Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this.

Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve).

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this.

Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve).

warspite1

...or better still just remove strategic bombing completely. It wasn't a factor in WWI, its a boring element of the game anyway - as you say its just each side sending waves of planes over - OR if you are to keep it in, make it affect morale NOT production.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaranthus

Strat bombing seems to me to be the biggest game breaker to fix in this patch. If you get a deadlock by 1916 or so, it's the only thing that ends up counting - a crazy back and forth of fleets of bombers until one side or the other withers away first. The land war ceases to have a meaning. I love the 1914-15 game, but after that, it's broken - and I really want it fixed, because I do love the game. I've just had another game end on an agreed stalemate because of this.

Two possible fixes are to 1) dramatically decrease effectiveness (e.g. only 1 in 5 strikes of a Zepp does -1, and maybe 1 in 3 for a bomber), or 2) impacts NM only, with no effect on PP (and NM impact would have to be low and probably on a diminishing curve).

warspite1

...or better still just remove strategic bombing completely. It wasn't a factor in WWI, its a boring element of the game anyway - as you say its just each side sending waves of planes over - OR if you are to keep it in, make it affect morale NOT production.

Here is a few suggestions to help reduce effectiveness of massive strategic bombing campaigns.

1) After each strategic bombing mission the bombing units gets a loss in efficiency.
2) After each strategic bombing mission during winter there is a risk of loss of strength points in addition to the efficiency loss.
3) Fighters interception range increased.

It is my understanding that the weather was a major threat to zeppelins on bombing missions. I suspect that bombers were affected during bad weather as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Lord Zimoa - is there anything you can tell us at this stage re the direction that the naval war is heading and your thoughts on what is achievable here - either in this next patch or thereafter?

Many thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

Yes, will be adjusted/re-balanced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naskra

A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente.
If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naskra

A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente.
If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war.

warspite1

I have seen it happen in just one game. The British convoys were being splattered by 4-sub wolfpacks and the US did come in very early. However, it takes ages for the US to build up units, research tech, and transport over to Europe so I do not think the Germans have too much to worry about unless the US enters early.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naskra

A fix is needed for the US entering the war. I have never seen it join the Entente. I have never seen , on these pages, any report of it joining the Entente.
If enough convoys are sunk/damaged, the diplomatic status of the US will change to "enemy", but it will not go to war.

warspite1

I have seen it happen in just one game. The British convoys were being splattered by 4-sub wolfpacks and the US did come in very early. However, it takes ages for the US to build up units, research tech, and transport over to Europe so I do not think the Germans have too much to worry about unless the US enters early.

I've seen USA enter the war in 1915 and I did not appreciate the experience. But thanks to fleet superiority I managed to sink a lot of US troops before they reached the European shores.

I feel that there is little reason for CP to focus on the navy at this point. If you ignore the navy the CP is stronger at land and no US interference. But if you focus on the sea war then it is likely that US enters the war early to punish you. I would prefer a US entry that didn't depend so much on the convoy war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Historically armored trains were very important during the Russian Civil War in the battle for control of the Trans Siberian Railroad. I think the Czechoslovak Legion basically fought its way across the entire length of that railroad using armored trains. I think the most unrealistic thing about them is that they can do amphibious invasions as long as the target hex has a railroad. At first I thought that even allowing them to be moved by sea may be unrealistic, but I found out that some merchant ships of the era did exist that could carry locomotives without disassembling them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

If France is defeated,and Britain & America need to try and recapture PARIS for example,then I feel as a supply source,the only alternative has to be done by Naval units,as long as a clear path extends to the land forces,then the Naval units should be deemed,to give full supply!

quote:

warspite1:
There needs to be some means of waging war without a capital.

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

warspite1:
There needs to be some means of waging war without a capital.

But what kind of war can a nation realistically expect to wage if it loses it's capital?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Bummer...so I can't download the patch until my existing outstanding games have been finished?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

warspite1:
There needs to be some means of waging war without a capital.

But what kind of war can a nation realistically expect to wage if it loses it's capital?

warspite1

I was talking specificaly about the ability of the British / Americans to carry on fighting in France if France is defeated. Without a capital they can't - it's game over. Same with Amphibious invasions - you don't need to worry about them - just make sure the enemy can't take a capital (full supply) or a city (half supply) and the enemy is stuck on the coast....