World War I with more territories?
-
@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.
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