World War I with more territories?
-
@Schulz
The SZ are huge, not sure the movement of your aircraft, but they might be able to cross the Med and return to say Italy and possibly cross the Atlantic. -
@TheDog One round represents 6 months, so crossing the Atlantic in 1 round makes sense to me.
-
@Schulz I think you’re going to have a problem with setting a time scale because a lot can happen in 6 months, a steamship of the time could easily make multiple Atlantic crossings in one month.
-
@Schulz
Sea, Air movement and Time all are constraining each other and they must be a compromise.In 1941 GCD, time is set at 3 months/turn, but this is only for technology, and as @iratoric says
steamship of the time could easily make multiple Atlantic crossings in one month
1941GCD part answer was ships move faster.
Most Aircraft should move 2-4 TT/SZ, as this works for land, so SZ must fit this.
-
Fighters will be the same as in Axis & Allies 1914.
So the Atlantic shouldn't be crossed in 1 round? The US would join in round 12 if 1 round represents 6 months, and the winner should emerge around round 18. I'm afraid it would be harder to balance the longer the game is supposed to last.
Russia should be strong enough to last at least 12 rounds, but weak enough to collapse over the next few rounds. That doesn't look easy to balance to me.
What about making 1 round = 4 months?
In approximately how many rounds is 1941 GCD supposed to last?
-
@Schulz
The Atlantic should be crossed in 2 rounds, the U-boat need a chance at attacking mid crossing3 or 4 or 6 turns per year but not 2. I would go with 4 turns/seasons per year.
1941 GCD could have been 6 turns/year, but as we got better, settled for 4 turns/year.
GCD usually lasts 18-24ish turns, but it is for solo play.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/tags/thedog
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3741/curated-best-top-maps-triplea-guides -
@Schulz Your math is not right, if one turn is 6 months then the whole war would be 9 turns, US would join turn 6
-
Let's make 1 round = 4 months then.
And here's the new planned sea zones.
What I liked the most is that the Entente can't block the Western Mediterranean anymore by parking in a single sea zone.
Balancing Russia will be tough. Some ideas:
They will get a malus to their income, and that malus gets bigger each round. For example, they get -2 IPC in round 1, -4 in round 2, -6 in round 3, etc. I'm normally not a fan of too many rules, but I can't see how to make it work right now other than something like this. Maybe giving them a very large army but a very low income would balance them.
Another idea is making the rectangle zones German submarine spawn points. Each rectangle will have something like a 25% chance to spawn a submarine each round. With convoy zones, the Atlantic would be more interesting.
-
@Schulz
If there are 4 spawn points, then if I was the Entente, I would swamp each spawn point and shut it down. I would have way more spawn points and not make it obvious that it was a spawn point.Im not a fan of Convoy Zones, they are artifiical. I prefer each SZ is worth 1pu and has ownership flags. But I would say that, as 1941 GCD has this.
-
The Central Powers should punish the Entente if it keeps so many ships parked in these zones just to hunt a single possible German submarine.
I think it's good that this gives the US more options than just sending troops to France.
-
@Schulz OK so here is the thing about Russia in WWI and why they are hard to simulate. Russia had a huge manpower pool to draw from but was consistently running out of equipment. So you would get things like 2 soldiers sharing one rifle, or an artillery battery that can only fire for a few minutes.
The problem is when you look up something like how many soldiers did Russia have in WWI you will get an impressive number, but what that’s not telling you is how many of them actually have enough weapons or ammunition to fight. It’s like owning 10 cars but only having enough gas for 3, then writing down that you have 10 cars available for use. Technically true but not helpful
-
I think Russia was as strong as France in the beginning, but its power decreased gradually due to the well-known issues.
-
@Schulz In TripleA, you may want to give Russian infantry no attack value, with any offensive relying on artillery or elite troops (like the veterans in the Caucasus).
-
@RogerCooper I think you can do this without even having to use a new unit, you can make a supportAttachment that gives infantry -1 strength, then attach it to the infantry itself and have it only apply to Russians. Something like
<attachment name='supportAttachmentRussiansInfantryEquipmentShortage' attachTo='infantry' javaClass='UnitSupportAttachment' type='unitType'>
<option name='unitType' value='infantry'/>
<option name='faction' value='allied'/>
<option name='side' value='offence'/>
<option name='dice' value='strength'/>
<option name='bonus' value='-1'/>
<option name='number' value='1'/>
<option name='bonusType' value='EquipmentShortage'/>
<option name='players' value='Russians'/>
</attachment> -
attach it to itself. I didn't know you could do that. Or maybe I did and just forgot
Either way. I like it
Maybe so they aren't too low powered offensively, you could have Artillery still give them a +1 boost. If it plays the same as the other games that way.
So Attack 0 but if with Arty Attack 1 ?
Just a thought
Good Work here
-
If Russia is still in the war by round 10 with roughly the same income it had at the beginning, I don't see how the Central Powers could realistically win. Giving Russian infantry weaker offensive power doesn't seem punishing enough to me. It would also limit Russia's strategic options. Historically, they had to launch major offensives due to political pressure from their allies.
I think Russia's role of "destroying as many Central Powers units as possible before its eventual collapse" sounds much more interesting than simply spamming infantry and waiting.
By 1917, Russia was struggling just to keep its troops on the front line, let alone mobilize new armies. I even think its income should be close to 0 by round 10 (August 1917), even if it hasn't lost a single territory. With a -2 income modifier that increases by 2 each round, Russia would be at -20 IPC by round 10, leaving it almost bankrupt.
-
Historically, they had to launch major offensives due to political pressure from their allies.
This is the kind of question that comes up in many wargames, should a player be forced to replicate a bad historical strategy. The Brusilov offensive (1916) achieved some tactical success, but did little to take pressure off the French at Verdun and used up Russia's limited resources. The Kerensky offensive (1917) resulted in Russia's complete collapse.
By they way, my grandfather (Austrian army) was captured in the Brusilov offensive.
-
Players should be free to choose. But being forced to play too defensively and cautiously in every single game would be boring, and it wasn't politically feasible at that time.
Both offensive and defensive Russia should have their own pros and cons.
-
I balkanized the Balkans.
-
I divided Brest and Vilnius.
I think it would be way too easy to defend against the Russians if territories 2 and 4 were merged. I was initially hesitant because I've always hated how, on the Great War map, it's a no-brainer for the Russian player to just hold the Belarus–Kiev–Warsaw line. (There's a similar issue in Domination 1914 as well.) It was also a no-brainer for the Germans to follow that route. Territory 4 (Brest) shouldn't create the same issue, and luckily I don't think it will, because:
In the Great War, the key territory (Kiev, which blocks both the German and Austrian advances at the same time) is four territories away from Berlin and Vienna, but here it's much closer. The Central Powers will also have Hungarian and Prussian factories. The Russians will also get an increasing IPC penalty each round, so they won't be able to easily hold territory 4 and block the routes. Plus, the Austrians can move 7 in that case and take Kiev if Russia undercommits to that front.
Territory 4 should probably be worth the fewest IPCs to offset its strategic importance. I'm still not a fan of it, but combining territories 2 and 4 sounds even worse to me. I don't know—maybe I can find another way to further reduce the importance of territory 4.
I'm also not sure how to handle the Serbian front. Austria taking on Serbia while holding Galicia at the same time in 1914 was highly unlikely. In most games, Austria shouldn't be able to do both.
Another issue is how to represent the Serbs. Having the Russians represent them would be problematic since all Russian units are meant to be removed if the Revolution triggers. Serbian units shouldn't disappear just because of the Russian Revolution.
I don't like making the Serbs Allied-neutral either, since it would let Austria move everything to the east until Italy enters the war in Round 4.
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