Serbia '14

[Mowgli]

That's the case in other FWWC/PzC titles as well.

There doesn't seem to be a check to determine if the unit is actually using the bridge in T-mode, where the additional MP might represent creating a narrower column.

Units who are NOT in travel mode pay +1 MP when crossing a stream if there is a bridge. 
Units in travel mode pay 0MP extra, as they use the bridge. 

So, if you're not in travel mode, it's better to avoid bridges. But of course it's not a big deal, just a bit strange.

[ComradeP]

Hmm, you're right, only Deployed units pay that extra MP. That does seem strange.

[Mowgli]

Minor nitpick:
p. 68 of the manual lists different (lower) fatigue factors for unit size/company equivalents than p. 87.
Judging from the change log for other WWI titles, the lower values are the newer/correct ones.
E.g. http://www.johntillersoftware.com/update...14_102.txt

[Mr Grumpy]

Minor nitpick:
p. 68 of the manual lists different (lower) fatigue factors for unit size/company equivalents than p. 87.
Judging from the change log for other WWI titles, the lower values are the newer/correct ones.
E.g. http://www.johntillersoftware.com/update...14_102.txt

That's a great spot, we missed that when updating the manual, I will make Ed aware that this needs changing. 

[Volcano Man]

Thanks, yep I will fix that user manual text for the next update.

[Mowgli]

A few things I've noted:

In the Mount Cer scenario (Achilles Heel), the Trojanov Fortress ruins (29,16) are "rubble" terrain but show the graphics for "rough" terrain?

Is it intended that cavalry are good night attackers along roads? Units don't "auto"-disrupt at night if they move in travel mode along roads. Cavalry in travel mode gets a *4 assault bonus. That makes cavalry very suited for suprise attacks along roads at night.

One thing I always wondered about and which should be mentioned in the manual is whether the HQ-bonus-attempt-checks (for ammo, disruption recovery, and activation of subordinate HQs) stretch BEYOND the current command range of the HQ unit. The manual only states that the chance is 50% at the limit of the command range, but not if the effect stops right there or carries on further (with smaller and smaller chances....)?

[Volcano Man]

Yes, cavalry is intended (at least allowed in the design approach) to be used that way. If units can move along roads normally at night, then cavalry should be able to also do the same, and this means charge. Now sure, someone can get into nit picks on whether or not a cavalry unit would be able to charge down a road at night, where we split hairs about frontage and so forth, but I won't go that far at this scale. Certainly its very easy to defend against such a move, given that they would have to come down a road. In other words, the behavior doesn't bother me.

The issue with the Trojanov Fortress is, off the top of my head (without looking at it at the moment) likely another incorrect rubbled-hex issue that I will look into and fix. I believe that originally I modeled it as a village that I rubbled, but later decided on making it rough terrain and so the rubble status remained after it (I forgot to remove that status in the scenario itself).

Besides that, I am sorry but I cannot go into great detail with the replies at the moment. Hopefully others can answer rule questions, and I also don't have time to enhance the user manual much at the moment either.

(I do try to do a "drive by" on the forum from time to time though, so I am not saying that I won't reply nor read posts but at the moment I don't have much time since I am trying to put the FWWC updates together, and press forward on the next projects -- got to strike while the iron is hot!)

[ComradeP]

Is it intended that cavalry are good night attackers along roads? Units don't "auto"-disrupt at night if they move in travel mode along roads. Cavalry in travel mode gets a *4 assault bonus. That makes cavalry very suited for suprise attacks along roads at night.

That would lead to them being Disrupted after assaulting, gaining Night Fatigue and being very vulnerable. I don't think a night time cavalry charge is game-breaking strategy. High risk, not so great reward against a line that has depth.

-

In the Third Invasion scenario, there are mines on Varovnice hill in 170,86.

There are bridges that don't cross water or a ditch in Selevac and Kusadak.

There's a distinctive lack of bridges in general, it really gives the impression of underdeveloped infrastructure. There's also not a single primary road in northern Serbia north of Cacak aside from the road from Nis to the Danube.

The central and the until recently Ottoman southern parts of Serbia have reasonable infrastructure.

[Volcano Man]

Yeah, the infrastructure in the area was terrible, mentioned so many times in accounts of the battle. The major road and rail network was created from period maps and descriptions. The terrain is easily a major opponent to any attacker, more so than most other battles (except maybe Normandy '44).

I fixed the minefield, good spot there. It shouldn't hurt things too much in a campaign being a level 1 minefield (it makes the hill difficult to occupy, but it wasn't really part of any defensive line anyway).

Also removed the bridges in those two towns that were not across a river or stream.

Speaking of, FWIW it is intentional that there are some foot bridges on trails across streams, and in other places there isn't a foot bridge on a trail across a stream. The presence of a foot bridge on a trail was based on the level of the trail, whether it was a well traveled cart path or just a foot/horse path (the source map was that accurate).

[ComradeP]

The weather.dat doesn't include weather for November 23rd and 24th 1915, but has three entries for November 25th 1915.