ulver
Posts: 518
Joined: 9/9/2001
From: Danmark, Europe
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:
ORIGINAL: ulver
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
All over - Italy join the war and I have no units left on the Western Front and nothing to defend against Italy with. Well played Ulver!
You are conceding? You are totally kicking my ass in Russia – I am in the process of fortifying Petrograd as you are rapidly approaching. Was going to to a bit of AAR there about the Armored Train hero cities.
I would love to see a post about your grand strategic thinking in this game from the onset. You totally did the opposite of what I expected pretty much every turn. I figured that the short western front and initial British neutrality is an invitation to Go east and seek to knock Russia out of the war in 1915. Yes the price is that France gets to build a stack of bombers and turns the Ruhr to rubble ( or alternatively gets high tech artillery with obscene amounts of ammunition) but I figure that is a price worth paying.
You went west in a big way - why?
warspite1
Why? Because I am in the mould of Alexander, Caesar or Napoleon; a tactical and strategic genius without parallel....
..well, either that or I just got lucky because I didn't even consider going east! The fact that I then put a French unit within one hex of Paris confirms I am in fact, a complete moron 
What I achieved in Russia proves that that should have been the way to go, but.....
On a more serious note though - I must say that any games I play in future will be on the proviso that a) there is no disbanding and b) strategic bombing needs to be curtailed massively. It wasn't a feature of WWI, but can be a killer in this game.
Another fun game though Ulver - thank-you. You are a very good player, and with your ability to exploit rules and test things to the limit you really should be a beta tester 
The Entente needs to be able to reduce cost if faced with a serious U-boat effort. You also need the ability to disband to get the cash to repair damaged corps.
If you have two damaged corps and no PP to repair them it makes sense to be able to disbanded one to repair the other, eliminating the ability to disband would cause other problems that might be as big as the ones we have. I actually rather like that you have a constant balancing act in the trade-off between the size of your army and production. Makes sense to me – you keep your workers in the factories and farms or do you send everyone to the front? Nations did disband forces as various times to send workers back to industry and farming.
The ability to strategic bombard is very powerful and massive 4 engine bombers were being built in 1918 to bomb Berlin
http://www.thecrossinthesky.com/2008/10/did-british-ever-successfully-bomb.html
They didn’t quite make it before the war ended but it does make sense that strategic bombardment is a path to pursuit It is just that you can get it far too early in this game. I would suggest a nation can only build a number of bombers equal to its bomber technology. Nothing wrong with plauserbal what-if technology. The problem is the devastating bomber raids in 1915, that should only be possible in 1918 with a massive investment in researching a specialized strategic bomber.
EDIT: Make that bomber technology -1. Italy enters the war with bomber technology 2 and Russia with 3 (the latter dosen't matter much they will never be able to build more then 1 anyway but having 2 Italian bombers in 1915 is just crazy. Capping it at bomber tech -1 makes more sense anyway.
< Message edited by ulver -- 12/26/2012 10:09:37 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Anatomy of a near-death experience - 
RE: Anatomy of a near-death experience - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread