Bossy573 -> RE: Next Patch (12/29/2012 7:11:04 PM)
ORIGINAL: Mad Catter
Thanks for the response.
Actually, I do think factors like the French Mutiny ARE factored into the game (national morale rules).
Some of Russia's problems are also covered by the Russian revolution event.
But let's imagine for a moment that there was ZERO strategic bombing in the game.
What factors (in game) would FORCE the Central Powers to take the offensive, and not just "circle the wagons"?
Under the current system (with greater production), the Entente can simply bomb Germany to bits, thus wrecking their economy.
This seems to force the Central Powers to be more aggressive, and to try to land a knockout punch on France or Russia (or both), before they get clobbered.
I don't mind strategic bombing getting "nerfed" to be less powerful.
But then something should replace it (such as loss of PP's due to increased blockade effectiveness).
Otherwise, the game could get even more static than the Great War really was.
And the Central Powers are getting a "free pass" against one of the Entente's most effective weapons: economic warfare via the blockade.
Well, my opinion on the French army mutinies is that they are not modeled. They are not an extension of national morale, rather isolated from national morale. My suggestion is the French army mutinies could be modeled based on the numbers of French troops lost over a period of time once a magic number of casualties were hit overall. They could be remedied with commanders who would become available under certain criteria. The penalties would be a drastically reduced attacking factor and a (lesser) reduced defending factor. The event (mutinies) would hit random units and would be known only to the Entente player. The CP player would have no knowledge. They would have to stumble upon it. Want to prevent that? Time for the British to launch their own offensive and keep the German eyes focused elsewhere. As a CP player, you could engage in your own attempt to bleed France white and launch a Verdun (like) offensive against them. Force them to defend (and counter-attack) and bring their armies closer to the brink. Perhaps that would be a good incentive for the Germans to attack.
Russia is simply non-historically strong in this game. But it is tougher to model this as I am sure it would make the game just about unwinnable for the Entente player.
The strategic bombing factor does not fit in the game. Insofar as I am aware, until 1918, the air war was about controlling observation of the enemy lines and dispositions. It needs to be changed to reflect this, IMHO, by reducing the number, range, effectiveness and abilities of bombers, and enhancing the scouting properties of fighters. If the enemy has fighters in the area, their scouting range can be reduced or eliminated just by having your own fighters in the area. If you want to eliminate that, then its up to you to defeat the enemy fighters.
In my most recent games, it is clear that if the CP just sit back, they will lose. They HAVE to attack to win. The material advantages for the Entente are just overwhelming.
The opening months of the war in this game are just breathtaking. Swirling battles, encirclements, close shaves, counter encirclements. Just awesome. In one recent game as the CP, I had defeated Russia by 1916, Romania and Serbia about the same time. But I could not crack the line in France or Italy. France, Britain and Italy pretty much did what they did in the actual war: ground down my army in France to the point I could not produce enough to win. I ended up losing to their material advantage, i.e. it was a battle of attrition - exactly the way it played out in real life. One of the best wargaming experiences I have ever known. Just brilliant.
My suggestion is to make America's entry mandatory at a certain point with a number of American units getting past any submarines. There is the clock you are looking for if you are a CP player.