If you reduce uk power central win very easily because stronk usa is useless strong uk is more useful.
Yes germany can create 20 stormtruppen but why? Stormtruppens are more useful against russia over scandinavia and germany must hold whole of scandinavia plus need strong navy.
Pretty possible to match the british give me 1 sub bid and average dice results i will prove you. How germany hold and expend all colonies fleets and lands.
I can believe that with a sub bid its pretty well balanced. I've played one game with it, and while the Entente did win it was quite close. The sub drastically improves Germany's early game scenario at sea, and lets you start the safely supply chain through Sweden much easier. Navalland has the right idea, you have to get transports of Stormtroopers rolling all other paths from Berlin are too slow. Without that sub its too easy for the UK to bully Germany, but with it Germany sinks some ships and forces the UK into the defensive for at least 2 turns.
I think removing 1 transport from the each of navies sitting of Canada would be a good move. If Germany attacks both with 2 subs, there is a 25~% that the Brits will win one of them (which happened in that game) and that is a big swing. Its also not terrible luck, its 1/4 games. There are so many battles in the first turn, even if Germany is favoured in all of them odds are he still loses a few.
What really needs to happen is a diplomacy system for neutrals. I have the triggers that convert neutral units to player units but i got stuck on the conditiona before my life took a different course. That
is where i intended to take this game. I got lots of ideas but i dont have time. Gonna revisit it this weekend i think.
What i was thinking was a combo of fullfilling certain objectives would unlock option to buy specific allies. For example if centrals control belgrade they can spend 10 pus and get bulgaria
Sent from my LG Mobile
------ Original message------
From: crazy_german [via tripleadev]
Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2016 5:20 PM
Subject:Re: Domination 1914: No Mans Land
I can believe that with a sub bid if well balanced. I've played one game with it, and while the Entente did win it was quite close. The sub drastically improves Germany's early game scenario at sea, and lets you start the safely supply chain through Sweden
much easier. Navalland has the right idea, you have to get transports of Stormtroopers rolling all other paths from Berlin are too slow. Without that sub its too easy for the UK to bully Germany, but with it Germany sinks some ships and forces the UK into
the defensive for at least 2 turns.
I think removing 1 transport from the each of navies sitting of Canada would be a good move. If Germany attacks both with 2 subs, there is a 25~% that the Brits will win one of them (which happened in that game) and that is a big swing. Its also not terrible
luck, its 1/4 games. There are so many battles in the first turn, even if Germany is favoured in all of them odds are he still loses a few.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
Something really appealing about the map currently is the simplicity. Not saying that changing the neutral rules is a bad idea, but there have been many ww1 attempts which died to feature creep, I'd keep it mind
Well, you would be able to see a french fighter coming because turn order. For the British its hard to afford and sounds like a high risk high reward play. Theres also nothing wrong with taking Mecca turn 4
Germany needs a bit of good luck in the opening turns, not just average, particularly at sea.
I think this is my decent central tatic but I am undecided is it good. I realy wonder what is the best central tactic? Does anybody has any idea?
German subs should sink british navy instead of french navy and should attack full force to Champagne, Attacking to Belgium is risky Because France might retake with French tranny. . Germany have to take stockholm in round 2 and send 8 stromtruppen to scandinavia per round. Take holland and Denmark. Canalize your losts of troops to Eastern Front. Than take kiev. Hold all colonies and create a shangai factory in round 2. Minimum invest to against France in the early game.
Austria: Minimum invest to Italian front. Buying losts of gas in round 2 would be good idea becuse they can threat simultaneously 4 different territory
Turkey: Take mecca in round 3 is and go full force to Caro wh cavalry-gas spawn. Cairo is vulnerable. And take iran with the rest of the troops. Dont but ship in the eary game.
Commies; Take kamchatka's peninsule in round 2 stack to aldan and khabarovsk.
I think that is a good strategy overall, especially if you bid a sub. Investing in the colonies is very important because it usually takes more UK resources to respond than you spent. I don't like Shanghai factory though, its a very slow payoff. I consider taking Kiev with Austria instead of Germany
I don't think you lose that much by waiting to build gas with Austria, its good to get some slower troops marching, then build the highly mobile gas. But I certainly wouldn't say that turn 2 gas spam is wrong
With Turkey I don't find taking Iran to be that important, just pile on Cairo and Arabia. I agree avoid navy, I have never got building navy to work even though it looks great on paper
I agree with everything else, its a very solid strategy. Its also the only strategy that has any chance, trying to grab Paris first fails (the one time I took it I still lost) and its faster to attack Russia using a transport chain in Scandinavia than marching through all those territories.
I am trying new Central strategies novadays and I realized that naval race against UK is very bad strategy. Making dead zone to sz 12 with some subs and fighters is more sensible because;
-Subs are cheap and good at attack
-Late fighter spawn can threat simultaneously lots of entente countries.
-fighters are cheap with working woman
Rushing to Italy together Austria and Germany strategy is remarkable, Italy was weak and pretty vulnerable.
placementing galician factory isn't good I think because Germany can make a deazdone to galicia and stack to odessa for taking kiev but otherwise this is impossible and need massive austrian support to hold galicia because Belarus stack can threat simultaneously Galicia and Odessa.
Central have to take Russian territories but taking Russian territories by Austrian strategy is also useless, Strong Austria is less Useful than strong Germany
Alright, my experience isn't terribly much but I have made a few observations.
First off, it feels really funny had Entente minors go before Central major powers. I propose the following turn order: Germany, France, Austria, Serbia, Italy, Turkey, Arabia, UK, Russia, Communists, USA. This allows Centrals to get their armies in standard position a lot faster. If this leans too Centrals heavy, one can add a few more units to Serbia and Arabia, especially Arabia, to adjust the timing and resource commitment required.
Then there's Japan. Japan is worth almost as much money as US at start of game. Cutting its value down by like half or two thirds would do wonders. Next on my list of map oddities is Mexico City. Germany can force Mexico city on turn 3. They can hold it for a long time if they bunker up. While I appreciate the nod to the Zimmerman letter, it still seems funny.
Farming. You can decrease farming by stacking up the neutrals higher. China seems about right, too many other places have too low of a defenders vs value ratio. It should be somewhere around 3 men per dollar unless it is meant to be easily captured like Iceland. Overall, the basic problem with farming neutrals is that Centrals simply don't have access to them.
Boundaries. There's a few funky areas. I mostly like Hepster's changes to Europe from page 2 but there are a few additional changes that I think would be good. I think territories shaped like those between Petersburg and Moscow are well formed territories. However, Bratsk, Don, Congo, Arabia, and Nagpur are particularly bad outside of Hepster's changes.
Overall balance. It feels really funny that is the Austrian and Ottoman fleets can't do anything like in the original GW map which unsatisfying which is caused by the French and Serbian cruisers, which are not part of the original map. You can't even do a fleet combine really and so the Austrian fleet is stuck just taking up space. Centrals have a hard time getting up to economic parity with the Entente because Germany can't adequately defend its colonies and the others are all highly localized. Like it should be a possible strategy for Germany to spend heavily in it colonies and stall on Europe to gobble up far off UK money.
That is the case. Only Guinea, Shangtai, Tsingtao, Togo, and the rather defensible East Africa are worth more than 1. China is utterly indefensible so that's -6. You can spend some money to hold Guinea but it's kinda expensive. Togo is gone by round 2. Germany loses $15 worth the territory.
Now one thing that can be done about them is the introduction of national objectives. If you zero out their value but give Germany a national objective for holding like one of them for +5, it'd balance out and not give any money to the allies. Personally I like national objectives because they give a means for asymmetric territory values. After all, historically those colonies went to Japan and not the Entente.