@Guderian1 Maybe I can’t send a PM, when I click your profile I don’t see an option for it…
[1914] Naval battle of supplies house rule
-
Obviously the current unrestricted submarine warfare rules are a lot to be desired. And this doesn’t change much or solve whatever problems it has.
Instead, this is merely a way to quickly and simply make the game slightly more historically accurate.
Extend unrestricted submarine warfare to sea zones 16, 17, and 18, and have it apply to Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman submarines.
The second house rule is that for every Allied surface ship in sea zones 5, 9, or 10, one of the following things happen (I haven’t decided on the rules, choose the one you think works best):
Germany loses 2 IPCs per ship on their turn during the Collect Income phase.
A dice is rolled, and on a roll of 3 or less 2 IPCs are deducted from Germany during the Collect Income phase.
So, what do you think?
-
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato While historically accurate I wouldn’t add rules to punish the CPs economically as they are already behind the 8-ball in this game. Under that rule I would do nothing with the USA but buy Cruisers as having them send ground forces would be both unnecessary and inefficient.
I don’t think the existing rules are actually that bad when you consider that 1 Submarine gets to roll twice in a complete round. There is an 11% chance of reducing Allied income by 2 and a 55% chance of at least reducing it by 1. The real issue is that the CPs can’t really afford to get into a naval arms race of any kind as the USA will have nothing better to do than counter it, and a wolfpack sitting in the Atlantic will certainly demand a response as it threatens the Transport routes even if the economic warfare rules didn’t exist.
-
You’re right.
I guess a better idea would be to cap the income punishment for the Central Powers at 5 ships, or 10 IPCs. After all, it only took a certain number of ships for the Allies to effectively blockade Germany, and adding more ships doesn’t automatically increase its effectiveness beyond a certain point. This would at least soften the blow.
Yeah, not fun for the Central Powers. Were they really that weak historically?
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in [1914] Naval battle of supplies house rule:
Yeah, not fun for the Central Powers. Were they really that weak historically?
I would argue no, at least through 1918. By 1919 the situation was hopeless at the front and the home front. They did succeed in knocking Russia out of the war and had two chances to knock out France. At the start of the war the German war plan called for a heavy attack through Belgium to flank the French who were supposed to be inside Germany and thus far easier to cut off from Paris. The German army in the south was supposed to fall back to let the French chase them but they didn’t follow their own war plan and went hard all along the front. The Belgians also held out longer than expected. Later (I forget what year), the French army mutinied and some of the trenches facing the Germans were literally empty but they never found out to take advantage of it. The Allies were so desperate for help they literally asked Wilson to send American soldiers over to fill the front lines with no training at all. I think the war was a lot closer than most people believe. I think the game models it pretty well, the CPs have a chance but only if they can quickly knock out Russia before the US has a chance to do much of anything. Fun fact, my grandfather was born in the part of eastern Germany that is now western Poland and was brought to the US as a child in 1902. Later he enlisted in the US Army and was shipped overseas as a cavalryman to Germany but to my knowledge did not see combat.
-
Nice personal story.
It’s amusing, for almost every point you wrote I heard someone say that was a World War 1 myth. I’m not saying it is.
So yeah, thank you for letting me know. As demonstrated by my games with The Good Captain, the Central Powers can indeed win in the game if the skill level between players is different enough.