World War I with more territories?

[Schulz]

I want to use A&A's 1 combat per battle per round rule, but I'm not sure if it's compatible with the Russian Revolution rule.

Does anybody know if these rules will conflict with each other?

BTW, this is the current situation of the fronts. Hejaz will also be added as a separate civ, which will mobilize in Round 6 and join the war in the following round (hopefully).

[Schulz]

A few tweaks

[Schulz]

[Schulz]

[iratoric]

@Schulz First of all great job on most of the territory names, I think most of them are accurate going by city names. However I must ask, why are the minor countries so low in strength? Serbia is only 4 when they put up one of the best fights of any minor power in WWI. Not to mention Bulgaria which consistently punched above its weight. Honestly their total values should be similar to Brussels (between 10 and 20 when you sum up the two territories). Greece and Romania deserve better than a 3 and a 5 also.

Also I’m predicting you’ll have a gameplay problem, German strategy will just be build everything in Cologne and throw everything at France, which will most likely succeed. With Cologne worth as much as 30, I don’t think France will have a chance

[Schulz]

@iratoric

Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania are purposefully undervalued so they don't make Austria too powerful once Austria captures them. However, I will make sure it is very difficult to conquer Serbia and hold Galicia at the same time until Bulgaria joins Austria.

The game will use a one battle per combat per round system, with defenders being heavily favored. Here's roughly how I think the units should look:

Bedouin — 2/2/2, 3 IPC (Hejaz only)

Light Infantry — 1/3/1, 4 IPC (Russia and Ottoman Empire only)

Infantry — 2/4/1, 6 IPC

Light Artillery — 2/3/1, 6 IPC, +1 attack to Infantry and Cavalry (Russia and Ottoman Empire only)

Artillery — 3/4/1, 8 IPC, +1 attack to Infantry and Cavalry

Cavalry — 2/3/2, 8 IPC

Gas — 4/0/2, 6 IPC (suicidal), can attack on its own

Fighter — 2/3/2, 12 IPC, +1 attack/defense to unlimited Artillery, can attack ships, 2 air attack/defense

Zeppelin — 3/3/4, 28 IPC, +1 attack/defense to unlimited Artillery, can bomb cities (2–12 damage), can attack ships, 1 air attack/defense

Transport — no attack/defense, is not taken as a casualty, carries 2 units, 12 IPC

Submarine — 2/2/2, no stealth, 12 IPC, cannot be attacked by air

Cruiser — 3/3/3, 18 IPC, has AA

Battleship — 4/4/2, repairs in docks, shore bombardment, 24 IPC, has AA

[iratoric]

@Schulz I assume that this is attack/defense/movement? It definitely looks like attacking on land will be hard, which gives a good impression of WWI. A few points:

• Why does artillery have 2 movement points while light artillery has only 1? I would expect the opposite.
• I feel like this could do with one more sea unit besides cruiser/battleship. Maybe a torpedo boat or a minelayer sub?

[Schulz]

@iratoric Oops, I did miswrite that. Artillery has 1 movement as well.

There will already be 8 historical and permanent sea mine zones. I'm mostly concerned about how to represent the Battle of the Atlantic. One idea is that 6 sea zones could each have a 1/6 chance to spawn a German submarine every round. But playing that kind of whack-a-mole game as the Entente sounds frustrating.

The laziest solution is simply giving the Germans an unhistorically large number of submarines in the Atlantic from the beginning.

[Schulz]

I think the Trento-Milan route should be impassable. The Tunis-Ghadames route doesn't make much sense, but it is necessary to give the Ottoman-controlled Senussis another target besides Italian Libya.

[iratoric]

@Schulz I think it would be neat to use the mountain territory effect in Trento/Milan instead of making it totally impassable. You could restrict units like tanks from entering, give defenders a bonus, even have a mountaineer unit which performs better on those tiles.

There’s also movement cost for territory effects which could slow down cavalry.

[Schulz]

I think it's necessary to block the Milan–Trento route to make it both more historical and to make the front lines even narrower than the Western Front.

The mountains favored the Austrian defenders, but Italy was able to threaten both the Trieste and Trento routes simultaneously from one central position, which was their advantage. Austria won't have a factory in Trieste (but the Germans will have one in Munich). The front line will still encourage the Austrians to take Udine for a better defensive position, which was historical.

Should the Turin–Lyon route be impassable as well? Maybe @cernel could help us with this?