Glabro

It's a good idea, because Germany's war industry was nowhere near ready and I think that it was only in ´44 that Albert Speer hammered through "Totaler Krieg", harnessing the entire power of Germany for the war effort. Hence, growing industry (besides researching Industrial Production) is a good idea.

I haven't actually done that research so that I could give you an accurate answer, I just thought to mention that it's a concern when using historical OOBs on one side and game-generated income on the other.

Good news Cantona, are you also making sure that German MPP earnings are in line with the historical OOBs in 1941? Because it might be that if germany's production ability is lower than was true in history, unit scripts according to OoBs might be problematic.

I suppose those would be limited to Str 5 then, but with very high SA values, would work like Partisans, just better, correct? This could work if the default unit size is corps.

Yes, that's what I'm going to do, just corps with army level stats and detachments, as you say. But I don't see why Special Forces need to be lower strength? They simulate SS corps and similar, not "commando" style units, correct?

Hmm, I'm not feeling it, especially with those numbers and those defense values. Unit destruction is a dramatic thing, the unit either becomes "combat ineffective" if in supply or scattered if out of supply. But in what kind of situations did that happen historically outside encirclement? Someone with more knowledge should answer. The main difference between corps and army as organizational units was that the army would cover a wider area (with corps), I don't necessarily see a difference in depth. It's a bit problematic in a game like this with two different unit scales both occupying the same area. I'd probably go with corps only (with army stats) and have the former corps units as indenpendent light divisions for scouting, maneuvering and occupying..essentially perform the role of cavalry from WW1. The problem with lower max strength is that the unit operates reinforces to full strength even in low supply conditions. Perhaps this is acceptable for such fast units? Maybe I'd cap both them and garrisons at 8.

Then what is the problem these people are having with Baku, Grozny etc? Anyway, fair point about German culture, but I since he was responding to a Canadian, that's what I assumed. It seems that often Americans like to say that they defended their homeland from there when in fact they were saving Europe from foreign domination / influence, mainly Russian! That includes us in Finland, too - after repelling the Soviet Great Offensive coinciding with Overlord, the Soviets shifted their troops to the German front instead to make it before the Western Allies, signing an Armistice in Finland...so the US helped an Axis ally "win" in a way. Anyway, I think going to die for others might be even more noble than for your own home, so I'm not belittling the US effort.

But it sounds like this is not meant for Multiplayer play, which at this point is all I care about. Why not just have the Siberian reserves appear near the Urals (Perm or something), and let the Soviet player march or operate them from there? Why make them appear magically in the front lines? I dislike garrison scripts that trigger on proximity. Any newly built divisions can be handled by purchasing them normally or having a "Kitchener's Army" type event.

Are you suggesting a German invasion of North America? This is not realistic. Where did you get the idea that USA or even Canada was ever in peril? Even the UK was a long shot in the best circumstances.

Another question: instead of build limits, could we have a manpower pool that units drain? This has more relevance for WW2, but for example, an "army" could drain 3 points of manpower, a tank corps 2, and so on. Placing restrictions on equipment based on historical production values is not really that effective when things such as oil or ball bearing shortages were a direct result of the fortunes of war. Perhaps another suggestion: could capturing oil increase your quotas of war machines? This would make them the strategic focus points they really were.

This is very true, if there are no special mechanics for counter-battery fire in that it might prevent the attacking arty from supporting the infantry's attack. But if what happens is that the enemy arty just loses a tiny bit of readiness, it doesn't really make sense to use that, it's true.

Hubert, why is there no counter-battery fire? Or if there is, it will never happen because the range for arty is 2 - no way two opposing artys are within that distance in a battle line.

Agreed. The russian front's occupation problem can at least be somewhat resolved manually with house rules: all units that "beam" should simply use rail transport to the west front and not Forced March. Garrisons can also be maintained, 1 detachment per "border" town or city and 1 corps per capital should be enough.

Mostly because of the mountains and the logistics of transporting. But again, the main reason is because Italy is an optional event, and we're trying to make that event more interesting and balanced. We're still repeating ourselves, though...

I still don't understand the exact mechanics of Unrestricted Naval Warfare. Can someone explicitly point out the mechanics, because "the ports might close down and they might lose a lot of MPPs" doesn't really help. The UK loses a lot of MPPs if I close down the convoy routes with 10-ish subs already - what else does the UK lose from UNW?

I couldn't disagree more, and that's not an argument for or against Italian / Austrian national objectives. You said it yourself, it would be a straightjacket to make the game like that - then why do you argue for it? If it's a bad idea, just don't do it. And no, that doesn't suddenly invalidate the Italy argument because it's completely separate from this. I know this type of argumenting had a name for it, I just forget what. "If X would be done, then Y and Z need to be done as well, and that's a bad idea. Hence X is a bad idea". That logic doesn't follow. PLUS eliminating Serbia is a big deal for A-H for the entire war. Ignoring it means problems later on.

Agreed with Ivanov. But the option (probably) won't hurt. What could work is a "reinforce to maximum" option below the normal "reinforce" option on a unit per unit basis without the reinforcing screen popping up. (Perhaps a pop up like the ones that come up with operating and transporting : "Maximally reinforce this unit with X MPPs?"

Well, more options on the table can never be a bad thing. It all depends on how well the Ottomans are doing, IMHO - if they've been able to hold on to all of Palestine, then sure...

Well, we're not really adding anything new to the discussion. I believe Italy shouldn't become the Entente's special reinforcement reserve straight away with no objectives of their own (and shouldn't be on equal standing with the other majors in this respect of freedom of choice) - the choice to transfer them to other fronts only becomes interesting if there is something to lose by doing that. I don't believe the "you can just attack them" argument is that, however - at least not in the context I'm talking about (Serbian front still open, west and east fronts active etc.) So let's give it a rest until someone has something new to add. The arguments have been laid out and Hubert and Bill will decide based on those.

I have to disagree with that solution. If you don't want Italian troops in other fronts, just hand over Trento and Trieste. But we're talking about balancing the option of getting Italy involved. And pray tell where do you "just" get the 5 corps and a hq to carry out an offensive against Italy all of a sudden? where do you take them away and operate them (for 230+ mpps) - the west front, east front or the Serbian Front? And no, it's not like the concept of National Objectives is anything new. Verdun is a NM, Przemysl is one. It's as if you're advocating removing these. And yes, Italy can be a special case because unlike others, you have a choice of whether to bring them into the war. And frankly, unless you're planning on carrying out that assault into Italy, there's no reason to get it involved when thinking about it in the "larger scale." However, in the national scale of Austria-Hungary, it wasn't so easy historically - so it was a selfish act to get Italy involved. So maybe the resulting war could be more "selfish" as well.

There really is no need for that. Italy is neither lucrative or defenseless enough to warrant opening up another front just for that. If Russia is dead, beating France means game over. Any "extra creds" could be stolen from Britain by assisting the Ottomans, I think.

Oh yeah....a nightmare in Serbia, with Italian armies entering there...I didn't even think about that. In my last game I sent a full complement of 5 corps and HQ there to relieve the entire southern flank of the French line (the Belfort-Nancy line). But yes, I had first targeted the A-H navy with a joint assault and then guarded the ports with detachments and ships, where a detachment wasn't required (some are accessible only from one sea area). Interesting debate, by the way, much more refined than what you'd get at other games' forums. The same can be said about the gamers themselves - I haven't had to worry about unexplained disappearances mid game - although none of my campaigns 5-6 so far have gone the distance, it's because my opponent has conceded gracefully at some point, and I've accepted.

No, actually the idea is that the choice is simple every time: don't get Italy involved. To me at least. But I misclicked in my current campaign and got Italy involved, catastrophically. Oops. And yeah, perhaps if you're done with Serbia and want to mount and offensive against Italy, the perhaps it might make sense to allow them to join. But then you're doing REALLY well as CP anyway, and it's a risky move - why not hold out against Russia and later mount a campaign there? I should mention that I usually go for Russia First in my games, so I'm talking from that standpoint. What I'm trying to say is that the overall strategic situation and national war goals are entirely two different things. In the real war, Italians cared much more about their own gains than defending foreign soil for a "noble cause". In my mind at least, they weren't looking for a Casus Belli just to go to defend France - they didn't need that. Italy has always been about trying to come out ahead diplomatically or territorially in the World Wars. Later on in the war, ensuring an Entente victory became important, because an overall defeat of the CP ensures they get the territory in the aftermath. Yes, we are in overall command of all nations, but the scenario should ensure that nationalistic aims and independent acts are encouraged in favour of operating as one great "hive mind" for the common good. The cities may be irrelevant to the Entente war plan, but they're not irrelevant to Italy, and they're not thinking about peace treaties in early 1915 when all is in the air.

The very reason Italy went to war had a lot to do with those cities, so making them completely redundant is not a good solution. And what happens in 1918 is completely different from early 1915, as the aims and outcomes of the war have changed so much. However, initially Trento and Trieste should be the goal. Attacking Italy in early 1915 is a nice theory, but in practice this is very difficult to accomplish due to the terrain and the demands of other fronts. Plus operating costs MPPs.

Oh, I meant the Russian front. Very hard to break through those passes even in the best case.