From: Bremen, Germany
I always used Unrestricted Naval Warfare at some point, as it was definitely worth doing, but maybe not everyone realized that?
The key to it was to know when to rein it in and switch to regular raiding instead. Admittedly I didn't always get it quite right, but that was half the fun of the challenge!
Apart from diplomacy, if the Central Powers are passive then it might be hard to provide rational triggers for the US to actually enter the war.
Additionally, I remember discussions on this basis from our original WWI game too, and while on the one hand it might please those playing as the Entente, if a Central Powers player has avoided annoying the US then it would be rather annoying for them to be penalized by having the US automatically enter the war anyway.
On a side note there would be a clear incentive to join the war even without German provocation.
If the Entente is losing the war it endangers the payment of US loans.
It is highly questionable if the US financial sector would have accepted this loss.
For that the USA would have to give those loans first (in Game terms!), and every time this happens, the Entente should drift more and more aways from a decisive victory toward a marginal victory or even a draw.
For this it would great if the victory conditions wouldn't be simply looking on the "who won", but on the peace terms and the next years follwing that peace treaty as well.
And why I'm already suggesting: it would be fantastic if one could play on: Through the following years, right into and through WW2. A WW2 based on the results of ones WW1 victory would be great. Maybe with a game engine offering a connection for a WW3 campaign as well. :)
< Message edited by xwormwood -- 7/7/2019 7:45:04 PM >
"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)