Great, sounds good to me.
Marseilles
-
Good answer.
Here are some more questions:
Was Bulgaria stripped of its Aegean coastline for any purpose, or by mistake?
Was the “Kiel” territory named after a similar tt on the Diplomacy board because of or in spite of the fact that Kiel on this map is in Denmark?
Was South West Africa deprived of the Caprivi strip by mistake or deliberately for a purpose?
Did you notice that Moscow is the same distance from Berlin as Karelia before or after the decision to give Poland a fictional coastline?
Did you find that the western front was too congested without Switzerland being included, or is there another reason this tt is virtually free?
-
I would say the answer to most of those are due to either geography distortion or gameplay reasons.
-
okay. thanks for the quick answers. game looks really cool and fun. cant wait to try it out :-)
-
Gameplay would be sooooooooo much better if they made Prussia and Poland have its actual boundaries
Even if it still only touches poland for some reason. Germany shouldn’t change in shape cuz of it. -
The fear is that Germany can send units straight through Livonia to Moscow. But then Austria can send them through Ukraine to Moscow - too much for Russia to deal with?
-
Gameplay would be sooooooooo much better if they made Prussia and Poland have its actual boundaries
Even if it still only touches poland for some reason. Germany shouldn’t change in shape cuz of it.Why would gameplay be better?
-
They have to balance gameplay with reality, otherwise gameplay would suffer. I’m ok with some historical and geographical inaccuracies if it enhances the gameplay. We’re not in their shoes but I would assumed they started with a geographically accurate map and worked from it.
-
No, they started from the Diplomacy map, and unhistoricated it.
I don’t mind the odd change here and there; but I like to know the reason why, as I always feel there should be a solution without changing the history or geography into something not recognizable.
I don’t want to think I’ve paid for a game where the designers made mistakes simply through a lack of research.
-
How could it have been done for play balance when only one side can win? Looks like greed, laziness, and a lack of caring about putting out quality products. It doesn’t take much play testing to figure out the CPs can’t win. The SM option is a joke. I wonder what will happen first, this game gets fixed or another one comes out.
-
Well, if you try playing the Allies more aggressively early, than the CPs wipe out the Allies’ armies fairly easily… maybe they thought it was balanced in that way? They didn’t think the Allies would play defense for a few turns?
Agreed it is not balanced. I kind of like the 2 movement in home territories. That may just do the trick.
-
For the life of me, I can’t figure why folks have figured out how to play the allies (by not playing aggressive), but not the CPs when you have to use that exact same strategy with them.
-
@Texas:
For the life of me, I can’t figure why folks have figured out how to play the allies (by not playing aggressive), but not the CPs when you have to use that exact same strategy with them.
Are you suggesting the Central Powers not to be as agressive from the start and advance slowly through all the fronts?
I am not mocking you, this could work.
However the central powers have less income but more men. Now the income difference between the two you think would become closer as the Centrals take territory however this is why the Central powers have such problems. The Allies have soooo many areas to basically get free ipcs that if Germany knocks out Russia turn 4 let’s say RR rules. The allies still have more income and have troops at the western front already pushing/ready to push.Now I am no expert as I already decided 2nd edition for me. But from what I’ve read and what I have thought of and done mini scenarios for this game. I can’t see LL (low luck rules) allowing the CP’s to win.
Also as Italy is already an allie…. And the Allies dominate the Med sea… The territory of Marseilles does not need to be manned.
-
@Texas:
For the life of me, I can’t figure why folks have figured out how to play the allies (by not playing aggressive), but not the CPs when you have to use that exact same strategy with them.
Are you suggesting the Central Powers not to be as agressive from the start and advance slowly through all the fronts?
I am not mocking you, this could work.
However the central powers have less income but more men. Now the income difference between the two you think would become closer as the Centrals take territory however this is why the Central powers have such problems. The Allies have soooo many areas to basically get free ipcs that if Germany knocks out Russia turn 4 let’s say RR rules. The allies still have more income and have troops at the western front already pushing/ready to push.Now I am no expert as I already decided 2nd edition for me. But from what I’ve read and what I have thought of and done mini scenarios for this game. I can’t see LL (low luck rules) allowing the CP’s to win.
Also as Italy is already an allie…. And the Allies dominate the Med sea… The territory of Marseilles does not need to be manned.
Yes, that is what I am suggesting, but the Central Powers also start with less men. My count is 182 CP land units to 193 Allied land units. Don’t forget the minor-aligned units with the count. The CPs just need to hold back until tanks are available. Just do smart attacks that will result in small losses. Take nearby neutrals, Build a few transports and take tanks to Norway and Sweden, it also opens Russia’s back door.
-
Does taking Swe and Nor pays itself back?
-
Does taking Swe and Nor pays itself back?
If you use 4 tanks, you will hardly have any losses, so yes. 8 IPCs per turn adds up pretty quick.
-
Remember that when you use transport ships to Norway or Sweden however that the tanks don’t absorb a hit. You would have to take the longer route if you were the Centrals or SM like a muther trucker
-
The tanks don’t absorb a hit from the enemy artillery’s “first fire” against an amphibious landing. As Norway/Sweden are neutrals, they will only mobilize 1 artillery each, so there will only be one such shot.
The tanks do absorb a hit in the round of combat that follows.
-
@Texas:
Does taking Swe and Nor pays itself back?
If you use 4 tanks, you will hardly have any losses, so yes. 8 IPCs per turn adds up pretty quick.
But then only from round five and up at the earliest. And the investment in four trannies. And come round five few Germany players are having the luxury of using eight units ( at least) on something else then killing French and Russian troops.
-
@Texas:
Does taking Swe and Nor pays itself back?
If you use 4 tanks, you will hardly have any losses, so yes. 8 IPCs per turn adds up pretty quick.
But then only from round five and up at the earliest. And the investment in four trannies. And come round five few Germany players are having the luxury of using eight units ( at least) on something else then killing French and Russian troops.
Yes, they are mutually exclusive strategies. You can’t use an kill France fast or kill Russian fast strat and use this strategy. I feel those strats have a slim chance of resulting in a CP victory, so I never use them anyway.
-
TH, I would so love to see a game report from you. Not like every single inf moved around, but just globally, like G1 Holland taken, F1 Belgium reinforced, or whatever.
Maybe its my limited imagination, but I an’t see how you can survive as Germany without going Russia or France. Sure you can take quite some IPC from Den and Hol etc, but still.
Suggested Topics
