Slitherine

quote:

Sangar (fortification)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sangar from the Western Sahara conflict probably dating from the 1980s.
A Sangar (or sanger) (Persian: ����) is a temporary fortified position with a breastwork originally constructed of stones,[1] and now built of sandbags and similar materials.[2] Sangars are normally constructed in terrain where the digging of trenches would not be practicable. The term is still frequently used by the British Army.

The word was adopted from Hindi and Pashto and derives originally from the Persian word sang, "stone".[3] Its first appearance in English (as recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary) is in the form sunga, and dates from 1841.[4]

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hello Kirk,

Below are 3 SS concerning Serbia. The first 2 have to do with the amount of turns for Serbia to even achieve "Wire" entrench tech (12 to 13 turns, take your pick). The third SS in SP illustrates Serbia's position on turn 13.

Chao, Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Tomokatu,

quote:

Sangar (fortification)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sangar from the Western Sahara conflict probably dating from the 1980s.
A Sangar (or sanger) (Persian: ����) is a temporary fortified position with a breastwork originally constructed of stones,[1] and now built of sandbags and similar materials.[2] Sangars are normally constructed in terrain where the digging of trenches would not be practicable. The term is still frequently used by the British Army.

The word was adopted from Hindi and Pashto and derives originally from the Persian word sang, "stone".[3] Its first appearance in English (as recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary) is in the form sunga, and dates from 1841.[4]

Dug into what you said, At anytime in history, a Sangar would be considered field entrenchments, it's just a modern day term used. Mind you not all mountains are completely hard rock, there are many mountains that have alluvial soil, more so at lower elevations as a result of erosion, and rock degradation, certainly ground that could be entrenched.

Bob

quote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Double apron fence
In the military science of fortification, wire obstacles are defensive obstacles made from barbed wire, barbed tape or concertina wire. They are designed to disrupt, delay and generally slow down an attacking enemy. During the time that the attackers are slowed down by the wire obstacle (or possibly deliberately channelled into killing zones) they are easy to target with machinegun and artillery fire. Depending on the requirements and available resources, wire obstacles may range from a simple barbed wire fence in front of a defensive position, to elaborate patterns of fences, concertinas, "dragon's teeth" and minefields hundreds of metres thick.

One example is "low wire entanglement", which consists of irregularly placed stakes that have been driven into the ground with only some 15 cm (six inches) showing. The barbed wire is then wrapped and tightened on to these. An enemy combatant running through the barrier, which is difficult to see, is apt to trip and get caught.

Wire obstacles may have originated with Union General Ambrose Burnside during the American Civil War Battle of Fort Sanders in the Knoxville Campaign, when telegraph wire was strung between tree stumps 30 to 80 yards in front of one part of the Union line. They first saw significant military use during the Second Boer War, and reached their pinnacle during World War I where, together with machine guns, they were responsible for many casualties in the trench warfare that dominated that conflict and gave the defending side substantial advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have given Germany the same Convoy PPs strength as British & French convoys,in an attempt to make the naval game much more interesting,all the major powers now have much more naval capability,so it is up to Britain mainly to attack the Convoy from Norway to Germany,Britain has more Dreadnoughts and Cruisers at her disposal,to accomplish this task for the duration of the war,if she fails to stop the German convoy's,then the fault lies with the Entente player,and to counter the Entente aggression,Germany only needs to build up her Submarine force,to inflict losses on the British naval strength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have given Germany the same Convoy PPs strength as British & French convoys,in an attempt to make the naval game much more interesting,all the major powers now have much more naval capability,so it is up to Britain mainly to attack the Convoy from Norway to Germany,Britain has more Dreadnoughts and Cruisers at her disposal,to accomplish this task for the duration of the war,if she fails to stop the German convoy's,then the fault lies with the Entente player,and to counter the Entente aggression,Germany only needs to build up her Submarine force,to inflict losses on the British naval strength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hi Kirk!

3 issues: One, Turk Research tech icons don't show, you need at least one more row for tech icons. Two, German Research tech icons for armor don't show either. Three, Game will not let CP refuse Serbia Surrender.

Don't know why? Turn 19 the AI ran at normal speed, no long wait.

Chao, Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: suprass81

In my oppinion biggest problem to make this game ballanced (at last in MP) is difference in Research. OK- I understand that one side could be mor advanced than other but weapons used in this war was not so advanced to make it so hard to "copy" after one side use it on the battlefield. I'm talking at last about machin guns, metal helmets and granades and so on. I can understand that rail guns and tanks are more advanced tech but that can be represented by different probres starting point for this tech for each country (as it is onw). But thouse simple tech like pillbox and other "small projects" should be research by other sides allmoust same time. We can give one side or another small adventage in different projects but diferences should be defoult abot4-6 turns (2-3 months in game time). Than player should choose to build more labs to increase this adventage or to make is smaller- evry lab could speed up project for 3 turns. So Player could choose to build labs or to build army. This should fix problems with Russia and Serbia if we combine it with small boost in starting army- for Russia give them two mor infantry corps half build at their entry to war and 8 PP more to upkeep them, For Serbia- I was talking about it before... some more ammo for arty and moveing some PP to cities behind first front line. Also subs are ro powerfull for me but... don't change them all- increase upkeep by 1 and this should make them less on the battlefield. Thouse changes combined should make game more ballanced.
One more thing- please don't add new things for now and focus only on fixing ballance. Each time you make new patch you fix some problems pointed by players and you are adding some new things- thous combined togather usually make game unballanced again. I propose to fix biggest existing problems -Russia, Serbia and eventually subs (which are allmoust perfect) witch only small changes. If this will work then add some new things if you want.
This is only my personal oppinion so don't be angry at me :D Feel free to comment it- maybee I'm wrong....?

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: suprass81

In my oppinion biggest problem to make this game ballanced (at last in MP) is difference in Research. OK- I understand that one side could be mor advanced than other but weapons used in this war was not so advanced to make it so hard to "copy" after one side use it on the battlefield. I'm talking at last about machin guns, metal helmets and granades and so on. I can understand that rail guns and tanks are more advanced tech but that can be represented by different probres starting point for this tech for each country (as it is onw). But thouse simple tech like pillbox and other "small projects" should be research by other sides allmoust same time. We can give one side or another small adventage in different projects but diferences should be defoult abot4-6 turns (2-3 months in game time). Than player should choose to build more labs to increase this adventage or to make is smaller- evry lab could speed up project for 3 turns. So Player could choose to build labs or to build army. This should fix problems with Russia and Serbia if we combine it with small boost in starting army- for Russia give them two mor infantry corps half build at their entry to war and 8 PP more to upkeep them, For Serbia- I was talking about it before... some more ammo for arty and moveing some PP to cities behind first front line. Also subs are ro powerfull for me but... don't change them all- increase upkeep by 1 and this should make them less on the battlefield. Thouse changes combined should make game more ballanced.
One more thing- please don't add new things for now and focus only on fixing ballance. Each time you make new patch you fix some problems pointed by players and you are adding some new things- thous combined togather usually make game unballanced again. I propose to fix biggest existing problems -Russia, Serbia and eventually subs (which are allmoust perfect) witch only small changes. If this will work then add some new things if you want.
This is only my personal oppinion so don't be angry at me :D Feel free to comment it- maybee I'm wrong....?

I believe Suprass is talking about adjusting the "bar graph" below each tech icon, or at least one of them. He has had an issue in our MP match that the Germans have advanced to higher tech levels faster than the Russians. For one, I have more than 1 lab covering infantry techs (top secret). I'll do my homework to check and see what the comparisons are between German and Russian tech bar graphs when Russians enter the war. [Take note that the Germans have been at war at least 3 turns before Russians enter]. Serbia could use a tweak in this area, not much, just to make having a lab justified. I do not see this as a problem in SP, it's more of an MP problem.

Let me ask this: Might there be a different set of parameters set for MP than SP?

Below is an example of what I am referring to..

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Hi guys, I have been reading your feedback,and I have just sent the software wiz kid,modified game play scripts,that Increase Russian PPs & give them another Infantry unit near Moscow,I have also adjusted the research time delays,for Serbia,France,Britain & Russia,Germany still has the advantage in research,but she has less time, to make that advantage tell on the battlefield before,the Entente respond with their own research coming on stream.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

So you think the Rail Transport allowance, for the major powers in the game should be increased slightly? Plus the distance you can travel per turn should be raised as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Unfortunately modding the game, use's the same scripts that are needed by all the scenarios,at the present time you can't mod a stand alone scenario,to me that is an area that really should be addressed as soon as possible.

quote:


Supras wrote:
P.S. I can understand that Germans will have better torpedo tech for about half of the year (12 turns) or more but I don't belive that one side fight half of the year in metal helmets and second can't develop it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:


Supras wrote:
P.S. I can understand that Germans will have better torpedo tech for about half of the year (12 turns) or more but I don't belive that one side fight half of the year in metal helmets and second can't develop it...

Did a little research on helmets... A list of sites:
http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com/world-war-i.html
Steel helmet development
http://www.worldwar1.com/sfgstal.htm
Brodie Helmet
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2014/06/putting-a-lid-on-it.cfm
And of course the Wikipedia site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_helmet

If the game was to be historically correct; the Germans would have been the last to have helmets. However, this game employs "labs" that as a result can alter history, it's a matter of in-game strategy, it's a matter to take advantage of labs or not. Did not find anything yet on "Russian helmets", or maybe I missed it in the sites.

quote:

Suprass wrote;

Yes- labs can change history but if Germans has 15 turns adventage in fighter planes tech what can you do?
If I'm correct Russians dodn't used helmets.
P.S. This was only an example :D but remamber that german's pikielhauba was a helmet but made from skin...