Jump to content

lettowvorbeck

Members
  • Posts

    362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lettowvorbeck

  1. Wodin,

    I, too, preferred the time when the board only talked about WW1, but I don't think the developer attention has swung inordinately toward WW2 [in might be different for board members but we just have to realize the vast difference in audience size between the two wars]. For me, the game system models WW1 better than WW2 and I like how it accommodates both the quick moving and static aspects of the Great War. I've always thought WW1 in Europe and Near East was overall a much more interesting and balanced strategic scenario than WW2 and I think the game gets it right for the most part. Like, Wormwood I don't think it is perfect nor do I think it compromised by the expansion.

  2. I suggested a long time ago that hvy artillery have a % chance to cause a step reduction in fortification/entrenchment value instead of an automatic 1 plus the morale loss. So, may Lvl 1 HA has a 33% chance to reduce the fortification a single step and Lvl 2 HA moves this up to %50. I would like the morale loss to be % chance based instead of automatic as well. As it is now, taking a tile is basically automatic with HA ammo equal to or near the fort/trench level of the defender. By the time it is reduced to zero, the morale of the defender is so low it just melts away under a couple attack.

    Somthing else concerning game balance, when you think about how hard it was for the Germans to take Verdun, the game really does not represent that.

    I thought possibly raising the entrenchment level of Verdun, or making it a 2 tile objective, a fortress tile and a somewhat less fortified city tile behind it,

    or making artillery less effective against Verdun, as it is now as soon as you get enough artillery in place Verdun will fall.

    Maybe someone has a better idea?

  3. Bill,

    I think it has to do more with the terrain. The artillery unit helps but you can't get enough 5+ supplied units at the point of attack to make progress. Is the Caucasus really solid "mountains" along the border, or are there more valleys and hills?

    The lack of movement in the Caucasus has been mentioned in a few posts.

    There is a Russian Decision Event to provide the Caucasus front with an artillery unit in the spring of 1915, but I presume that this isn't enough generally enough to start pushing the Ottomans back, or is the artillery unit being sent to the Eastern Front instead?

  4. I am surprised, too, as "The Hotfix will be replaced by a full 1.04 patch in the near future." is posted in the patch section.

    Really? So a good guess is there won't be a patch this year. Surprising, the hofix commentary left me to believe there would be one.

    But I understand you're busy with new games and such, the game itself is very playable and stable, we can tinker with the scenarios ourselves.

    And of course, WW1 still works pretty dang well.

  5. I am not seeing a slower tech advance or more time between levels with the new tech system. In my game vs. the AI, A-H is already at industrial level two at the conclusion of the last Sept 1914 turn. I know this is just one example, but I was hoping the new system would keep this kind of rapid pace down.

    On the other hand, perhaps I am misconstruing the primary issues handled by the new tech system. On the surface it looks like the the most important concern addressed by the new tech system is overlong periods of no advance in the face of very heavy investment. Perhaps the pacing, while determined by a new system, is largely the same.

×
×
  • Create New...