How is it?

[Derek]

i think battleships are too cheap

[KimRYoung]

@Uncrustable:

i think battleships are too cheap

I would disagree. For this time period everyone was building battleships. It was so out of control that after the war, The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 was designed to stop to the battleship arms race.

Under the assuption that this game goes beyond the 1918 armistice, large fleets of battleships would have been the norm. The Germans would have had 4 Baden class battleships and several large 2nd generation battlecruisers. Britain had 4 Hood class battlecruisers planned! (yes the same Hood that was the pride of the fleet in WWII).

Definitely in our game at the end, every nation had around 4 battleships in a long game (around 16 turns) that the CP won, and I figure that would have been about right if you assume the war going into the 1920’s. Seemed VERY WW I to me  :-)

Kim

[Derek]

@KimRYoung:

@Uncrustable:

i think battleships are too cheap

I would disagree. For this time period everyone was building battleships. It was so out of control that after the war, The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 was designed to stop to the battleship arms race.

Under the assuption that this game goes beyond the 1918 armistice, large fleets of battleships would have been the norm. The Germans would have had 4 Baden class battleships and several large 2nd generation battlecruisers. Britain had 4 Hood class battlecruisers planned! (yes the same Hood that was the pride of the fleet in WWII).

Definitely in our game at the end, every nation had around 4 battleships in a long game (around 16 turns) that the CP won, and I figure that would have been about right if you assume the war going into the 1920’s. Seemed VERY WW I to me  :-)

Kim

So nations in WW1 built far more capital battleships/battlecruisers rather than smaller cruisers ? I doubt it.

It makes no logical sense to buy subs over battleships and cruisers are worse than both unless you want long range.
Increasing the cost to 14 would fix this and/or giving cruisers the bombardment ability.

[KimRYoung]

So nations in WW1 built far more capital battleships/battlecruisers rather than smaller cruisers ? I doubt it.

Yes that is true, and after the war EVERYONE was building battleships and battlecrusier. Look at the OB for Jutland, there are virtually no cruisers, it is all battleships and battlecruisers.

It makes no logical sense to buy subs over battleships and cruisers are worse than both unless you want long range.
Increasing the cost to 14 would fix this and/or giving cruisers the bombardment ability.

You probably have not figured out the value of long range movement for cruisers yet. That’s ok, once you figure it out just like Flashman and tanks you’ll see their value. They are definitely need dependent, so in some cases, not as valuable (don’t buy) and in others, will be a real threat.

Subs are of value for several reasons, first is soak off, but two subs are capable of getting two hits in combat, where a battleship can only get one. Also, don’t discount the ability of subs to move unhindered through enemy sea zones and not have to stop. Again if you have not done it, you probably have not seen the value.

All this ships have special abilities that will be of value in the right situation. If it is not an immediate need for such, you will probably just build a battleship, and that’s fine, cause that’s what the Great Powers where enamored with.

Larry did a good job with this.

Kim

[kraftwrk_5]

Absolutely, freaking love this game.  Love it even more than WWII 1942 I think.  More interesting gameplay, more historically accurate IMHO (e.g. Russia was never under threat of attack by Japan, Japan’s more critical to the success of the Axis than Germany, etc.), more interesting powers, and I love all the optional/delayed stuff (Russian Revolution, unrestricted sub warfare, U.S. entry on 4th turn, tank purchase beginning on the 4th turn, etc.).  Can’t wait to play again!  :-D