@Elrood the UK took control of Azerbaijan on this turn. The game gave control of the territory to Russia even though that is not an original Russian territory. I don’t know if that’s a glitch with the game or not, but I edited control to UK…let me know how you want to proceed.
Also, when I opened the game victor is still on the dice results… I was sure you had changed that so I don’t know what happened there.
NML 1914 team game 14
-
@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.
-
I would like to pass on a game.
-
@Elrood has a good point that my proposed changes are better tested on a 1 on 1 player basis. It seems obvious that so many players are dropping out because this game has gotten stale, and the use of a tech bid has not solved the underlying problem.
I will also drop out. Is anyone interested in playtesting a proposal on a 1 on 1 basis, with both sides negotiating what changes to make?. -
With @FMErwinRommel dropping out, that leaves four of us, if I include @dawgoneit , who may have been put off by the changes.
So - do @Entek ,@VictoryFirst and @dawgoneit want to join me in another game with no major changes to the set up?
May Captain Walker now join us? Or anyone else?
-
@Private-Panic ok i’m ln
-
@dawgoneit I’ll ask capt,
-
@dawgoneit I’m in
-
Sounds good to me.
-
Okay - that’s 4 of us least. Let’s wait for dawg to hear back from CW …
-
@Private-Panic I will play again, if you want me. I will say, if it gets too much .
-
You are in! Cannot change your mind now @Witt !
-
@Witt :-O
-
@Private-Panic How many are you now?
-
@Elrood 5 now, increasing to 6 if CW plays. Still space for you!
-
@Private-Panic ok I am back in :-P
-
@Elrood Great! Just waiting to hear back re CW …
-
@Private-Panic cw is out
Suggested Topics
