No TURN LIMITS!

[barbarossa2]

Why oh why do wargames have freaking turn limits? Like anyone ever ended a freaking war because of a "turn limit." If the leaders of Europe had designed a turn limit for the war they launched in the heady days of 1914, they would have ended it on the turn representing December, 1914. Over by Christmas.

There are a million factors which contributed to the end of the war. I am sure Frank can come up with a better way to end the war than "death by calendar." War fatigue is probably the best way. Nations collapsing into revolution. Not, "it was over by this time historically."

[7th Somersets]

I think Frank has both 'war fatigue' and 'revolutionary collapse' covered!

[Alfred]

I'm with Barbarossa2 on this.  Either capture of relevant capital cities or revolution brought about by war fatigue would be better than "death by calendar".
 
Alfred

[sol_invictus]

I guess a drop dead turn limit is usually used to keep a game from going on for a rediculous length of time if none of the other factors don't bring it to a close. I have no problem with one side having some time pressure and a limited time to achieve its objectives. Hopefully, the engine will deftly handle the national friction in a way that War fatigue, British Naval Quarantine, or Revolution will determine the outcome before the turn limit needs to end the game.

[Forwarn45]

Sounds like they have this one covered. But war fatigue can mean countries come to the negotiating table after a long stalemate - not necessarily collapse of one side of belligerents such as revolution. Considering the tentative attempts at negotiation and the nature of war at the time, WWI had a better chance of ending this way than most. So I think a turn limit is not a terrible thing if the other, better victory conditions aren't met.

[barbarossa2]

But a side would have only considered the negotiating table if they were under pressure to do so. If a national government thought its people and economy and political stability could hack it, there would be much less pressure to negotiate. Especially if global imperial interests are at stake.

For example, let us just say -- for pure sake of arguement -- that the first four years of WWI would have been a "phony war" a la WWII western front between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of France in 1940 (low human and economic costs), would these nations have been so ready to sue for peace?

By 1918, manpower was stretched to its breaking point in these economies with millions of men already lying in shallow graves between Belfort and Ostende when they even began considering truces it historically.

And IF it does go to death by calendar...it seems to me, it should be a randomized affair. That is, PERHAPS, there is a 2% chance of the war ending by "mutual agreement" on every calendar month beginning in 1917. And that by 1918 this rises to 5% and by 1919 to 10%. This prevents last minute offensives to grab territories because one KNOWS that the boys will come to terms in exactly 60 days, and causes crazy changes in human behavior which one would never see otherwise. Simple Game Theory would indicate the major changes in play technique required to win if a deadline is approaching.

[sol_invictus]

Well I agree, it is hard to escape from the problems that a game of historical conflict prsents, since we have the advantage of hindsight. If there is a turn limit and neither side has achieved its victory conditions, the game could end in a draw.

[oi_you_nutter]

a fixed game end is bad, this could be exploited by a player/AI

a variable game end with a upper limit (example the game could end anytime between 1914 and 1921) would allow enough variation to keep the game interesting and replayable

an infinite game would need a tech tree and extra political options (hey Frank, put that in a future patch [;)])

[BobCC]

They should have turn limits BUT... they should make it like World At War. you have the choice if you want a end date or not. It makes everyone happy. [:)]

[lancerunolfsson]

This prevents last minute offensives to grab territories because one KNOWS that the boys will come to terms in exactly 60 days,

But in a way weren't the German 1918 offensive and the Battle of the bulge sort of exactly this? ;^)A delusion that if they just threw one good punch it would all be over.

Bobs solution is the best eg "have it your way" turn limit or no.

[SMK-at-work]

The last game I played was called quits by the turn limit at Jan 1919.  It can certainly end earlier than that by virtue of conquest.  You also have the option of ending the game at the end of any year IIRC - at least agaisnt the AI.

[BobCC]

Another way that could work is manpower. every nation has there own rating for man power. So to increase manpower take more citys over. Thats would be the only way I would want the game to end. Of course with the option of haveing to turn limits. [;)]

[lancerunolfsson]

Another way that could work is manpower. every nation has there own rating for man power. So to increase manpower take more citys over.

I don't know that in a "realistic" WWI game Taking cities over should really count for much other than efecting "National Will" By the time you take somthing over, most of the time on the west front at least. It is going to be pretty much flattened. Now it might have a negative effect on the guy that lost the city in man power. But Manpower in any mass army period on the strategic level is a function of what your trained reserve consists of at the out set of hostilities. Then a function of how quickly you can efectively train conscripts. Then ultimately how low (and high)you can push the conscritpion age and lower the physical fittness requirements for induction. Not to mention how many industrial jobs you can fill with women instead of men as more of the later are called to the front.

[SMK-at-work]

You don't get any extra manpower in this game from conquering cities - it does lower the enemy morale tho, and every nation has limited manpower afterwhich exhaustion kicks in and combat effectiveness takes a hit IIRC

[FrankHunter]

Just to note I did increase the end of game line by one year.  So if Germany and Britain and one of either France or Russia are still going they can keep playing till Jan 1920.  But that is where it ends even if its a draw. 

In my opinion the only way to reach 1920 without collapse is if both sides haven't done much fighting.  If you are fighting in 1919 there won't be much in the way of new manpower for any country except the USA. 

[sol_invictus]

Sounds good to me.

[morvwilson]

It sounds to me that Frank has a handle on this. There is one thing that the AH version of this game did not cover which was probably the reason for the "death by calander". That was the astronomical cost of just feilding armies of that size. It had never been done before. Think just the cost of a single artillery barage. One french 75mm could pump out about five to six shots per minute. So, on the conservative side thats 300 rounds per hour. For the big offensives this one gun would be firing round the clock for a week. 300 x 24 x 7 = 50400 shells from a single gun. This number may seem a little high so, lets cut it in half, we have 25,200 shells per week from a single gun. Around the Verdun sector, the guns were almost never silent for a four year period!
At the end of the war, the only economy that was in good shape was the USA!

[Barbierir]

Morwilson
 
AFAIK the game is not based on GOA by Avalon Hill, all that they have in common is the name and setting

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

You don't get any extra manpower in this game from conquering cities - it does lower the enemy morale tho, and every nation has limited manpower afterwhich exhaustion kicks in and combat effectiveness takes a hit IIRC

That makes sense to get manpower from conquered cities. This isn't Civ or something. The German recruitment in Paris would be pretty negligible, I'd think.

I do like the idea of manpower limits, perhaps a new limit each year, ie. more or less added. This could be factored by winning or losing big. Those two extreme would tend to produce more recruits, I'd think.

Jason

[SMK-at-work]

Yes you get extra manpower each strategic turn - I've run out of accumulated French manpower in 1 game - but I still get a reasonable number of new manpower points each turn and fortunately the Germans are exhausted too and hte British are just beginnign to hit their straps (end of 1915)