It is not hard for germany and austria to invest the minimum necessary to take warsaw. After taking warsaw, very little energy is required to hold it. I do not understand how you could possibly have russians in silesia unless you are literally sending all units against france or something.
First of i have to say this is a very nice map. I played it thrice with a friend now (well the third game is almost over).
I lost the first one as central powers, then won the second one as central powers and i am now winning as allied powers. This has been over a time of three years, because normally we don't have enough time to make a move everyday and one game (approx 20 turns) takes almost a year.
I just stumbled upon this thread now and did not really understand, could you clarify pls whether this map is now optimized for Low Luck or not? because we exclusively play LL, in our opinion Dice is plain bad, because it favors the lucky one and not the one with better strategy and tactics.
I remember that my first central power game was basically unwinnable, but back then i was not very good at Axis&Allies. The second game was a very hard fought battle, i managed to take out Russia and Italy after some turns, but during this time, the french managed to conquer the whole western front, and the british and american were standing in Hanover, so we just had a huge standoff with more then 500 units involved for 10 turns, until my PU superiority finally beat him.
Now in our third game, we both feel like the central powers are really hard. Basically i am as good as him,
although he tends to use some "fancy" and/or risky tactics, while i am a more conventional player.
Now we both agree that you have to take out russia first as central powers, every other strategy is not viable.
But this seems impossible right now. Russia can easily amass a 60 Inf/50 Art stack plus some planes, if he just retreats all his troops to a parameter around bryansk/belarus. And it is basically impossible to destroy this stack. You would need a stack of almost the same size plus some help from the austrians and ottomans. But if you have a stack of 20Inf/20Art as each, you can't destroy the stack, although you have numerical superiority and he will still have a lot of troops left.
But you can't amass such a big troop, because you have to place a lot of troops in other places.
Ottomans have to defend against the british in Africa and on the balkans, the austrians have to defend against Italy and France, and Germany has to deal with the British, French and Americans.
Plus i am bombing him with a lot of zeppelins, the austrians get only 18 PUs every round, although their land is almost intact, because i am bombing him with 3 italian, 4 american and 4 british zeppelins. Of course he could have had build AAs, but when he realized it, it was to late, and he can't afford them now anymore.
So basically, what is he doing wrong? Is it his fault, and i just have become better then him? Because you mentioned, that the Allies should get a bid, and if i had have gotten a bid, i would have won even easier.
On another note, would you consider a shortcut from "US declares war" to the meditteranean? Because the distance from the east coast is approximately the same to the meitteranean and the north sea. But in this game it is not really viable to go there because you would need 5 turns just to get to italy...
Glad to see someone finally got around to redrawing the map borders, and adjusting the east. I remember being somewhat frustrated with it, but the alterations were going to be such a pain after it was all put together. I honestly still think many of the inset boxes were a novel introduction, but they were done way back, when to introduce graphics I still had to draw them into the baseline hehe. And then things like convoy zones were barely up and running at the time. And as I recall Low Luck was still being developed into the engine. So much was hardcoded into things back then hehe. It's a pretty old map in the long scheme, going back to right after Pact of Steel, and Big World, when we all still played Revised. Then my attention was drawn away by AA50, and other attempts to make a better general world projection for maps, so I left GW in the lurch. It's encouraging though to see that you were interested enough to give it a sweet overhaul.
I have looked at the 1914 game, released sometime after we first did GW, and I like some aspects of it... But other changes are, as you say, pretty deep into the mechanics. I think the first step on any game is to find a map design that works. I don't know that I would go as detailed into the minor theaters if attempt it again, but at the time it seemed an interesting experiment to try, and at least push the engine.
But yeah, just for the record, I like all the changes adopted.
The board game has it right as far as the troops can stay in the same territory thus simulating trench warfare except you should be allowed to attack adjacent territories that are not already contested from your contested area.
Italy must wait one or two rounds before it can enter the war and the Russian revolution rule is not optional and should be included in The Great war with same board game rules. At least Larry got that part right. There has got to be trucks in the game and or horseback to carry the artillery anti air.
Tanks should be a tech and allies have to get it first before central powers are allowed. Like my WWII house rules, technology should be historically accurate until that country has it developed it
You could also allow balloons that would give artillery better accuracy but no defensive value.
The board game finally has air superiority right but the triplea version does not. Additionally, fighters should be limited to a 1round ground strafe.
There needs to be cavalry (board), bombers (computer and board), zeppelins (board), and AA guns (board). There were several raids on London using Zeppelins and heavy bombers. There should also be intercept fighter rules and for all the different strategic raids if the game had ports etc. like the Tww game. Also Zeppelins could carry fighters.
The computer game defiantly needs to get rid of the planes being able to attack ships unless they would get torpedo technology and the allies would have to be the first. They then could buy without tech aircraft carriers limited to one plane. Another technology could be improved battleship bombardment, allies first. Battleships did not have technology for accurate shore bombardment in WWI although they did do them but it should be at lower roll then their normal hit and even lower attacking Europe’s coast. The bombardment ships should have to face costal artillery which should be in the game. Also Paris rail guns should be allowed for Germany only no tech but only cause minor Pu damage.
Both board and triplea absolutely negate the dramatic effect of German submarines during WWI. Cruisers, battleships, and “armed trannies” only get a one defense against submarines and can’t attack them period. They obviously did not have sonar, lacked the speed, and could not even get their deck guns low enough to fire on partially submerged submarines. Plus you will not find any casualties from battleships and cruiser in uboat.com in both WWI and II. So in a mixed sea battle the above ship’s hits would count against other warships but be lowered to a one when only attacking subs are left.
Really all they could do is ram them in WWI for defense. There should be a purchase difference between armed and unarmed trannies or unarmed trannies get no defensive roll.
Subs and destroyers should only get a 1 defense as well until destroyer tech below is developed and then the destroyer defensive value would certainly be increased. Now both subs and destroyers can attack subs but the subs can submerge after first round unless depth charges tech but even then the attacking sub hits would not count after the first round. There should be a roll to see if surfaced as well 50/50 chance, let’s say.
In order to attack submerged subs players will have to get depth charges. Improved depth charges coupled with sonar will bump up destroyer’s chances. Both techs really were not in effect until 1916 Gas rounds should be in both games and fired by artillery only and could have improved gas, Germans first?
In mixed sea battles involving subs and destroyers, defending destroyers hits must count against subs until all attacking subs are gone and then then their regular sea rolls against ships.
This is in no way the board game. This is a totally different map with totally different mechanics and units. Some time ago some people were working to adapt the newest game of a well known board game for Triple A. Not sure how far they came. Some changes you make are easy to change (even you could do that if you just wanted). But most of them are just not possible at the moment. If I were the mapmaker I would really get upset be the way you are demanding things. You don't have the right to demand! You can ask politely for things to be changed. If you want things to change, change them on your own. Nobody will stop you or talk into it, not even me :-)
"Great War" map on triplea predates the Axis And Allies 1914 map by about a decade, and has nothing in common with it besides being about World War 1.
So in that context, your post has nothing to do with this map (and please stop posting the exact same post in other people's threads too).
INFO [AWT-EventQueue-0] ChatController -> Chatter:ice port:3300 ip:126.96.36.199 is joining chat:games.strategy.engine.framework.ui.ServerStartup.CHAT_NAME
Unit.toString() -> Possible java de-serialization error: Unit of UNKNOWN TYPE owned by UNKNOWN OWNER in territory: UNKNOWN TERRITORY with id: null
It is not great doing minor updates without an ownership change or a leader taking responsibility to consider the old obsolete.
For example, if you just split Greece into two, or do some relatively minor changes, you would end with two "Great War" maps, one quite similar to the other, and this almost duplication would be more detrimental than anything for an already unpopular map, unless you make clear that the new one is just a mod (thus not an update).
Since there will always be people that consider the previous version better than the new (and maybe they are right), you need somebody with authority to force the old into obsolescence, which is the precondition of updating.
I can tell you there are still people in lobby that consider that the Veqryn updates made the map worse off, and would want the old Great War back. Of course, having two or more Great Wars one beside the others would be possible, but silly (I assume this is why Veqryn didn't keep the old one disposable, despite several requests in this sense), especially considering how unpopular this map is, as said.
This is why we have a proliferation of very rarely played (or even known) variations but hardly ever any updates on even very rarely played and even with clear issues maps.
WAW got updated just because redrum sponsored it (the only other ways would have been Sieg coming back or redrum declaring a new owner, both very unlikely, and the last one due to cause many complaints); working on a map is always a bit of a work, and you just don't do it if there is not a good probability about the update being accepted with ease.
And, of course, one prefers working on his own projects, anyways.