NML 1914 team game 14
-
I am afraid I will not play again. I have too much going on at home .
Have fun all. -
I will pass as well.
-
Good game guys. I’m happy to play again.
-
Thanks for the game. I will play again too.
-
@Private-Panic I’m in
-
Im up for another
-
So, at the moment it is FM, VF, dawg, entek and myself.
Not witt, elrood, nor colt.
No doubt we can make this work with 5 players, but does anyone want to involve someone else?
-
@Private-Panic I’ll ask cpt. walker
-
@dawgoneit seems a shame that 3 of the top players or top players dropped out,
-
I propose a fix to NML to make it less defensive oriented. HGs were offensive artillery designed to destroy reinforced bunkers, not defend them. The game gives them great defensive power, but no more offensive power than FGs. Also, G starts with only 3 homeland ICs, none of which are anywhere near the western or eastern fronts. CP is thus forced to build fast moving gas and cav to take Paris by G5 or G6, before F/GB outbuild G.
Massive artillery barrages were the primary cause of death, with both sides firing hundreds of thousands of shells per multi-day battle. Gas, dependent on unreliable wind, which can’t be controlled or accurately forecast was not a decisive factor in any major WWI battle. Cav were a non-factor.
Thus, this game while interesting, is historically inaccurate in certain areas.
I propose that no HGs be built. Keep starting HGs and their existing power number. No HG tech, if HG tech is rolled, player selects bunkers or propaganda.
No gas or cav land offense tech to discourage buying them. That leaves only barrage FG tech, giving 100% chance of obtaining artillery tech, rather than 1/3 chance. Player would edit tech received.
Gas: Attacking player must use forum dice roll prior to combat move phase, to determine if gas can be used in combat that turn. Roll a 1 or 2 allows use of gas. Place a limit on amount of gas per battle.
This will greatly reduce Paris defense power but not hit points. G will have greater chance of early FG tech, but limit units that can reach Paris quickly. G may need bid of starting game with IC build in Wurt (reduce starting income by 20 PU?).
Other changes could be made that would require changes to the program code, such as giving HG greater attack power that would be used against trenches, not troops, like a bombardment.
This proposal could be implemented fairly simply. The old adjustment of giving industry tech to T, was too narrow and didn’t address the underlying issues relevant to the other players.
What do you think? Shall we try it in the new game? -
I asked Redrum if he wished to return and he declined. I messaged Entek and he has not yet responded.
I’m not excited about continuing unless we modify the game more creatively than just giving tech to individual powers like we did in the past. -
@FMErwinRommel Entek said he would play above. My own preference would not to be to change the game too much. I have a lot going on and play this because I don’t have to think too much about it.
However, if the majority would prefer to look at major modifications I would give it a go
-
@Private-Panic I’ll try not to make it too complicated. But I do need to add to my proposal. G can keep starting cav but not build any cav in Europe. To compensate and be historically accurate, G gets railroads from Berlin > Rhine and Berlin > E Prussia (3 space move equivalent to gas or cav with tech. But limit of perhaps 4 units per rail per turn.
-
Biggest effect on G actions and F defense of Paris, although not what F can or can’t do. I will summarize when I get home. Let’s give it one try. We’ll know quickly if it favors one side or the other too much. Then we can abandon or modify. If you want, I can take G, which has the biggest changes.
-
Sorry to frighten you with long initial text. Here is simple proposal.
- No HG builds by anybody and no railway gun tech.
- No gas or cav tech for anybody.
- No more than 4 gas per battle.
- G can’t build cav in Europe.
- G gets a Western and an Eastern Railroad.
(Berlin-Saxony-Westphal-Rhine, and Berlin-Branden-W Prussia- E Prussia. Each rail can carry max 4 land units in NCM phase only. Those units can’t move during combat or regular NCM. Travel either direction, full or partial distance. No unit can travel both rails on same turn.)
Doesn’t sound so complicated when it’s short.
Any thoughts or questions on each specific item?
This would just be a beta version that we can modify if we like the general concept.
-
@FMErwinRommel Sounds like you want to make it easier for Germany to take over the world.
-
@dawgoneit After I drew up my proposal, I realized that the G colonies in central Africa and New Guinea, always depend on early builds of HG because their small ICs need big defensive units to hold off early GB threat.
G has no ICs anywhere near eastern front. Using gas and cav from Berlin to help attack Odessa & Kiev is not cost effective, because HGs provides the small Russian ICs with strong defensive power in combo with cheap hit points from trenches and conscripts. After first few turns, Odessa is usually impregnable. My goal is to put eastern front more into play.
I believe General Moltke the elder., proposed attacking Russia first in future war. I think 1914 NML puts total emphasis on Schlieffen plan, with no opportunity for kill R first, except by Austria.
My proposal may go too far in favoring CP on eastern front. Where R has no hope of support until GB can fight its way across Scand. -
@FMErwinRommel Thanks for the effort, but I believe this is too complex a task to achieve here.
- if someone is about to tests such major changes, it should be in a 1to1 Environment, possibly with multiple people testing it.
- The very nature of the team game here introduces such a volatile component, that any changes done, cannot be evaluated by it. It all depends what player plays what nation.
Sure, for fun you can switch things around. But I think such changes as you propose are too complex compared to e.g. unit places / IPC bids / starting tech etc.
Personally I think the game setting is just to stale in its core… AND once again… it is supposed to be a 1to1 game… not 4 vs 5 or so… If you play table tennis with 10 instead of 2 persons and you find it hard to be fair… you do not propose changes to the core game rules… by e.g. changing the surface of the table or the size of the blade.
Instead you: You should address the issues the 10 players bring to the game…How to do that? I don’t know.
-
@dawgoneit @Entek @VictoryFirst
Gents - you have FM’s suggestions and my own response. So over to you guys to make a decision.
-
I would be willing to try FM’s suggestions.
Suggested Topics
