I know there have been a few threads regarding the 1914 scenario, but I felt it worth starting another one. I was very excited for the WW1 possibilities in DH, and it is the main reason why I got the game (I am a due for a hiatus from WW2, as I have played IC for a while). So far I have found the 1914 scenario to be not quite ready for primetime. I am cool with this though, as I really like DH especially as a platform for customer created mods and scenarios. I just wanted to outline a few ideas that could really improve the 1914 scenario, especially the beginning of it.
-I notice that when playing Germany the war in the west never starts. In fact you can not even declare war manually on France, let alone Belgium. When playing other nations Germany does seem to go to war in the West. I realize this was the result of some last minute changes, but it really does break the game play for this scenario.
-After starting a number of games, I have yet to see the UK enter the war at all. This seems very bizarre to me.
-When playing the US I have yet to see any events to push the US towards war w/the Central Powers. IRL, at the start of the war the US was not particularly anti-German and neutrality was realistic situation (unlike WW2, where the US was always on a slide towards war w/Germany, even with popular isolationism). A combination of German diplomatic bungling, unrestricted submarine warfare, and the UK's secret efforts pushed the US closer to entry into the war. By the time the US entered the war, there was fervent anti-German feelings in the US, and many cities, towns and place names were changed or altered to seem "less German." A series of event chains w/options for Germany along the way would make the game more realistic and enjoyable.
-In the West I would suggest a set of event chains at the start of the war, where Germany can select the historical option to pursue the Schlieffen Plan (DOW on France, Belgium and Luxembourg), France only (DOW France), or ignore the West. If the Germans ignore the West, then France should get an event to attack Germany as they were closely aligned w/Russia. IRL, the UK DoW'ed Germany because the violated Belgian neutrality (there was no formal alliance between UK and France). If Germany selects the Schlieffen option, then there should be a 99% chance that the UK will DoW Germany, but it should still be an event option for UK. If either of the other options are selected then the UK should also get an option but for AI it should be less likely to fire. The German assumption that the UK would not go to war was a huge oversight, considering they had been engaged in a naval arms race w/UK for over 15 years, and the UK's centuries old strategy was to maintain a balance of power on the European continent.
-Ultimately the German plan was to lightly defend the eastern front and boldly attack France. This was based on the idea that they could knock out France before Russia could mobilize properly. The assumption proved wrong. The Germans made a foolish move to pursue the French army instead of attacking Paris, and were slammed on the flank at the Marne. This threw back their Western advance. In the east, Russia mobilized much more quickly than expected and quickly became a strong threat there. Germany was forced to take quick action, stabilized their Western front and shifted troops east to counter Russia. I hear the Dev argument that the 1914 scenario starts so closely to war because WW1 sprang unexpectedly on the European nations. Therefore we as players should not be able to alter the historical position too much before war starts. If this is a design idea then the game sequence needs to actually better reflect the historical realities of the start of WW1.
-The effect of railways should be better reflected in the game. I agree with the move to slow troop movement when advancing into enemy territory. In WW1 troops walked into battle, and heavy equipment was dragged by horses. However, movement within national provinces and even occupied territory was much more rapid. The use of railways made a serious impact on both strategic and tactical execution. It highly favored the defense, as one could quickly bring up reinforcements from the rear and move troops around internally, but forward advancement was still on foot. The rapid redeployment of troops from one side of a nation to the other was done. However, with the slowing of troop movement this is impossible in the game. As the US it took me almost a year to move the Eastern and Western department divisions to Galveston (in anticipation of a fight w/Revolutionary Mexico that has not yet appeared). This is quite ridiculous as the US railway system could easily have moved those forces in a matter of a few weeks. I am not sure how this could be done in the game, but I do not think that crippling internal movement to slow advancement of troops really makes sense. If there is no way to differentiate internal movement from movement into enemy territory then a more realistic average should be pursued.
So this is just my 2 cents for the moment. Please do not take this as a knock on the great work done on the game. I am very impressed with it, and look forward to what adjustments you make in upcoming patches. Thank you for putting this all together!
-I notice that when playing Germany the war in the west never starts. In fact you can not even declare war manually on France, let alone Belgium. When playing other nations Germany does seem to go to war in the West. I realize this was the result of some last minute changes, but it really does break the game play for this scenario.
-After starting a number of games, I have yet to see the UK enter the war at all. This seems very bizarre to me.
-When playing the US I have yet to see any events to push the US towards war w/the Central Powers. IRL, at the start of the war the US was not particularly anti-German and neutrality was realistic situation (unlike WW2, where the US was always on a slide towards war w/Germany, even with popular isolationism). A combination of German diplomatic bungling, unrestricted submarine warfare, and the UK's secret efforts pushed the US closer to entry into the war. By the time the US entered the war, there was fervent anti-German feelings in the US, and many cities, towns and place names were changed or altered to seem "less German." A series of event chains w/options for Germany along the way would make the game more realistic and enjoyable.
-In the West I would suggest a set of event chains at the start of the war, where Germany can select the historical option to pursue the Schlieffen Plan (DOW on France, Belgium and Luxembourg), France only (DOW France), or ignore the West. If the Germans ignore the West, then France should get an event to attack Germany as they were closely aligned w/Russia. IRL, the UK DoW'ed Germany because the violated Belgian neutrality (there was no formal alliance between UK and France). If Germany selects the Schlieffen option, then there should be a 99% chance that the UK will DoW Germany, but it should still be an event option for UK. If either of the other options are selected then the UK should also get an option but for AI it should be less likely to fire. The German assumption that the UK would not go to war was a huge oversight, considering they had been engaged in a naval arms race w/UK for over 15 years, and the UK's centuries old strategy was to maintain a balance of power on the European continent.
-Ultimately the German plan was to lightly defend the eastern front and boldly attack France. This was based on the idea that they could knock out France before Russia could mobilize properly. The assumption proved wrong. The Germans made a foolish move to pursue the French army instead of attacking Paris, and were slammed on the flank at the Marne. This threw back their Western advance. In the east, Russia mobilized much more quickly than expected and quickly became a strong threat there. Germany was forced to take quick action, stabilized their Western front and shifted troops east to counter Russia. I hear the Dev argument that the 1914 scenario starts so closely to war because WW1 sprang unexpectedly on the European nations. Therefore we as players should not be able to alter the historical position too much before war starts. If this is a design idea then the game sequence needs to actually better reflect the historical realities of the start of WW1.
-The effect of railways should be better reflected in the game. I agree with the move to slow troop movement when advancing into enemy territory. In WW1 troops walked into battle, and heavy equipment was dragged by horses. However, movement within national provinces and even occupied territory was much more rapid. The use of railways made a serious impact on both strategic and tactical execution. It highly favored the defense, as one could quickly bring up reinforcements from the rear and move troops around internally, but forward advancement was still on foot. The rapid redeployment of troops from one side of a nation to the other was done. However, with the slowing of troop movement this is impossible in the game. As the US it took me almost a year to move the Eastern and Western department divisions to Galveston (in anticipation of a fight w/Revolutionary Mexico that has not yet appeared). This is quite ridiculous as the US railway system could easily have moved those forces in a matter of a few weeks. I am not sure how this could be done in the game, but I do not think that crippling internal movement to slow advancement of troops really makes sense. If there is no way to differentiate internal movement from movement into enemy territory then a more realistic average should be pursued.
So this is just my 2 cents for the moment. Please do not take this as a knock on the great work done on the game. I am very impressed with it, and look forward to what adjustments you make in upcoming patches. Thank you for putting this all together!
