From: Republic of Cascadia
I should clarify that I usually play MP games.
Submarines are mostly a CP tool. Buffing them would be an indirect buff to the CP, since it will result in greater losses to British convoys, than German convoys. However, I do not see an issue with this one. The naval war as it is currently is so one sided, it ceases to be an engaging part of the game. The fact that it alters balance, however, should still be kept in mind.
Artillery units are an important weapon for both sides, but are noticeably more important for the Entente than the CP. Reducing their power, while called for, would also weaken the Entente considerably for 2 reasons: number of artillery units available and infantry quality.
Currently the Entente can field a theoretical maximum of 5 British guns, 3 French guns, 2 Italian guns, 1 Serbian gun, 1 Greek gun, 1 Belgian gun, 1 Romanian gun, and 4 Russian guns, for a total of 18 artillery units. The extra British and Russian guns come from decision events, which allow you to exceed the build limit if you have already hit it when it fires. Realistically of course, The Serbian, Belgian, and Italian guns won't show up until late in the war, if ever. Romania may not even be dragged in. So we usually see about 12-13 artillery units for the Entente, with a worst case scenario of 10. This compared to the 11 maximum guns the CP can field (GE:4, AH:3, OE:3, BU:1), is a fairly significant advantage, especially when considering that Ottoman artillery also arrives relatively late.
With weaker artillery, there will be a stronger emphasis on the infantry. German infantry are significantly stronger than the Entente counterparts, due to better tech, better leaders, better experience, and better NM. This makes them less reliant on artillery on the attack. They can get away with firing just enough shells to full de-entrench their target to achieve excellent 1:3/4 combat results. The Entente require more shells to reduce their targets readiness and morale, often needing 6-8 shots on a single target in 1915 just to achieve a parity of losses on the offensive.
Both of these factors mean that weaker artillery hurts the Entente far more.
Changes to Trento and Bulgaria would also make things easier for the CP.
While these changes are, I think, good improvements, they all shift the balance towards the CP. My argument is not that the changes are bad per se, but that implementing too many changes that balance things in only in one direction would make things a little too hard for the Entente.
Well, since I also mostly play MP games as you well know, including 4 memorable matches against you (one ongoing). I basically agree with what you are saying here. I think any changes made need to be considered carefully, and it does seem to look that some of these may unbalance PvP towards the Germans in particular.
I have also noticed that good quality German infantry has an easier time mid to late game in conducting operations sans artillery as opposed to Entente forces on the whole. Lately, I have been playing only Entente in matches, and having good artillery sure helps defend the Western front.
With the Artillery chit reduction, it seems to have helped extend the game further in a close match. I have only one game going post patch..and it is against Tanaka. We are mid 1917, and though strategically the Entente finally got into a more favorable position because of an Ottoman collapse, his Germans are able to trash the Russians when he wishes, and make huge trouble on the western front aka Ludendorff.
The modest changes I feel are necessary at this time are:
1)Trento: Made into a fortress.
2)Bulgaria: shift already deployed units onto different hexes to thwart 1 turn alpha strike.I think the dev's are considering this according to a recent post on the 2nd Bulgaria thread.
I personally really like the latest patch taking one chit from Artillery research. It has allowed me to actually consider broadening other research that was neglected back in the days of 'Race to Art2 1915).
The shell thing is complex..but maybe removing one chit from their research may also moderate the excessive shell stockpileage that occurs. Having 10 shells is okay...but maybe if that arrives further out..like spring 1917 on or something, would also allow an extension of the game to late 1918, something that right now is very rare in a PM with evenly skilled opponents.
The Ottoman early game situation is also complex. Possibly, if they were given a few garrison units like the Russians have had Odessa, Sebastopol and other places..this may ameliorate their vulnerabilities. These units have very little offensive power, but would help resist an Entente detachment raid that now can cripple the Ottomans.
Jerusalem and Damascus come to mind. More than 2 garrisons would probably be too much, and too easy to cover the partisan hex spawning grounds. (I don't know if garrison units can be 'turned off' so they can't stop partisan spawning or not in the editor but if they 'couldn't' that would be ok. Then again, maybe a solution to Ottoman early game weakness, is not needed.
Anyway, ThisEndUp....that's my 3 cents.