Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread
-
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.
-
@schulz I have a board game called Nine Navies War, I want to pull out now to see what the balance in the Mediterranean would look like. May be Conway's Book of ships would be better, but it is not as colorful!
The Turkish battleship seemed out of place to me since all they had was obsolete ships of that size....though putting it in there helps to balance the Russian Navy which also had it's own problems. The battlecruiser represents the Goeben, happy with that.
-
@majesticfeet Turkey is overall represented way too strong than it was actually in WW1 for balance reason.
Turkey was probably 4 times weaker than Austria and 10-12 times weaker than Germany in here it is almost half of Germany.
-
I'd like to address the subject of historical accuracy. During WWII, military aircraft production was a reasonably good proxy for overall military production. With that in mind, below are the data about military aircraft production in 1942:
U.S. 48,000
Germany 16,000
U.S.S.R. 25,000
U.K. 24,000
Japan 9,000Note that American military aircraft production is about triple that of Germany, and the Soviet Union is close to double that of Germany. Japan's is less than half that of any of the big three Allied powers. Below are the military aircraft production numbers for 1944:
U.S. 96,000
Germany: 40,000
U.S.S.R. 40,000
U.K. 26,000
Japan 28,000Between 1942 and '44, American military aircraft production doubled, while German and Japanese aircraft production tripled.
If you wanted a historically accurate WWII map, you'd need the Allies to start off with about four times as much income as the Axis. But, you'd also need both sides' income to gradually increase over the course of the game, with American income doubling and the Axis income tripling. I'm not aware of any Axis and Allies style map which attempts to accomplish these things.
I personally love the idea of a map being historically accurate, but that's probably not going to be a strong suit of any map you're likely to encounter. In some ways Domination 1914 No Man's Land comes closer to historical accuracy than most other maps. (A low bar, granted.) Some units become more powerful, longer ranged, or less expensive as you research new technologies. Other units cannot be built until you've researched the appropriate tech. Overall, I feel the map's tech system is hands-down the best tech system I've seen on any TripleA map!
-
@kurtgodel7 Military productions are not sufficient to determine historical strength of nations because they don't take into account other aspects like overproductions, quality/types of the products, skilled staffs, logistical expenses, lend-leases etc...
There is really no way to assume that USSR was %50 stronger than Germany In 1942. The Soviets did outproduce the Germans in some military production sections because;
1- They had executed total war economy way before Germany.
2- They allowed women to work in factories.
3- Lend-Lease allowed them to concentre their military power to a few specific military sections.
4- They didn't have enormous logistical expenses or partizans to deal with.The same as for WW1 which CP had some assymetric advantages over Entente which probably the reason why it lasted too long.
-
@schulz said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
@kurtgodel7 Military productions are not sufficient to determine historical strength of nations because they don't take into account other aspects like overproductions, quality/types of the products, skilled staffs, logistical expenses, lend-leases etc...
There is really no way to assume that USSR was %50 stronger than Germany In 1942. The Soviets did outproduce the Germans in some military production sections because;
1- They had executed total war economy way before Germany.
2- They allowed women to work in factories.
3- Lend-Lease allowed them to concentre their military power to a few specific military sections.
4- They didn't have enormous logistical expenses or partizans to deal with.The same as for WW1 which CP had some assymetric advantages over Entente which probably the reason why it lasted too long.
You are correct to imply that military production is not the same thing as overall military strength.
If you look at armored vehicle production you'll also see large disparities. Below are armored fighting vehicle production numbers for Germany, the U.S.S.R., and the U.S.
1942
Germany 6,000
U.S.S.R. 25,000
U.S. 27,0001944
Germany 19,000 (including 5,000 heavy tanks)
U.S.S.R. 29,000 (including 5,000 heavy tanks)
U.S. 20,000 (including 40 heavy tanks)American tank production peaked in 1943 at 37,000.
German prewar population was 69 million (or 83 million if you count Austria). Soviet prewar population was 169 million, giving it a much larger population pool from which to recruit infantry. American population in 1941 was 133 million. The Allies could afford much larger losses than the Axis. At the Battle of Stalingrad, the Axis experienced about 800,000 casualties and losses, compared to 1.1 million for the Soviet Union. This was a devastating, overwhelming victory for the Soviet Union, because it could much better afford to lose 1.1 million men, than the Axis could afford 800,000. Of the 800,000 Axis losses a little over half were actual Germans. The other half consisted of Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, and Soviet citizens who'd volunteered to fight in the German Army against Stalin.
In a nutshell, a typical Larry Harris or TripleA WWII map fails to account for the following:
- Differences in initial production, which favored the Allies by a 4:1 ratio.
- Increases in military production, with the Axis tripling production and America doubling its production.
- Technological advancement. A perfectly good fighter aircraft in 1942 would be obsolete in 1944.
- Constraints in manpower, which meant the Axis could recruit far fewer men than could the Allies.
- Differences in unit quality or unit training.
- Differences in generalship, with the war's best generals, such as von Manstein, sometimes able to achieve 10:1 exchange ratios.
- Oil. (Lack of which created significant problems for the Axis powers.)
-
@kurtgodel7 German military production was very inefficient before speer took in charge and they didn't even exert total war economy until 1943. Thats how they could double-triple their productions in 1944 despite constant Allies strategic bombings. Of course Axis players wouldn't make these fatal historical mistakes.
It is very easy to create more realistic WWI/WWII games in TripleA but the issue is games would be too complex.
- If realism is going to be priority then there should be representations of climates, logistics, railroads, trucks, locomotives, diplomacy, secret diplomacy, command abilities, spying, insurgencies, alternative histories, public demands, lend leases, loans, morals, equipments etc...
All of things would be hard to manage and almost impossible to decide how to optimize them plus some people wouldn't really like the idea of playing with an Alliance which is almot doomed to lose.
But there are ways to make these games more realistic without breaking balance or adding much complexity.
For example I just came with the idea of the German subs which being spammed in N.Atlantic randomly each round. (German power should be decreased to rebalance of course).
With that it becames harder for Allies to invade France (which is realistic) and harder for Germany to defeat the Soviets (which is also realistic).
-
@schulz The problem with subs, is that they were a strategic weapon, which is hard to handle in TripleA. They decreased allied production (and diverted resource in counter-measures). What they did not do is prevent invasions. There were plenty of German subs around when Operation Torch was executed.
A flaw of TripleA is that amphibious invasions are as easy as movement to friendly ports. Give a big penalty to amphibious invasions by using the isMarine property would be a way of handling it.
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