Sharkman

I see no reason why the Germans should not be required to garrison certain citys in the east, it seems logical. Failure to do so possibly having a negative diplomatic effect on those eastern countries.

I'm sure you will keep playability and balance in mind, I find the CP very hard to play as it is, if AH gets some negative tweaking then the Germans will need some positive tweaking. As it is the CP can conquer 75% of the map and still get a draw or even loose. I think the balance is quite good, even with AH stronger than they really were.

I think the CP is allready hard pressed to win. It depends on the game, every game is different. If you play a good game or get a little lucky either side can win, although I think the Entente has a small advantage (and it should), all in all it's prety well balanced as it is, if you tilt things in Mesopotamia or Romania tawards the Entente it might just ruin the whole game.

I think the Graphics are ok, as long as I can tell tanks from Zeppelins, forest from plains, the only problem I have is rough water, it could be a little rougher or possibley a diffrent blue, I sometimes have problems telling rough from calm, once a ship is moved it's too late.

That's an interesting idea, it would be a time saver.

A later invasion of Italy could be an interresting option, Italy gets no money, research or reinforcements when they don't enter the war, if things go well in Russia Austria can set up an invasion later in the war with level 2 infantry and artillery, against an almost nonexistant and outdated Italian army, if the French or British don't send in troops fast Italy could be quickly overrun. I havn't tried this, maybe someone out there has.

I'm getting ready to mount a huge offensive somewhere, lets see how many fronts have I got, ahhhh, ok it's just the one.

I have not yet played a game where it was still in doubt in 1918, I have 2 games running one of wich will go into 1918, but I will very likely loose that one, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Greece Holland, Belgium and Italy are all gone, German morale is mid 70's, and the French morale is 48, but I am not ready to surrender yet.

The Austrians giving the cities to Italy can be an interesting strategy as well, it takes the whole Italian army, navy, mmp's, and diplomacy chits away from the Entente, and allowes the Austrians to concentrate on Russia and Serbia, of course they have to deal with the morale problem, but all in all it's not a bad trade.

In the game I'm playing now as the Entente the US entered and were way below 100%, I don't remember how high it was but it was maximum 50%, I regulary erase old turns so I can't check it out, but I am playing with 1.03. I'm loosing very badly so I had been getting a little lazy and not watching the replays or paying much attention to diplomacy. So far all the games I have played the USA has entered in the summer of 1917, no matter what, most of those games were 1.02 though, the only diffrence I saw was the US income prior to entry, the time of entry was allways about the same.

Well I played a game where I managed to keep the US war readiness at 6% for the whole game, they joined the war in the summer of 1917 anyway, so I could have used unrestricted sub warfare to keep the German morale higher, and wasted MMP's on diplomacy directed at keeping them out. I don't know the exact date, it might be variable, but apparently the USA will enter the war in 1917 no matter what. I'm playing the Entente in another game now and am loosing very badly, and havn't been watching the replays, the USA joined without me even noticing it, don't know how long I've been ignoring them, they were somewhere around 30% or 40% at the time.

I played for a long time before realizing carriers can't operate air units in rough water. :eek:

This would save me from myself, I have a bad habit of forgetting ships and transports somewhere, a few turns later I remember that I had intended to move somthing somewhere, and there it is right where I left it, awaiting orders.

I too have allways felt that there should be better strategic movement for ships. It takes forever to get ships from point A to point B. I wanted to move my French fleet from the Med to the nort atlantic in the game I'm playing, by the time they got there the French were just about ready to surrender. Moving the British fleet any distance from Great Britan to fight u-boats leaves the home waters undefended for a very long time.

I wasn't being serious, Bastogne was supposed to be a wise crack I guess I should have put in a . Bastogne was a special situation, otherwise it's usualy not wise to get surrounded, the ability of an HQ to get supply when it's cut off is sometimes odd in this game.

I would like to suggest some kind of limit to the operational movement of air units, especialy short range aircraft, some of the present operational movements seem impossible, like the Germans operationaly moving me-109's from Germany to Iceland. In exchange the air units could get a function similar to forced march allowing them a double range change-base move. I would also support a heavier morale loss on forced marched units, but there should be some distictions: I don't think units defending should be heavily penalized, but it should be very difficult to attack on the turn following a forced march.

Global warming.

I like this idea, very good, it might lead people to spread out research not to loose too many mmp's, and if you do invest massive mmp's in one area, you pay for it. Great idea Baron.

Choose your words carefuly, it could be dangerous to life and limb to suggest any meddeling with the new research model, I think it's somthing like the Holy Grail of the SC community.

Bastogne........

Some interesting suggestions Dave, I just played a game where I got level 1 infantry just after reaching 25% (I had 5 chits invested) and I believe it was 3 turns later I got level 2, that should not be possible, the 35% level sounds like a good compromise. Annother possibility would be not to allow buying more than 1 chit in any particular techlology per turn, (trenches should be exempt from this).

It would appear that the vast majority doesn't want any adjustment of the new research system. Nothing left to chance. But that's ok, it is not a bad system at all, I can live with it the way it is, it deffinitely makes it easier to plan ahead. The old system was more exciting though.

Everything sounds great, and I do prefer the new system to the old, but after you reach 25% there is allways the chance of a breakthrough, why not also have the chance of a setback?

I too like the new research model much better than the old, I just think it could use a little bit more unpredictability. As it is now I can be pretty sure if I put this many chits in that area the advance will come in about this many turns. It's a little too predictable. The old system was totaly unpredictable, I didn't like that at all.

I agree, especialy with #5, knowing or not knowing this value would have a dramatic effect on strategy.