Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread
-
@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.
-
@schulz said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
@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.
Germany is a net importer of food and raw materials. To pay for those imports, it is a net exporter of manufactured goods. During the 1920s, the Western democracies did several things to cripple the German economy. They demanded very large reparations payments. Also, Britain and France closed their empires to German imports, making it significantly more difficult for Germany to obtain the foreign currency it needed to make its reparations payments, the interest payments on its government debts, or to pay for the food imports it required to feed its people. During this time productivity increased at a much faster pace in British and American factories than in German factories, because German companies were not in a position to buy the same expensive machines British or American companies were buying.
After coming to power, Hitler used Germany's enormous debts as a weapon with which to get other nations to accept German imports. If a nation refused to accept imports, Germany would default on the entirety of its debt to that nation. If the nation allowed German imports, Germany would repay its debt in part. In part as a result of defaulting on most of the debts with which the victorious Entente had saddled Germany, the German economy boomed. The first several years of the economic boom were devoted mostly to increasing the wages and vacation time of German workers, while reducing their workweek to 40 hours. But after several years of this, German workers had been brought to what Hitler believed were reasonable conditions and fair wages. At that point additional economic gains were channeled mostly into increasing corporate profits. The amount of those profits which could be paid out in dividends was restricted. So, the one option left to German firms was to reinvest those profits into new machinery and increases in productivity, which they did. From the standpoint of industrial capacity, the late '30s saw Germany begin to make up the ground it had lost in the '20s, during the stagnant years of the Weimar Republic.
Why did it take until 1944 for that increase in industrial capacity to result in large scale military production? Certainly more could have been done earlier, to go to a total war economy. But it's also the case that, compared to Britain, the United States, or even the Soviet Union, the increase in German industrial capacity was delayed. A nation which had finished industrializing before the war started could reach peak military production sooner than a nation such as Germany which was industrializing during the war itself. Japan's situation was similar: Japanese industrial capacity increased greatly during the war.
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).
German subs were very effective early in the war. Then Allied advances in radar and sonar technology made it much easier to hunt them down. The German response to that was to invent the technologically advanced Type XXI U-boat. It had built over 100 of them by the end of the war, but none saw combat. This sub could run for days on its batteries before needing to run its diesel engines to recharge. Being electric-only made it very quiet, very stealthy. The outside of its hull was lined with rubber, making it much harder to detect with radar or sonar. It fired electric torpedoes, which were likewise silent and nearly impossible to detect. (Everyone else in WWII used diesel-powered torpedoes.) It also came equipped with (for the time) very advanced electronics.
This is one example of the type of technological struggle present in the war, with each side attempting to get a leg up on the other.
-
@rogercooper I think they could be more effective to interdict Allied naval operations if there was a good cooperation with Lutwaffe.
Submarines are probably the least realistically represented units. I have no idea how could they be implemented differently within the engine.
Naval invasions are unrealistically very easy too. I would like the idea giving penalt to the invasion forces.
-
@kurtgodel7 The German leadership was reluctant to go to total war economy eariler because they though they are already going to win.
Total war economy means having harder times for civilian population which means having a potential home revolutions and mutinies.
-
@majesticfeet said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
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.
The game sort of represents stuff like that. Sort of.
Often, the Entente (and specifically the U.S.) will neutral farm Japan. The extra income the U.S. receives from this could be viewed as Japan's contribution to the Entente war effort.
Likewise, it is possible for Germany to neutral farm Mexico City on turn 3. It then builds trenches, infantry, and heavy guns in an effort to hold Mexico City for as long as possible against American invasion. That (sort of) represents the war the U.S. fought against Mexico during early WWI.
-
@kurtgodel7 I always love seeing what happens with this one. At first the Domination map was supposed to cover the period roughly from the Mexican-American war to the Spanish-American war since I had just read "Habits of Empire" and was all interested in the Polk Presidency and like nascent American Empire stuff from the second half of the 19th century. Mainly because that period is usually eclipsed by like the Napoleonic Era, or the US Civil War and not taught very much in secondary school. But I thought it would be cool to have a world map that included stuff like the Taiping Civil War (which still seems to me a major watershed, usually ignored in World History) and the Meiji Restoration too, to do the rise of Japan in addition to the European Colonialism angle with the rise of Germany/Prussia which is more familiar. I also liked the idea of map that could do the rise of Russia as almost like a mirror or inverse of the rise of the United States. The one moving West, the other moving East.
I almost called it 'Manifest Destiny' to highlight the focus, but it seemed a little too jingoistic. Anyway, that's why you get some of those weird artifacts especially in the Pacific and around China, cause I sort of changed my mind and went more for a 1900 anachronistic start, basically to have a start at the Spanish-American war/Boxer Rebellion/Morocco Crisis, essentially 1898-1901 and ending with WW1, rather than setting it more 1850 and end at 1900, which was the initial idea. All the little coaling station islands in the Pac, and the Africa scramble and such. But there were really no tools for politics or tech or the kind of units in tripleA at the time to do it up in any way that made much sense for the period hehe. I still think a map like that would be fun though, just because it's never really treated much in games, even though that's when so much of the modern world or the modern world map comes into shape. Anyhow, cool to see it still going in some form.
-
ps. just a random follow on thought, but it always seemed to me that the big maps worked well when there was a "scramble" region at the start that serves as a kind of randomizer, sort of the way Africa worked in Classic A&A. Anyhow, I thought the Taiping Rebellion and the Opium Wars would make for an interesting swing region on the Pacific side of the board for game set like second half of the 19th century. Like where you have the Qing weakened by the civil war, and so you could have the ascendant Britain, France, Russia, competing with the US and a newly emergent Japan in that region. But the engine was missing a way to do like settlement or commerce in addition to armies and navies on the move. I also liked the idea of an earlier game along a similar theme, but where it was more Britain taking over the Dutch overseas empire and before the Anglo-American alliance really took shape, so there could be like factional counter balance there. The A&A model was kind of tough though, because it works best when there are just two main alliances more 20th century style, WW1 WW2 and the cold war I think. But I still like the idea of an A&A game that sort of works as a prelude to WW1. Or like where Empire Total War or Napolean Total War ended, but before the period of the World Wars. The Taiping idea seemed interesting, cause it was like the bloodiest civil war in human history, and roughly concurrent with the US-Mexican and US Civil War. Also the Crimean Wars, and just a whole lot happening globally with expansion and conflict, so I think the period could capture a lot of the "paint the map" appeal that these games rely on. Not sure I've really seen a global war game set in that period yet. I've seen more Civ style or Universalis type games go there, but more in the 4X genre than like an A&A toy soldiers type vibe. But I still think it would be a fun one just for the history
-
@black_elk One of the ideas I have had for an Axis and Allies style game was to start it at the time of The Great Pig War. I see a lot of potential for a fun game then. I was thinking of doing the research and get some college credit for it but haven't had time to yet.
