Trying Hard To Like This Game, But ...

[Rugens]

I agree WWI Gold or it's update WWI CE overall provides the best "feel" of any WWI game for the period. It is a great game. The downsides as mentioned are that it is an area game and that as far as I can tell it is no longer supported. The CE version got rid of a lot of the clunky aspects of Gold but you need to save every turn in case it freezes up.

Since my preference is hex based games though, that's one reason I want so badly to like this game. Actually that's not fair. I really do like this game. It's just there is a large hole in it when the historical gamer in me wants to use defense the way it was actually used. I want to delay while making the attacker bleed and feel the pain. I know I should be able to do it but the system will not allow it.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Rugens

From what I've seen the problem is not driven by the research/tech inequality. That part seems to work pretty well.

It seems like to me the problem has more to do with the CRT results. All do respect to some of the earlier comments regarding netting attack/counter-attack losses equaling a historical result of even causalities, that kind of misses the point.

For instance, if the allies attack and the CP does not choose to counter attack (gives up the hex), from a historical perspective I don't think many would argue that the attacking causalities should usually be significantly higher than those of the defender. In the game though this will just about never be the case. In the game the attacker will almost always outkill the defender. This in effect eliminates using a flexible or delaying defense.

If the defender does choose to counter attack then yes, the causalities may be about even in total, but the loss profile of each sides respective attacks seem backwards to me.

Again if artillery were toned down just a bit I don't think the attacking would be such an advantage...

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Rugens

From what I've seen the problem is not driven by the research/tech inequality. That part seems to work pretty well.

It seems like to me the problem has more to do with the CRT results. All do respect to some of the earlier comments regarding netting attack/counter-attack losses equaling a historical result of even causalities, that kind of misses the point.

For instance, if the allies attack and the CP does not choose to counter attack (gives up the hex), from a historical perspective I don't think many would argue that the attacking causalities should usually be significantly higher than those of the defender. In the game though this will just about never be the case. In the game the attacker will almost always outkill the defender. This in effect eliminates using a flexible or delaying defense.

If the defender does choose to counter attack then yes, the causalities may be about even in total, but the loss profile of each sides respective attacks seem backwards to me.

Again if artillery were toned down just a bit I don't think the attacking would be such an advantage...

I feel the same way..toned down a tad, and this might address some of the aspects that Rugen pointed out in his initial post. Taxman66's idea is interesting: limit artillery to a maximum of 2 investment chits..slow the progress to lvl 2 a bit.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I've got a few ideas from this to think about for the next patch. [:)]

[Taxman66]

Note: If you do reduce the Max Arty Chit investment to 2, it should remain 3 for the USA (just like they are allowed to invest more chits in Infantry weapons).