1914 Call to Arms - Game Balance

[Bill101]

Hi

I've been getting a feeling, which is backed up by recent feedback, that Germany could do with a higher at start National Morale total.

Currently she starts with 45,000 NM points, and I am thinking of raising that to 50,000.

However, before doing so I would like to here your thoughts on this, especially if you are someone who plays as the Central Powers and thinks that it's quite easy for them to win.

Are there master strategies which others should follow?

Alternatively, given its potential to raise German National Morale, is a wider use of unrestricted naval warfare the answer?

Thanks

Bill

[xwormwood]

Bill, i would go with your suggestion regarding the unrestricted naval warfare.

This way the USA has a chance to get in the war as well.

A win - win in terms of game balance.

[Bill101]

Ah, what I mean is not to change anything to do with unrestricted naval warfare, but more to encourage its use, as it's a way of boosting German National Morale.

This depends of course on the extent to which Central Powers' players are or aren't currently using unrestricted naval warfare.

[Ancient Demon]

I support raising the starting morale for Germany, and for Russia as well.

[Ancient Demon]

Another thing to consider, is to have more decisions where a country can sacrifice production for morale gain (there's already a decision like this, but maybe it's too little).

[Wodin]

Unrestricted Submarine warfare should be extremely tempting for Germany to take the risk, under the assumption that the NM boost will give them more time and moral boost to win the war before the Americans join in.

Or if the Germans are struggling with NM than it should be seen as a massive NM boost that would give them more time to either win or if in trouble last long enough for peace terms favourable. Not sure if peace terms are in game but it could be an extra end game state, where the computer works out who will have the favourable terms in the treaty, however the player shouldn't know for sure so the workings need to be under the hood and take in many factors so no one can fully preempt it. It would be worded like neihter side has victory and Peace terms are signed. Peace terms favour Central powers or entente. This would mean there is always a chance to drag something out or limit the loss. It would alos give a nail biting finale as the computer works out who gets the favoruable terms turning a stalemate into something exciting it would also I think if done right give hope that the peace talks and stalemate come into effect especially if the player knows he is coming towards the end of his power he could bluff the other player into peace talks and then hope he gets the favourable outcome.

Just a thought.

[OneRing]

It really depends also on how much historical accuracy you want. Unrestricted submarine warfare was not very effective in reality. German submarines were more successful just using prize rules. The biggest game changer was the number of u-boats used, not unrestricted sumarine warfare, which was in the end a rather stupid move because it pretty much ensured US entrance on the side of an almost broken entente.

Therefore the effects on the British MPP production are somewhat exaggerated or to be more precise the effects of normal u-boat raids are rather underestimated. NM boosts are, of course, on par with the historical development. I do not like the use of unrestricted sumarinbe warfare for historical reasons. In my Ostaufmarsch Solo-Campaign I did not use it until the USA entered the war. Now it does indeed help to stop the freefall of the German morale and enlarges the gap between the UK and Germany again.

I think it would also be nice to get another chance for sending the Zimmermann telegram after the US entered the war. After all the UK gets another opportunity to get the USa involved in the war with the Preparedness Movement.

[Bill101]

I think it would also be nice to get another chance for sending the Zimmermann telegram after the US entered the war.

That's an interesting thought. I'll have a think about this as the effect of doing so couldn't be the same once the USA is in the war.

[Cerberus1775]

Considering the British intercepted and held the original Zimmmerman in their back pocket, a second should have a very low and circuitous route to get to Mexico. From what I can remember the Germans never realized that all their overseas cable traffic was going through British owned cables.

[Cerberus1775]

I have followed a somewhat historical strategy when I have played the CP. Grab as much as I can in France/Belgium and then dig, dig, dig. Attacks are local backed up by lots and lots of artillery and air support. Send enough help to the Turks to keep them wheezing along, and set reachable offensive goals for two sets of offensives a year in Russia. The Austrians defend the frontier vs the Russians and Italians with German help. Then the Austrians dogpile the Serbs. The fleets never sail (But do defend the North German plain). Build submarines like rabbits breed.

A few things I do that the AI dosent. If it cant be reached in one turn of normal movement I dont garrison it except for the Med ports. Even then I am using single divisions and not Corps.

I take a long view with the CP. I am on the defensive in the West with the ability to slam any Anglo - French offensives. In Russia I am the turtle that turns into the two ton steamroller. Once Serbia falls its Italy's turn. Once Northern Italy is cleared the soft underbelly of France is exposed and thats endgame for the Anglo- French.

I myself have never had a problem with the NM of the CP but I also dont try to play like I am commanding Panzer armies either.

[Peter Palchinsky]

Cerberus, you say you don't move your fleets, but do you bait and smash the Russian Baltic fleet at least? Also, at what rate are you purchasing subs?

PP

[Peter Palchinsky]

That's an interesting thought. I'll have a think about this as the effect of doing so couldn't be the same once the USA is in the war.

Also Bill, the original intent was for Zimmerman to contact Mexico and then have them approach the Japanese. If Mexico joins CP, then what about an outside chance the Japanese join CP so US (and Brit?) navy would be reduced?

[Cerberus1775]

Cerberus, you say you don't move your fleets, but do you bait and smash the Russian Baltic fleet at least? Also, at what rate are you purchasing subs?

PP

Only if the Russians poke their noses into the area of southern Sweden - East Prussia line. The German Navy is a NM egg with a hammer. To small to fight the Anglo-French and when the Russians do eventually show up dogpile them with everything you have at hand. As their navy is that egg with a hammer even more so than the Imperial Navy.

Subs are bought as MPP allow. Subs are first choices to new purchase until limit reached, then invest in research. A level 3 or better sub is a shark in a fish tank if the Anglo-French havent invested in ASW. Even then I am happy to do two or three points damage to a cruiser or capital ship if it means that I have to turn around and retreat back to port to fix damage.

It costs much more to fix a capital ship than a sub, ( and NM cost), until you get to extremes on the scale.

The Austro Hungarians and Turks can also help if they have MMP to spare. A sub or two lose in the Med can cause all sorts of headaches.

Also remember that I am playing a very limited game and maximizing my chances before every offensive in the east. While at the same time only attacking in the west when I have to. Even then I am taking Falkenhiem to his extreme and being happy to kill soldiers in open ground with firepower than expend my soldiers lives to retake it until the Anglo-French have exhausted themselves.

This leaves me with a bit more MMP than most players I believe. (I could be wrong, being married I am used to it.) Like I said I am applying maximum violence, not maximum speed.

Edited to clarify thoughts

[OneRing]

Considering the British intercepted and held the original Zimmmerman in their back pocket, a second should have a very low and circuitous route to get to Mexico. From what I can remember the Germans never realized that all their overseas cable traffic was going through British owned cables.

What I am talking about was that if the CP have never sent the Zimmermann telegram (decided against it before the US war entry) that they get a second chance to do so for the first time after the US entered the war. After all the UK also gets another way of bringing the US into the war,, if the CP do not engage in USW.

[Cerberus1775]

What I am talking about was that if the CP have never sent the Zimmermann telegram (decided against it before the US war entry) that they get a second chance to do so for the first time after the US entered the war. After all the UK also gets another way of bringing the US into the war,, if the CP do not engage in USW.

I can see that. But go back to the point that the Germans were sending their overseas cables through British owned cables.

I will argue that the preparedness movement entry is tied to debt owned by US banks and industrialists. The US was moving toward joining the war, it was just what cause would look the best and give the best excuse.

[OneRing]

I can see that. But go back to the point that the Germans were sending their overseas cables through British owned cables.

I do not want an immediate success, just the 25 % chance the CP get when they try it before the US enters the war. Or are you arguing that the CP should not get a chance to send the Zimmermann telegram at all?

I will argue that the preparedness movement entry is tied to debt owned by US banks and industrialists. The US was moving toward joining the war, it was just what cause would look the best and give the best excuse.

To reiterate: Before the US entered the war, they had not given out any unsecured loans. All British and French debt was backed up by collateral. Only in early 1917 the UK was running out of collateral and thus had to rely on unsecured loans which the US was very reluctant to give before the war entry changed everything. Therefore British debt to US banks and industialists was due to collateral a non-issue and the threat of a British default was not a reason to enter the war.

You can argue that the US had an economical reason to enter the war, namely that their economy was dependent on the exports to the UK (and France). And without the ability to give the UK unsecured loans (which would not be an option as long as the US was unable to secure the UK's ability to repay those by entering the war itself) the US economy would lose most of those export. That leaves only two options: force the UK to allow trade with the CP or else enter the war on the entente side. When I look at what Strachan has written on the subject I think that a US entry was not a given. There were certainly those who favoured it, but there was also significant resistance against unsecured loans for Britain and a US entry into the war.

[Bill101]

Also Bill, the original intent was for Zimmerman to contact Mexico and then have them approach the Japanese. If Mexico joins CP, then what about an outside chance the Japanese join CP so US (and Brit?) navy would be reduced?

I had to deliberately leave Japan out of the equation, because the Zimmermann option isn't time based, but solely based on the USA's mobilization level.

So it could come after the Japanese Destroyers have arrived in the Med, and this would be more problematical.

I also thought that as Japan was an active ally in the war, that it would have been rather unlikely to leave the war against Germany, and switch sides to attack the USA. But it's an aspect of the whole affair that is generally poorly covered because it never got to that stage.