understandably, as it was a brand-new, complicated weapon system and as there were hundereds of them being constructed within a short time, is was almost impossible to have highly trained, experienced crews on all of them).

[Robotron]

The instant repair feature for submarines was added after forum member "cocolo" stated he'd rather suicide his subs into light cruisers to free up submarine build limit slots again rather than move them all the way back to a port and then lose multiple turns repairing them. I might as well revert that feature completely or tone it down to 5 strength points per repair action.

I cant even remember losing a single sub in any of my previous 7 or 8 games.

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

[Unwichtig]

The instant repair feature for submarines was added after forum member "cocolo" stated he'd rather suicide his subs into light cruisers to free up submarine build limit slots again rather than move them all the way back to a port and then lose multiple turns repairing them. I might as well revert that feature completely or tone it down to 5 strength points per repair action.

Uhhhhhh! Well thats an interesting tactic and i can see his point. Thats difficult then to re-balance because i think it depends on two different scenarios.

I dont know the player cocolo, but i think he is right IF the players aim is sinking UK convoys in the atlantik and the way home to the next port is at least 2 turns away.
2 turns to homeport...plus 2-3 turns repair....plus 2 turns back to the frontline for one or two attacks only.
Looking at this, a submarine can only do one proper engagement every 8 turns.

It is indeed more efficient to immediately construct a new sub and move it to the frontline. It saves the transit back to port AND the repair (= up to 6 Turns!)
And a sub can attack more often as players give a s*** about returning it home.
Building a new one sounds better indeed. He has a point.

The issue is, that I use the subs differently. I use them to screen and protect BB and BC to ´trap´ the royal navy.
To surround my norwegian and baltic convoy (which is enough to keep germany going)
And finally to sink the RN in the Northsea.
It is pretty easy once i got 6-8 subs to break the blockade and get my scandinavian convoys through.
Germany ports are always within reach, subs are always on highest tech level and strenght 10 when in baltic and northsea.

But i NEVER deploy them into the antlantik because i considered it to be not efficient enough exacelty because of the long return transit.
Great to see that cocolos solution was to suicide them into LCs. Actually its a great idea

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!)

That needs some re-thinking.
How about an objective for the german submarine navy to sink a certain amount of tonnage IN THE ATLANTIK?
And if they fail, germany geta a collapse point or morale penalty?
How about a negative envent "Submarines let Germany down" (= Did not cut off the UK from supplies)

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

[uzbek2012]

https://life.ru/p/976180
https://yandex.ru/turbo/fb.ru/s/article ... yie-faktyi
https://en.topwar.ru/108498-kak-germans ... morey.html


https://istorik.net/479-pervaja-mirovaj ... -more.html