NML 1914 Team Game 12

Private-Panic

@Witt Thanks Leo. I am keen to keep playing 1914, as I enjoy it if we avoid an easy G5 victory.

My suggestion is certainly to give F propaganda.

But keep the current T bonus to avoid too big a swing towards the allies before we know how F propaganda affects the game. After-all, GB will have to worry less about reinforcing Paris, allowing it to focus more on T.

An IC for both England and Prussia would be interesting and sounds balanced, as GB can then help R. No strong feelings as to whether to do it or leave it until we see how F’s propaganda bonus affects the game.

On the other hand a quick decision to make one change to the current set up - F propaganda - would avoid endless discussion and allow us to start the next game.

Witt

@Private-Panic I really think we should go for a double change . Mine!
I think Seb quite liked it too.

Elrood

@Witt @Private-Panic

The question is what we want to achieve?
I am guessing: “Incentivizing Germany to go not after Paris but after other Objectives for a prolonged and exciting game.”

If we only give France Propaganda, we do not incentivize Germany but punish it. And it will be more likely to see more Entente Victories given their substantial buff.

If we also add IC to Prussia and England. What would likely happen?
Germany must still put ample resources at its western Front or it will soon be overrun by France and England, which now will be able to build more units and bring them over to the Continent. Or it uses the free Resources they have from not needing to defend Paris to go after Scandinavia / Baltic Fleet. Thus forcing Germany to spend more on that expensive front.

While the IC in Prussia will likely lay dormant, since Germany will have little resources left over after it defended Rhine, Africa, DEI and possibly Mexico.

I think we need to do more for centrals if we go for this change… it benefits Entente too much.

Private-Panic

@Elrood said in NML 1914 Team Game 12:

I think we need to do more for centrals if we go for this change… it benefits Entente too much.

Which is why I said to keep the current T bonus.

Just give F propaganda and play the next game.

We can always add ICs as we see fit in a later game.

Elrood

@Private-Panic all talk of buffs aside…
More impact than any power balance changes we propose here is the player who steers the faction in question.

Private-Panic

@Elrood Absolutely! That is a point that I have made a number of times in the past Seb. I do remember going on about a “gentleman’s agreement” that players choose nations’s in a way that keeps player skill balanced between sides. That principle certainly did not apply in the last game.

dawgoneit

@Private-Panic Why not give france working women? It makes they’re purchase options more wide open.

Private-Panic

@dawgoneit I don’t believe that would be enough Wayne. But if others like it then let’s give it a go.

Elrood

@dawgoneit Would not help really to defend Paris from falling

FMErwinRommel

Elrood correctly sees that giving Propaganda to France and IC in England, will force G to spend all on Western front without taking Paris and so unable to spend more on Eastern front.

Paris fell in 1/4 of our games, but only once in the first 9 games. Look at our games when G fails to take Paris by G5 or G6. France becomes very strong and aggressively confronts Austria in Italy and makes a strong defense against T in N Africa and sometimes India.

G has to have tech luck and go all out early on Paris to have a chance. But when F & UK go all out defense of Paris, and F gets defense tech, G rarely succeeds.
Look at the games where F is lucky at tech, builds max Paris defense from F1; and UK moves Belg units to Paris, builds transports by UK2 and figs by UK3. UK has large garrison in Paris before G5.

Giving F propaganda means 12 infantry in Paris before G5. That’s huge. And when Paris holds on G5, those free builds continue for the rest of the game.

Elrood

@FMErwinRommel @Witt also… I know you both are history buffs and love to see things accurately as they have been also here in the game.
But I like to point this is not a simulation but a game - an abstraction and simplification of reality, and amended to make it enjoyable for both sides. :-)

FMErwinRommel

As Elrood points out, if F is given an advantage in Paris, so that G has little chance of success, but still must defend on western front, and UK aggressively challenges G in Scand, then G can’t help CP close the income gap.

Elrood

Suffering should not start at selection of Teams, but when the mustard gas hits the trenches!

FMErwinRommel

As others have pointed out previously, NML favors the defense, while G40 the offense. Every player has access to the defensive tools of the game, altho implementation depends on an individual’s goals, political and military considerations and circumstances elsewhere, and tech luck. And success also depends on the opponent’s strategy, tactics and luck.
I’m just saying that giving a defensive bonus to France in a game that inherently favors defense, unduly favors the Entente.

dawgoneit

@FMErwinRommel why don’t you two take them and show what you would do.

dawgoneit

@dawgoneit germany and france that is

Elrood

Let us consolidate:

we are trying to fix a leaky pipe by increasing the water flow -> is probably the least offensive thing we can do… so it is fine by me
the setting is not very exciting, so some changes might actually help the flow of the game from both sides digging trenches to some elaborate manouvers to get ground
I would not mind going crazy with the setup to provide that change that we all like to see
every buff should be met with a buff for other side, to prevent an imbalance / favor for one side

Few ideas I am toying with:

more inf / trenches for US -> cannot be right away used against Centrals and gives them some options in mexico and being able to send units faster to Europe… imho they can be too cought up finding their way to the war and play there own game of checkers with latin america… for balance we can give e.g. usual turk bonus (industry and 1 inf per IC… like we did before)
Fortify St Peter and/or another crucial Territory, and to balance give Austria and Germany (or Communists) some small units boost for centrals at the start to give some potential against Russia
More units for Germany in Africa and DEI and balance it by some units for UK in South Africa and Australia

Just some thoughts I was having. What do you guys think about it generally ?

FMErwinRommel

@Elrood I think you’re changing the flow of the conversation. It was about making it more unlikely for G to take Paris early and thus end the game too soon. You’re saying you’re bored with France just building trenches and we should consider making the game more flowing, i.e., offensive, so it’s more fun. This is a whole nother conversation.

Regarding giving USA an opening bid, I oppose that. CP teams talk about breaking out so they can close the income gap. In the early game phase, the income gap doesn’t affect the front lines because USA’s impact isn’t felt for at least 5 turns. Any quickening of USA’s impact would reduce the chance of a CP breakout anywhere.

FMErwinRommel

Regarding increasing action on eastern front; in some of our team games, the collapse or offensive pressure of Russia has been a determining factor on who wins the game. But the game map doesn’t allow for much German offensive threat. Absent railroads, G can’t shift units between fronts or reach St Pete without passing by Belarus. I tried massing an army in Stockholm, but R easily defended Finland with trenches, HG and conscripts.

Elrood

enjoy the game then. I am out

NML 1914 Team Game 12

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

BM4 Cousins Team Game - 2024.5

WaW Witt Germany best, Ron Italy, Seb and Wayne as Japan.

NML 1914 team game 15

AJVDMG vs StuCulannifer

BM4 Cousins Team Game - 2024.4

BM4 Cousins Team Game - 2024.3

Wrathful Peacemakers (x) vs Fed by your Dread (+22)

NML 1914 team game 14

79

17.3k

39.9k

1.7m