(Steady) Inflation

[Chacmool]

One suggestion to make an endless game a little bit quicker:

After years of fighting with millions of casualties lets say after Round 4, buying new units to fill up the trenches gets much more expensive.

What about doubling the price for all Units for every nation except USA.
(They will pay the double price at their own Round 4 after entering the war, if the game lasts that long)

Or think about a steady inflation of +1IPC for every unit after Round 4…

Wasn´t there an Inflation-system in Conquest of the Empire?

[Razor]

My buddy Griffith suggested a progressive unit cost at LGD forum some years ago.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=441&start=16

[Flashman]

I was considering posting on this, but in the end I wondered if the numbers of soldiers involved in late 1918 was significantly lower than 1914? The quality of troops in the German army was lower, but mainly because they lost so many front line soldiers in the Spring offensives.

There was significant inflation, but the increasing cost of war was covered by borrowing and war bonds rather than powers having fewer units in the field.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-causes-inflation/22616

http://mises.org/daily/3828

[Chacmool]

In 1918 Germany has mobilized its “last reserve”. It was obvious that they were running out of men (Not only for warfare also for industrial production).

There were 1 Million german soldiers in the east while the spring offensives happened in the west.
But Ludendorff lost his best stormtroopers while launching the Michael-offensive.

The French and British seemed to be finished also, so without USA I think there would have been no side able to win this war.

I guess US entering war R4 means that every Round in A&A14 represents one year. (still not happy with that, must be half a year and US entry turn 6.) I understand why Larry Harris did this for the US market of the franchise but I want to know what Harry Larris would say…

Back to topic:

I am talking about increasing costs for Mobilizing after 1918, because most games go for Round 10 and longer.
(That means 1923 !!)

[Flashman]

So we’re talking about a finite number of men rather than an inflation mechanic; the extra money representing the cost of training old, young and invalided men?

My morale mechanic already incorporates the idea that every 10 casualties contributes -1 to morale; so this encourages more careful managing of resources as the war goes on.

I would also add that if the USA is changed as proposed (does not have a turn until at war, but gets a bigger IPC income) then its impact will eventually break a stalemate in the Allies favour.

This gives the CPs a finite “win window” in which they must force a victory before American reinforcements become overwhelming. This is what happened after all in Spring 1918 - a last throw to defeat France before this.

Incidentally it also renders the proposed Economic Victory rule useless (if it isn’t already) since after any agreed number of turns either:

1. The Allies will have overwhelmed the CPs with American force.

or

2. The CPs will occupy far more enemy tt than they have lost.

which is why I prefer a morale based solution to ending the war.

[Chacmool]

I like your idea of a morale mechanic. Would be interesting if only Infantry would count as casualties, since these were the first and cheapest that were removed after a battle. But which mother would cry at home for the loss of a gun instead of her son? So I think only human casualties of 10 should count -1 to the morale.

The “win window” should be made bigger, maybe with allowing the attacker a second Round of combat beginning R4, representing new assault tactics from 1917 on.

[Flashman]

I was thinking any 10 units. An artillery represents a large formation of guns and crews, a Battleships several vessels with crews and support ships. Besides, the loss of a dreadnought was always bad news for morale!

I’ll think about extra combat rounds, but then you might need to consider retreat options and it gets more complicated.

[Chacmool]

Like I said it would be interesting to decide removing an Art (which could give your next offensive more power) or an Inf which brings you near to the next -1 on the morale tracker.

I remember our last games there have been so much casualties in the first 4 Rounds on both sides, could have been a quicker game with your Rules.

I don` know much about the morale mechanic. I think I saw one once on one of your mapsuggestions…

So I guess if a German Sub manages to sink a Dreadnought thats a +1 for morale?

Also the political collapse of a major power must have negative/positive effects for the other combatants…

[Flashman]

The main reason for morale as the decisive factor is the anomaly of Germany suing for peace when it actually occupied about 3 times the tt (in Europe at least) that it started the war with.

Standard A&A mechanics can only deal with loss of tt = defeat, and this war didn’t turn out that way.

Lets say everyone starts on 30 morale. Drop to 10, and you start to get mutinies in your armed forces. Drop to 0 and a full scale revolution occurs (see my red and white thread below).

Possible factors:

Each year of the war -2 (for nations actually at war only)

Every 10 casualties suffered (any units) -1

Every time your capital is bombed -1
(Hence the main use for bombing, rather than material damage. The enemy will have to start stationing fighters to defend the capital)

Every time a homeland tt is captured (not contested) by the enemy -1

If your capital is captured -5 (if you’re still in the game)

Homeland tt shelled by enemy shipping (bombarded) -1

Probably forgotten one or two, and of course some positive factors can be applied (e.g. knock an enemy power out of the game +2). But the general trend should always be down; “winning” powers will not finish with +30 moral - they will just have managed to stay in positive morale while pushing their opponents into revolution.

Overall the system is, I think, easier to keep track of than calculating thresholds as per LHPTR.

[protevangelium]

@Flashman:

Overall the system is, I think, easier to keep track of than calculating thresholds as per LHPTR.

What is LHPTR?

While I’m not a big fan of its system, The War to End All Wars uses the manpower mechanic as part of the costing of units. Every nation is assigned a number (not sure how it was arrived at), and once that number is exceeded, infantry (maybe more units) cost double thereafter. I thought that was interesting, but it would need some adaptation to A&A 1914. In other words, the costing was not tied to a factor of time, but of committing troops to battle and facing the potential downside of exhausting your reserves.

In a game like Paths of Glory, political collapse is tied to the playing of event cards. So for instance, cards played as event push Russia further down the path to revolution, such as the Tsar taking command of the army, his abdication, etc. But that’s a bit too much for A&A, I think.

[Flashman]

Larry Harris Potential Tournament Rules (q.v.)

By “capital” above I’d probably extend this to other cities, so there is a doubling up of certain cities as production centres for new units, and consequently also bombing targets:

London & Bombay (& Halifax/Canada?)

Paris & Marseilles

Berlin & Munich

Moscow & Petrograd/Karelia (perhaps also Kiev/Ukraine/Sevastopol)

Rome & Milan/Piedmont?

Vienna & Budapest

Constantinople & Ankara

Washington (thinking about allowing the USA to send new units directly to Siberia/Urals to fight the Bolsheviks)

You maybe get +2 morale for capturing an enemy PC, otherwise you might be tempted to leave it in enemy hands to bomb repeatedly. Bombing should only count a couple of times for each target city.

[protevangelium]

Thanks.

[oztea]

I am interested in ways to add an endgame to 1914.

For the time being, im tinkering with making powers economic and political collapse thresholds decrease as the war drags on, or as they lose units.
Originally I had thought to make each powers economic collapse threshold lower by 1, each turn after the 8th.
But now im tinkering with having that number lower each time an opponent kills 10 of your units in a single turn. Representing morale

[CWO Marc]

@oztea:

I am interested in ways to add an endgame to 1914.

For the time being, im tinkering with making powers economic and political collapse thresholds decrease as the war drags on, or as they lose units.
Originally I had thought to make each powers economic collapse threshold lower by 1, each turn after the 8th.
But now im tinkering with having that number lower each time an opponent kills 10 of your units in a single turn. Representing morale

That could be an interesting game mechanic.  Here are a few suggestions, which arise mainly from some of the earlier posts in this thread.

You might want to track both military and civilian morale, since they’re different variables.  The French Army mutinies of 1917 and the High Seas Fleet mutiny of 1918 are good examples of the military side of morale problems; for the civilian side, the revolutions in Russia in 1917 and in Germany in 1918 are useful to look at.

In huge, lengthy, costly conflicts like WWI and WWII, morale isn’t always affected by events in the way that one might think it is.  This is particularly true with regard to the way “news from the front” affects morale back home.  There are several reasons for this.  First, civilians rarely hear the truth about what’s happening on the battlefield, especially (but not exclusively) in authoritatian regimes.  State censorship (or control) of the press, the selective release of information by the military, outright lies by the authorities, and propaganda campaigns all combine to distort the true picture for the general public; victories tend to be played up and defeats are played down or omitted.  Military censorship of letters sent home by soldiers also keeps civilians in the dark – though some families manage to read between the lines better than others.

Another reason is that, as the war progresses (especially on the losing side), civilians frankly care less and less about the overall situation at the front (to the extent that they still believe what they’re being told).  They focus more and more on the immediate effects of the war for them: news that a family member in the military has been killed in action; the rising cost and greater scarcity of food and fuel and other essentials; increasingly harsh rule by the government as it tries to keep the restive population in line; death and destruction caused by bombing and shelling (if applicable to a particular conflict).  Interestingly, letters from home to soldiers (for example, describing the privations that their families are undergoing) can be more devastating than letters from soldiers to the folks back home because they may not be subject to the same level of censorship as mail originating from a soldier.