Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread
-
Hmm, the rule change that sparked this latest topic of conversation is over retreat during stalemate. That implies an initial battle has taken place. Now, for example, if a transport attacks another transport, no battle takes place. In that example there is no battle, no retreat option. Changing it so a battle does occur would be quite significant as it would violate existing rules of most other maps.
-
@LaFayette Yep, there are no cases in any rulesets in which you can attack since start in a 0 vs 0 situation, then retreat, after one round of "no-rolling" combat. The transport retreating before stalemate can only happen at the end of a round where dice were rolled, on both sides, and all those units were mutually destroyed, leaving transports alone. This is reinforced by the prohibition on transports to actually move to attack alone, ever, that is not a v3 invention either, but existed already in Classic (v1). Yes, in Classic it is illegal sending transports alone in a battle (likely, to strafe), despite the fact that TripleA lets you do it.
-
@Cernel said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
@KurtGodel7 Well, if I understand correctly what we are talking about, the change is not that minor.
Currently, if you have a territory with only trenches in it, you can never strafe it, because if you attack with positive power, you instantly destroy all trenches and take the territory, while if you attack it with only conscripts, you instantly stalemate.
What I understand @redrum is pushing for, instead, is that the case of positive power unable to strafe remains the same, while you can attack the only-trench territory with conscripts only and decide whether to strafe or stalemate.
Is this really that minor, and does it make sense that 1 infantry and 1 conscript cannot strafe 100 trenches while 100 conscripts can strafe 1 trench?
Whether a change is minor or major depends on two factors: 1) The percentage of games in which the change will have an impact, and 2) The extent of the impact said change will have.
Suppose that Russia has conscripts in Volgograd and Moscow. It wants to teleport all conscripts to Volgograd. Germany has 1 trench in Don, and Russia would like to use the trench to accomplish the teleport. Under current rules Russia cannot accomplish the teleport--not unless Germany has discovered bunkers tech. (If Germany has bunkers tech Russia can teleport under current rules.) But if Germany lacks that tech Russia cannot accomplish the teleport under current rules, but could achieve it under the rules I'm proposing.
The question is: how often would the following all be true:
- Russia desires a conscript teleport
- There is a lone Central trench potentially available for teleporting through
- The Central power owning the trench does not yet have bunkers tech
I'm guessing that the above-described situation would occur maybe once every 35 - 40 games or so. Allowing the conscript teleport could make a moderately impactful difference in that rare game. I classified my two favored changes as "minor" because they will have no impact at all on the vast majority of games played.
A conscript and a transport are not the same thing. Conscripts can and should be taken as casualties ahead of other units, which of course cannot be done for transports. Rules which make sense for conscripts do not necessarily make sense for transports, and vice versa. After reading recent comments, I've decided there is not a compelling need to change transport retreat rules at this time. The proposed minor changes are strictly to eliminate the problem of land stalemates. Those rules changes should be applied to land units only, both to minimize the extend of the change, and to maintain consistency between transport behavior in this map and transport behavior in other maps using the same rules set.
-
I'm leaning towards believing that the best solution is letting conscripts alone attack basic (defence 0) trenches alone and, in any case you have conscripts alone against trenches alone, conscripts can never retreat, but automatically conquer the territory and destroy all trenches.
Practically, having conscripts alone against trenches alone working exactly like infantry alone against trenches alone.
Only talking about the defence 0 trenches. Defence 1 trenches would remain working exactly as they have always been.
-
-
2.0 has a new XML option
canRetreatOnStalemate. We can use that to explicitly allow conscripts an option to retreat on stalemate. Is there consensus to enable it, or just leave be? -
@LaFayette said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
2.0 has a new XML option
canRetreatOnStalemate. We can use that to explicitly allow conscripts an option to retreat on stalemate. Is there consensus to enable it, or just leave be?I'm fine with enabling it.
-
The latest version of this map has a fix for 'victory bonds' and that should work again.
-
I've enhanced the flags please consider to add them;
-
Hello,
Where can I find national objectives and triggers for Dommination? I saw reference to a set of rules but haven't been able to find them. -
@majesticfeet The game has no national objectives and its triggers are all related with techs.
-
@schulz Thank you, I appreciate it!
-
Schulz's post is accurate. In addition to what he wrote, I recommend reading the game notes. Some units are a little different in this map than in any other map.
-
@kurtgodel7 Thank you, though I am always suspect when the message comes from the KGD (Close enough, trying to work a joke in there about 7....007 but haven't figured out how to make it work). I have seen the 'Features' section when you are looking at the map, is that what you are talking about?
I am still just playing against the AI. For me it is difficult....probably due to distractions that cause me to miss moves. What is the general consensus, on how it plays out.
Does the Entente usually win or does the Central Powers over whelm the ground forces in the middle first?
I understand the huge a-historical German navy and subs are meant to balance the game but how does it play without them?
So far it seems the best strategy I have come up with for the Entente is take over neutrals (Baluchistan and possibly Ethiopia) to deal with Germany in Africa and the expansion of Turkey.
I think I have figured out how to nullify the Germans in the Pacific but not how to knock out their base (usually).
The next question would be, is it better to leave the base in Africa and the Pacific to draw income out of Germany to keep it from the large fronts?
John
-
@majesticfeet The game is considered fairly balanced and the German navy can be considered hardly unrealistic since Germany had secont strongest navy in the World in WW1.
I wouldn't recommend focusing to take these German bases too early unless the Germans decide not to reinforce these areas. Better to prioritize Belgium-English Channel and Suez initially and farming some valuable territories as UK.
I would also recommend to take Morocco and South Spain as USA to reinforce Italy or Balkans.
-
@schulz
Thank you for the tips. I hadn't considered Morroco! I had thought about parts of Spain but thought the process may take too long.I am going to respectfully disagree on the German Navy and submarines. The Germans started WW1 with about 48 submarines of differing quality. I don't think any of them had the ability to travel and operate in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific. I count 14 in the game. I can see why they are in the game, it makes it quite a challenge, but not historic.
At Jutland there were about 5/3 (British/German in battleships and 2/1 in battlecruisers (28/16, battleships, 9/5 battlecruisers). I am counting the 6 German pre-dreadnoughts as heavy cruisers and comparing them to the British 8 armoured cruisers. The Germans had 11 light cruisers to the 26 the British had. The British had 78 destroyers to 61 German torpedo boats (probably as weak comparison as the pre-dreadnoughts to the heavy cruisers.)
In the game in the vicinity of Britain and Germany there are 2/2 battleships, 2/3 battlecruisers, 5/3 cruisers and no destroyers.
As a caveat, between 1914, the start of the war, and 1916, Jutland,the British out produced the Germans in fleet units but I don't think this makes up for the difference in the game.
I understand why the game has the units it has (probably wouldn't be as fun or as challenging if the ratios were correct and if submarines where limited to where they could actually cruise) just not historical.
A few other silly lamentations that are outside of the restrictions of the game. I wish there were a few Japanese battlecruisers and cruisers to represent the help the Japanese were giving to British in the Pacific and I wish you could build the Japanese cruiser/destroyer squadron that was on anti-submarine duty off of France in 1917.
-
@majesticfeet said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
@kurtgodel7 Thank you, though I am always suspect when the message comes from the KGD (Close enough, trying to work a joke in there about 7....007 but haven't figured out how to make it work). I have seen the 'Features' section when you are looking at the map, is that what you are talking about?
You're welcome.
In answer to your question, what I was suggesting you do is click on the help menu (at top of the screen) then on "game notes."
I am still just playing against the AI. For me it is difficult....probably due to distractions that cause me to miss moves. What is the general consensus, on how it plays out.
Unlike other maps, there is no one usual way this map plays out. In some games Russia could collapse but Entente could be strong in Western Europe. Or, France could collapse, with a strong Russia. Germany could lose its colonies but be strong in Europe. Germany could be weaker in Europe but with strong overseas presence. Just when you think you have a sense of this map you'll see different people playing, and you'll realize there's another way for things to go.
Does the Entente usually win or does the Central Powers over whelm the ground forces in the middle first?
The map is fairly balanced. Centrals may have a small edge.
I understand the huge a-historical German navy and subs are meant to balance the game but how does it play without them?
I've never played without them, but I imagine removing them would greatly unbalance the game.
So far it seems the best strategy I have come up with for the Entente is take over neutrals (Baluchistan and possibly Ethiopia) to deal with Germany in Africa and the expansion of Turkey.
Farming neutrals to put factories on them is a very good idea. Another strategy is to farm neutrals for income. Opinions vary as to whether or which neutrals should be income farmed. The longer your games typically last, the more sense it makes to income farm a larger number of neutrals. You'll notice neutrals vary in terms of the ratio of reward vs. strength of neutral defense.
I think I have figured out how to nullify the Germans in the Pacific but not how to knock out their base (usually).
As long as your navy controls the Pacific it is beneficial, but not necessary, to knock out their base. If you're engaging in a massive neutral farming effort against Japan/China, the transports you'll need for that can often be used to take out German base.
The next question would be, is it better to leave the base in Africa and the Pacific to draw income out of Germany to keep it from the large fronts?
I like knocking out the German base in Africa. Or barring that, I at least like to take German East Africa, to wall the German force into Dar es Salaam. But that's not always possible. I tend to go more heavily after Africa/Indian Ocean than a guy like Schulz does. He and I are both good players, which just goes to show that there are multiple strategies/philosophies which work.
-
@kurtgodel7 Great! Thank you for the help! I imagine I will have more questions after a few more plays.
-
@majesticfeet It is really not possible to simulate even a moderately realistic scenario. Subs are even the least realistic ones. The game considers that all subs are visible, having the same speed with the other surface ships, no refueling/harboring/repair is needed, not distinguishing between subs and coastal subs, no representation of marchant shipping, requiring the same amount of time with battleships, 1 destroyer being able to block 1000 submarines etc...
All things are basically simplified in sake of easier playability and balance. If you would want Germany having harder time with dealing the British navy while also not breaking the balance significantly, I would suggest removing the German sub in SZ 12. It makes the British navy counter the German navy if they decide to take on SZ 16.
-
@schulz Thank you on the advice on the submarine. That would help with the ratio of naval power in the North Atlantic areas.
Playing A&A for so many years I haven't thought about the fact that in reality the reason the German raiders did so well in the Pacific/Indian Ocean/Atlantic was that the British had difficulty finding them. I can see how the submarines in the Pacific help to counter balance this.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login