Game Balance - 1914 Call to Arms

[Bill101]

Good points all round and I am implementing things into the campaign that will hopefully address most issues, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how the changes impact on the campaign in the Caucasus.

There are quite a few things to be tested on our end, including an idea to give the Arab revolt a bit more oomph, and I'll take a look at Karaman in Turkey.

I'd also like to say thanks for all the feedback, it's impressive and very useful indeed!

[Glabro]

The problem isn't just Karaman, it's the supply model.

[Bill101]

This is somthing that needs some looking at, I have often landed a British unit in Karaman (Southern Turkey) on the same turn the Ottomans enter the war, then entrench on the next turn. This unit cuts the rail link between Turkey and all of their posessions in the mid-east. The Turks are very hard pressed to take it out, I was often able to reinforce the unit to 8 factors, there is no port there and no way to get a realistic amount of suppiles to it. There must truly be somthing wrong with the supply system, in one game he held out till 1918!

The worst thing about it is that it has now happened to me! :eek: Now somthing needs to be done about this!

Hi Sharkman

Historically, the British spent much of the war considering a landing in this area because they saw, like you, the impact on Ottoman communications and supply in the Middle East that such a landing would have.

Leaving the historic background to one side, before I start implementing any solutions, can I ask if this is happening in games against the AI or in multiplayer?

I can see how the resupply is an issue, but Railguns, Airships and Bombers can all reduce the supply of a resource and if used right could make this strategy a painful one for the perpetrator. The only problem for the Ottomans being that they don't tend to have these weapons early on.

Landing the unit near Karaman costs over 100 MPPs, and I wonder if were there a possibility of finding an enemy unit already at the target location whether it would change your decision to invest in this move?

[Kommandant]

I normaly land the brit unit to harrass ottoman rail system, but when i play with CP, i just leave an unit there, rather than alexandria, so it would be needed a major operation to take the town.

[Sharkman]

Hi Sharkman

Historically, the British spent much of the war considering a landing in this area because they saw, like you, the impact on Ottoman communications and supply in the Middle East that such a landing would have.

Leaving the historic background to one side, before I start implementing any solutions, can I ask if this is happening in games against the AI or in multiplayer?

I can see how the resupply is an issue, but Railguns, Airships and Bombers can all reduce the supply of a resource and if used right could make this strategy a painful one for the perpetrator. The only problem for the Ottomans being that they don't tend to have these weapons early on.

Landing the unit near Karaman costs over 100 MPPs, and I wonder if were there a possibility of finding an enemy unit already at the target location whether it would change your decision to invest in this move?

I have actualy done this several times against real people, the problem is that most people don't seem to expect a landing there, yes it costs a lot of money and there could be a unit there, I allways garrison that town, in my current game I wasted a corps there for a very long time, moved him to Palestine and BOOM my opponent landed there, very frustrating. You mentioned Artillery, rail guns and bombers, when the Turks enter the war none of these are available to them and as long as Serbia has not surrendered no forces from other countries will be arriving. Without help the Turks are very hard pressed to take that unit out, I assume I will get him pretty quick, my Ottomans have 2 artillery units. My main point is this: in at least 2 games my opponents have surrounded that unit, attacking from at least 4 sides (no artillery or bombers) reducing the unit to 3 or 4 factors, next turn I could reinforce it up to 6 or 8 factors, where are those reinforcements comming from?

I have done similar landings in other citys in southern Turkey and various citys in the mid-east, the Ottomans can't possibly garrison all coastal towns and still fight a war elswhere, I have also landed Russians in northern Turkey, like I said the Ottomans can't be everywhere. It is expensive, but it costs much much more to take them out. Like I said how can these forces get reinforcements with no port, it would take another expensive amphibious landing to get more troops in there, but reinforcing these units costs nothing but the regular reinforcement costs.

One soultion which I have brought up is allowing the construction of more detachments in exchange for less corps, with a few more detachments the Turks could at least garrison the really important coastal towns, annother possibility would be making garrisons available in this scenario.

Above all somthing should be done to prevent reinforcing a completly cut off unit, even if it is in a town, or at least to make that kind of reinforcement very expensive, is this case it would require an amphibious landing, so reinforcement should include the amphibious transportation costs. Of course there should be a diffrence between being cut off in a freindly city and cut off in an enemy city.

[Bill101]

Ok, thanks, I've made a number of changes that will provide the Ottomans with a bit more protection in this area.

[Rabelesius]

Excellent. I am really eager to see the patch. I suggest you share the patch notes beforehand with us to have some initial feedback (of course, it will be diverse but at least it's something we can discuss and who does not like discussing on the internet!).

[Kommandant]

Excellent. I am really eager to see the patch. I suggest you share the patch notes beforehand with us to have some initial feedback (of course, it will be diverse but at least it's something we can discuss and who does not like discussing on the internet!).

It's just for us to stay like "OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG! I WANT THE PATCH, NOW! NOOOOW!" I kind of hate that, but please, do it, it's just my opinion

[Bill101]

At the moment it needs to have some testing done because I've spent a lot of time on scripts relating to various things and if they don't work properly then the details of what they relate to could well change quite significantly, so nearer the time for release it might be more appropriate.

[Ludi1867]

Call to Arms Victory Conditions – the need for 'Stalemate'

In an earlier post I commented that I had found this scenario pretty balanced. I just completed an epic PBEM game with Cpl Steiner. I ended up 'losing' this game, but I think the actual results of the game strongly suggest the need for a 'stalemate' conclusion in some situations.

A bit of background first. Most games of this scenario that I have played end sometime in the summer of 1917, and it is generally pretty clear who the eventual winner would be in any case. In other words, the losing side is generally retreating while the winner is advancing.

This game continued well into 1918, ending suddenly in July. The end came with Russia surrendered, French National Morale at 04% and Germany just touching zero NM as it advanced into France...the game ended the turn after Germany captured Verdun, in fact. It would seem reasonable to argue that if the game had continued that the Central Powers would have triumphed, as only German NM was low. A quick overview of the stats indicates that German surrender happened not when Germany was retreating, but when the Entente was desperately holding on. When the game ended, there were 64 German land units, a German navy almost as large as the RN (and arguably in better shape), and a much larger and more advanced German air force. France was clinging to life with 12 land units (most of the front line was held by British units, with Italian units starting to arrive to fill gaps). There were 32 British land units, a number of which were in the Middle East...and Turkish morale was the highest in the game at 98. AH morale was still above 50, at 56. Italian morale was also pretty good, at 62, although the AH was starting to break out onto the Italian plain. (Both Italian Heavy Artillery batteries had gone to France).

Now, there is no doubt that German NM reached zero first, ahead of the French (have I mentioned how skilful and devious Cpl Steiner is? Darn good player). However, in a situation where one Entente major power has surrendered and a second (France) is in single digits, AND Germany was advancing (Nancy was in a good position to fall when the game ended, and Belfort might have fallen that turn, or the turn after that at latest, and Verdun was captured the turn before Germany surrendered) it seems incongruous that Germany would suddenly surrender.

German losses had been high – 89 of the 108 Central Power land units lost were German. But Entente losses were very high as well. Russia had lost 85 land units (and all of its navy) before surrendering. Altogether there were 172 Entente land units destroyed to only 108 for the Central Powers. At sea 27 Entente ships sank to 20 for the Central Powers, and in the air there had been 5 Entente units destroyed to only 1 for the Central Powers.

Now, I am not saying I should have won this game (although it really could have gone either way with existing rules, with French morale as low as it was). BUT I would argue that having a nation automatically surrender when it reaches zero is, perhaps, a little too arbitrary.

I would suggest that a 'stalemate' victory condition should be established for this scenario. Arguably, it IS a balanced scenario, and a stalemate should be possible...especially when the nation that reaches zero NM is ADVANCING.

Reviewing the actual history, Germany only agreed to an armistice when her armies were in clear retreat and her allies were collapsing. No allies were anywhere close to collapsing in this game, and that should be part of the criteria.

I would suggest the following:

A nation that reaches zero NM when no part of its original home starting territory is occupied, and where the morale of its Allies is >50, and it's opponents has had one major power surrender and a second major power has NM in single digits would result in a negotiated peace or stalemate.

I think that the designers of this game have indeed achieved a very balanced result, but this is not reflected in the victory conditions, which can have awkward and incongruous results if a game is, in fact, very close.

[xwormwood]

I like the direction of your suggestion, Ludi1867.

Maybe a couple of new Decision Events could help.

Asking the players with low NM to offer peace talks.

And if the other side denies, than the asking country could get a little NM bonus.

Or asking the player to beg for peace talks (just like the CP powers finaly did) or to win the game in x turns, ignoring NM for all countries from this point on (last offensive, high gamble for ultimate victory or unconditional surrender).

All in all it would at least feel better to lose a game if the player would get like a dozen of historical pictures, speeches or text information once he reaches dangerous low NM values (Reichstag demands the end of the bloody war, General xyz got shot by unknown people while visiting his home town). Anything would help, that makes you understand that the ship will soon sink, the house is on fire, the end of everything you have known is ahead.

A to sudden game end feels not right, you remain puzzled, maybe even feeling a bit betrayed.

On the other hand, well, i guess thats what many germans felt when their leaders asked for an armistice while still stand far into their enemies countries.

[Sharkman]

I had a similar game although I was on the winning side for a change (doesn't happen very often), my French were in terrible shape and the Germans were actualy in very good shape, and the Austrians were doing great, but the German NM was falling faster than the French. The Germans reached 0 about 2 or 3 turns earlier than the French would have. I had almost completly pulled the French out of the front line to avoid NM losses. It could have gone either way. But that's the way it goes, I think it's ok the way it is, I guess the internal order in Germany just collapsed a few days before it did in France.

I had thought about the possiblility of allowing players to buy NM points (beyond the 25 mmps), this would simulate massive police actions and induatrial capacity used to placate the angry population. This would of course mostly help the Germans and the Russians, but that might balance itself out. I could imagine that the Germans might have thrown their entire economy into the NM just to stay in the war a little longer, of course the French would have probably done the same. I think it is an interesting idea because as the NM gets lower the NM expenditure gets higher, kind of makes sense.

[Peter Palchinsky]

Ludi, it sounds to me that you focused on Russia first, not Belgium and France. If so, you had 0% NM mostly because of the blockade, right? Were you able to interrupt the blockade with your fleet, or perhaps you didn't have an aggressive enough u-boat/raider campaign to counter it's effect.

Anyway, I've had similar results against the AI when I tried a strategy of not antagonizing the USA, not realizing till later that they enter the war about the same time no matter Germany's strategy. In my game the blockade killed Germany, but AH's NM was about the same as it usually is. Maybe the blockade is not balanced. If left uninterrupted, should it have a decisive result regardless the military situation? Bill knows best how the point system works, so I'd ask him how long it would take for Germany's NM to reach zero if only the blockade is turned on. I bet it's pretty quick without the expected counter points from occupying key terrain, destroying units, interrupting Britain's supply lines, and forcing countries to surrender. However, historically in 1918 Germany was close to starvation while launching initially "successful operations" that may have succeeded in reaching Paris if used more effectively to destroy French armies, not British. If so, surely Ludi is correct to believe Germany would have continued the war in his game regardless of the blockade. The current method of rewarding points might take too long to accumulate, or the blockade should not be decisive on it's own, but be limited to how far it can reduce German NM.

Of course when we talk about "balance" we only have the historical outcome to use as a reference point; we don't know what really would have happened if Germany went east instead of west. Would Britain have been able to declare war as soon as it did without the invasion of Belgium? I believe Britain would have provided economic aid to the Entente, but could not have conducted a blockade. Surely, the politicians would have eventually found a casus belli, but it might have been 1915 or longer if Germany were seen as the defender against Russian aggression instead.

My point is that each game that digresses from history is liable to have strategic balance issues no matter the fixes because it is a pseudo-strategic game system. To fix a lot of the strategic type of balance problems would either have players repeat history as much as possible in order not to suffer seemingly pointless outcomes, OR to make the game more flexible by using more DEs with additional possible scenarios. What if the game began with a DE for the Russian player, who historically held the initiative, to decide whether to support Serbia in July 1914 or to wait and see if the Serbs can hold out through the winter and allow Russia to secretly mobilize until it felt prepared to attack AH and/or Germany? Otherwise the Russian player chooses to attack AH and/or Germany. If you like digressing from history you may find this interesting, but clearly this is complicated and leads to many outcomes. An alternative start is a DE asking the German player whether to follow through with the Schlieffen Plan (as the general staff wanted), OR to go east (as the Kaiser wanted) and suffer lack of surprise and a mobilized France in the rear. If the latter, then perhaps a different point system takes into account that Germany will gain the morale advantage of not appearing as an aggressor. Again, these strategic level decisions are difficult to work into SC.

I haven't seen much interest in these type of discussions on the forum, but would still like to pose a what-if scenario: if the Kaiser had his way would Germany have lasted as long as it did historically? According to the current game system Germany would be defeated much sooner because the points from the blockade accumulate quickly if Germany is not an aggressive SOB and launches a WWII style fight on it's neighbors. To me that's the main imbalance because it's not a balance of power struggle as WWI started out to be, but a life or death WWII game system that's been modified for refighting WWI battles. Therefore, digression can't be rewarded under the current game system, so players will continue to see "imbalances" when they don't follow history, and it would take a monumental effort to insert enough flexibility to allow serious digressions at the strategic level.

Does anyone have a different perspective on ahistorical strategic decisions and how well SC should accommodate them or not? There is a Patton goes East engine, so anyone up for a Germany goes East scenario for WWI with it's own point system?

PP

[Ludi1867]

Interesting comments, X, Shark and Peter.

I am surprised I didn't think of the DE event that X suggests, but that might be an elegant way to allow for a stalemate conclusion to the game.

I guess I have to elaborate a little to address Peter's comments. I think Peter is right to suggest that the blockade was probably the nail in Germany's NM coffin. However, Peter is wrong – quite wrong – about the USA. And that means I have to discuss that elephant just outside the room, the US and its prep for war.

The US did NOT enter the war I discussed in my original post. Germany only used one U-boat to attack shipping (until Cpl Steiner quite decisively killed it), and most certainly did not adopt unrestricted warfare. The blockade appears to have been aggressively adopted at the outset of the war. I would agree that I was probably mistaken not to attack the blockade more aggressively earlier (the German fleet was en route an attack on the blockade when the game so abruptly ended). However, my efforts to keep from irritating the US appear to have been somewhat successful. On the other hand, the aggressive blockade only appears to have irritated the US ONCE, which is not very often. I suspect that this may have been because the Entente began lobbying the US diplomatically early in the war, but I cannot confirm this (Cpl Steiner and I have not done a complete dissection of the war, so I am making hypothesis regarding his dip moves). However, as evidence for the dip efforts I would provide occasional dip hits promoting US prep for war by the Entente. Early in the war I made Holland my main dip objective for the CP, and Holland was still neutral, aligned toward Germany when the war ended. In 1918 I shifted 5 German dip chits from Holland to the US. This was extremely expensive – 1000 MPP for Germany, as well as sacrificing the 250 MPP already spent on Holland. But I judged that keeping the US neutral was critical at this point in the game. Ultimately,US prep for war seemed to stop advancing at 67%. There were NO decreases in US prep for war, but having the US not enter was very important as well. I would argue that the US NOT entering was quite reasonable given the extreme measures Germany and the CP took to avoid provoking the US. Indeed, the very aggressive stance of the Entente through the blockade should arguably have had MORE impact in reducing US prep for war, or even tilting the US toward Germany. (I did not send the Zimmerman telegram either. The only time I have seen it successfully used – ironically by Cpl Steiner in a losing cause! - it did have a dramatic impact on US prep for war. But its chance of success is pretty low, and I am not usually that lucky).

The blockade is an enormously complex subject. It is interesting to read accounts of the blockade effort, and realize how much it affected the US. Indeed, if Germany had not used submarines to attack merchant shipping, especially unrestricted attacks but even just commerce attacks in general, as submarines lacked the capacity to conduct true cruiser warfare, it is difficult to see how the US could have become as aggressive toward the CP as it did historically.

Since basically ALL games start to become alternative history after about three or four turns (in my view, anyway), it does seem that getting the blockade right for alternative history is important. At present it appears that the blockade and German action choices have been tuned so that the US has a chance of remaining neutral. However, I would suggest that perhaps more tuning is needed. I would suggest that each and every submarine attack on shipping routes have the same chance of upsetting the US as the blockade does. If the CP elects to adopt unrestricted submarine warfare, each and every CP attack should have an immediate impact raising US prep for war (ie regular submarine attacks only have a chance to affect relations with the US, but unrestricted attacks automatically cause diplomatic damage.). I would also suggest that this should be calculated INDEPENDENTLY of diplomatic efforts - that is, the probability of naval activities, either Entente or CP, causing US prep for war to move up or down should be calculated before diplomatic efforts are calculated. I am not sure if this is even possible – I have never been that good at programming – but I really think that the two activities are so different that they should be calculated separately.

After discussing the US, I think Peter's other ideas really relate to different scenarios. There is certainly a case to be made for the points he is making, but they so dramatically change the 'Call to Arms' scenario that they deserve to be addressed on their own in separate scenarios.

Anyway, just to reiterate, I am NOT trying to say I should have won the war I had with Cpl Steiner – I am just saying that a war that endures as long as ours did should at least have the possibility of a negotiated peace outcome. This is different than the historical end to the war, but in an alternate universe where Germany forgoes unrestricted submarine warfare, etc, it does not seem all that unreasonable. I think the DE suggested by X might be the most elegant way to introduce the possibility.

[Peter Palchinsky]

I think you are correct, Ludi; the blockade should have an effect on US mobilization. However, my understanding is that there is zero or almost negligible effect, but Bill could confirm this. If the effect is zero, then it seems you'd agree that a change is needed. I think there should be an effect so that a German player could reasonably expect the US to remain neutral if it doesn't adopt unrestricted submarine warfare. Such a course allows Britain to gain greater strength in the short term, but if the goal is a neutral US, then one should be prepared for this side effect. In the longterm, it seems Britain should see declining economic aid from the US. Of course, diplomacy and military effects could upset this calculus too.

PP

[Bill101]

To answer Peter's question I've just been taking a look at the scripts and if the blockade is imposed in full, i.e. every single trigger point is used, it would inflict 290 National Morale point losses on Germany per turn.

If nothing else happened during the game, this would take 156 turns to reduce Germany into submission.

The USA has a 2% chance per turn the blockade is imposed, no matter how much or how little, of complaining, and this would swing the US 1-2% away from joining the Entente.

It may be that this isn't enough and the % chance can be increased.

Though I've just had another idea relating to Germany's National Morale that might be worth considering.

At the moment there are National Morale penalties to Germany if Holland isn't pro-Central Powers and neutral.

What is lacking is a National Morale bonus to Germany when this is the case, and this would offset the blockade more while also raising the importance of imports via a neutral Holland, thus making diplomatic efforts by both sides in Holland probably the most important of the game.

[Bill101]

To clarify regarding Ludi's post, the results of diplomatic efforts are worked out independently of events that could affect it, such as the blockade or unrestricted attacks.

As to the Victory Conditions, they work on a "first past the post" system and while I agree that taking into account other factors could make them feel more correct, at the same time the current set of Victory Conditions are rather complicated to work through so adding in extra factors will take some careful thought.

One thing that is a bit hard to take into account is the ebb and flow of battle, i.e. whether someone is retreating or advancing at a certain point in time. We can have something that takes into account the control of a location, e.g. if the Germans hold Verdun, but if the frontline crosses the frontier so that the French hold some of Germany while the Germans hold some French territory, it could get a bit messy. Plus the situation in the east would need to be taken into account.

I'll give this some thought, but a simpler solution might be to introduce a Score like we used to have at the end of SC1, so that while Cpl Steiner would be shown as the victor, the score would show that it was a very close run thing indeed, and far from being a clear cut victory.

[Sharkman]

Bill

I like the score idea, although some times I would rather take a simple loss than to know the score was 5 to 500 or somthing like that.

What do you think about allowing players to devote more industry to raise NM levels? I think it would mostly benefit Germany and Russia because they usualy still have lots of mmps when they hit 0 NM, but I think it could be interesting. I think this would help the Russians simulate efforts to fight the internal unrest while trying to still fight the war, the same really goes for any other country with low NM levels. You are forced to spend more and more money just to stay in the war a little longer, reducing of course your ability to reinforce the troops on the front.

[Sharkman]

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?

[Peter Palchinsky]

Bill, thanks for your feedback. I like the score system you mention and the suggested NM change with regards Holland. I'm glad to hear about the blockade's 1-2% NM effect on US. Seems like the research would support raising this. There were US notes to both Germany and Britain regarding subs and the blockade respectively, but obviously the US leaders viewed subs as the more important.

I really like Sharkman's idea about investing into NM at TGW cost of buying more units. To me either serves the same purpose of trying to win the war, so giving the players another instrument is good. Along that vein, I'd like to ask if it's practical to give players the ability to control economic aid instead of the current tax system. I'd like a controller similar to the diplomacy one, where economic aid is controlled as an amount or percentage of some sort. If that's not practical, then another idea is a DE asking the player to approve so much economic aid each year OR to choose no aid with the chance that the beneficiary's NM might drop 1-2% each time it's rejected. Also, if it's rejected once, then the same DE pops up once a quarter until aid is given.

Also, I like Sharkman's suggestion for 2 tiles for Verdun, which adds more value to holding that area. Right now, it's not the "none shall pass" point the French viewed it as. However, I'd add that since Falkenhayn knew this about Verdun, he deliberately planned only to siege it, not capture it, so he could rack up a disproportionate amount of French casualties. Unfortunately for him his plan was not carried out and some local German commanders tried to capture the forts instead. This initial half hearted offensive led to the slugging match that occurred.

[Sharkman]

Peter

Very good point about aid to other countries, it would be nice if this were in the player's hands, and I would expand it, allowing for example France to send mmps to Italy, England to France, Germany to A-H and so on. There should be costs of course, if sent by rail probably at a lower cost than those sent by sea. CP would I think be restricted to using rail lines. Entente could use sea routes, this might require a couple of new convoy routes, these could then be used in either direction. This might allow for a-historical situations like Russia helping France or England. And of course there should be some kind of limit otherwise people will send their whole economy which does not make sense. I think a country could be limited to around 50 mmps per turn foreign aid, I don't know off-hand how much is being sent now.

[lettowvorbeck]

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?

[Ludi1867]

Hi All

Quite a lot of things since I last posted. First, Bill, I do appreciate the feedback, even though some is perhaps disappointing!

I can well understand that the current victory condition assessment is complex, and that means that it is not likely to be adjusted directly. That said, I don't know if you have directly addressed the idea of the DE event that X suggested – is that too complex as well? I think that might be a really fascinating way to provide for very close games.

I also do not want anyone to get the idea that Cpl Steiner ever suggested that this was not a close game. He was quite careful to note that the game was very, very close. It is also clear to me that he won! I suppose that a scoring system would help indicate that a game was close.

As to game ending, there does appear to be some flexibility now. For example, in the game I am discussing, Russia was forced to zero NM at the end of the CP turn – but did not surrender. This gave the Entente player one more turn to inflict damage on CP units...not a lot of damage, as it turned out, as Russia was in pretty dire straits. But Russia did not surrender until the END of the Entente player's turn. In other words, reaching zero NM does not appear to always trigger surrender. If Germany had had one more turn to move, the result in our game could have been that both France and Germany would have reached zero NM. So I am guessing that reaching zero NM is a necessary but not sufficient reason for victory (or defeat, as appropriate) to be declared – there is a secondary calculation as to whether the war continues for one or more turns?

I appreciate very much the further explanation of the results of the blockade and dip calculations. In my view 1-2% may well be too low for the blockade...perhaps it should be 1-2% for every 90 NM points of blockade in place? So 75 NM points of blockade (three flags occupied in the North Sea blockade line) would not trigger any US reaction, 4 flags in that line would trigger 1-2%, all 8 would trigger 2-4%, and if every flag (a total of 290) is occupied then there would be a 3-6% chance of the US becoming irritated and lowering its prep for war against the CP...or raising its prep for war against the Entente. A similar calculation for each U-boat raiding (1-2% for each and every U-boat raiding a convoy line) would act to increase the chance of the US joining the Entente. If that would be possible I think it would better reflect the actual history of the war, where the blockade was a definite irritant to the US but submarines were very much THE irritant.

I also think the idea of a Holland favouring the CP perhaps offsetting some of the impact of the blockade might be worth looking at. Along that vein, the capture of Romania and the addition of Ukraine's resources both helped to ease the impact of the blockade – do they have any impact on German NM? If not, there again may be partial ways to address the blockade impact.

I think I mentioned the blockade was enormously complex!

Shark's ideas of allowing spending of MPP on NM are interesting, although I am not quite sure how to best address. The other possibility of allowing for economic aid to be sent – or not – to Allies is also very interesting. This proved an enormously important – and contentious at times – aspect during the war. There are currently a few DE's where this is specifically addressed (Germany sending MPPs to the Turks, for example) but overall it is not really as big a part of the game as it was of the war. Perhaps yet something further to consider?!

I am not sure what to say about the Verdun comments. It is currently quite challenging to occupy Verdun...I emptied it two or three times in the game with Cpl Steiner before finally occupying it, and the amount of blood spilled in the vicinity was all too historical.

Anyway, I am finding this whole thread fascinating, and I really do think that the underlying reason that there is so much to discuss should be kept in mind – this scenario really is remarkably balanced for such a complex historical event, and that means there are a lot of nuances that can be examined at great length. In other words this is a GREAT scenario!

[Sharkman]

It is really a great scenario, the best as far as I'm concerned.

As I understand it a country does not surrender until it has less than 0 NM, so if you reach 0 on an enemy turn you do get 1 more turn, but almost allways it will be your last.

One thing I noticed about Holland is that in one game I declared war on Holland just to stop them from delivering imports to Germany, but it didn't work, I would think that by declaring war on Holland the blockade would be extended to Holland but it wasn't.

I have also considered another option: the Entente could blockade Holland without declaring war, this would probably upset the Dutch and possibly the Americans, but it could be an option, I'm no historian, does someone out there know if such a move had been considered?

[Bill101]

Bill

I like the score idea, although some times I would rather take a simple loss than to know the score was 5 to 500 or somthing like that.

What do you think about allowing players to devote more industry to raise NM levels? I think it would mostly benefit Germany and Russia because they usualy still have lots of mmps when they hit 0 NM, but I think it could be interesting. I think this would help the Russians simulate efforts to fight the internal unrest while trying to still fight the war, the same really goes for any other country with low NM levels. You are forced to spend more and more money just to stay in the war a little longer, reducing of course your ability to reinforce the troops on the front.

Hi Sharkman

I'm certainly thinking about it!

Questions in my mind are what it would represent in real terms, the game mechanics (i.e. would it be a one-off payment or something ongoing), and whether it adds anything if both sides can do it, i.e. would it just delay the inevitable.

An alternative, which would be a lot easier to implement, would be to just increase the MPP/National Morale offset of the original Decisions, i.e. doubling the cost for double the benefit.

It's one I'll mull over, like a lot of the other ideas in this great thread.

Bill