Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

Gallipoli is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't see anyone electing to take this option in a DE, unless you gain a ton of free stuff. And if so, a player would just pick it, then immediately transport them out as soon as practicable.

I have written about this elsewhere. At the moment what happens in SP is that provided the Ottomans put a ship in the (imaginary) port of Sedd El Bahr there is no "Gallipoli" style landing from the UK Marines unit at Mudros, and the Ottomans can start ferrying troops eastwards even before they have joined the war. From a historical point of view I think this is potty. So a mechanism for a proper Gallipoli event is necessary to keep the Ottomans properly defending the vital area around Constantinople.

I have previously suggested that a Gallipoli event could be triggered by the Entente player moving a capital ship with a certain number of hexes of Constantinople. So the Entente player could decide not to do it at all. But if they felt that the area was poorly defended they might want to try. Then a DE event would fire and the invasion would occur (with Infantry Corps) in vacant hexes around Gallipoli. The fictitious port of Sedd El Bahr would be removed from the game so it would not be possible to simply ship those units out again.

The cost of the invasion could be spread over a number of turns (like many other DE events) and there could be swings in NM built in to the event (Entente NM goes up when the landing goes in, goes down if it is defeated). If the Ottomans have not defended that area properly then Constantinople would be under threat. Maybe there could be a Reinforcements DE as well if the invaders get established in Ottoman territory. It would need some playtesting, possibly first off as a mod, but it would add an extra dimension to the game. How can you have WW1 without Gallipoli?

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete


My experience with other MP games is that if there is a "route 1" strategy to win the game then most players will avail themselves of it. Many of the reports on here that I read about MP matches suggests to me that the game is very often decided by the artillery balance.

Regarding USA, if the game is often over before they can join then that suggests to me that something is off. Their rapid deployment from the Spring of 1918 was a key factor in the eventual German defeat.

The first point you made was definitely accurate before the last patch regarding Artillery. e.g. reducing the research to 2 chits and the cap on them gaining experience. I have been in 2 matches since, and those fixes have helped...but its still too powerful imo. I think the shell+logistic idea the devs proposed could be a possible extra fix in addition short of something even more radical.

The second point I agree with concerning American entry..or lack of. If the CP holds off on unrestricted warfare, the only other option for the Entente is to spend stupendous money on diplo to get them in..the kind of money that most would or have to spend in other things. I think some kind of mechanism needs to be in place that can get the Americans in by no later than 1918, if not sooner. (no one sends the Zimmerman telegraph haha).

One example I do have...and it was my first match as CP against ThisEndUp, was that I sent my submarines out in late 1914 to early 1915 and relentlessly attacked the UK with unrestricted warfare. It totally shut down Britains ports and economy. The USA's mobilization shot up to about 38% I believe before I left off on that business. I never tried it again because he was ready for it, and I didn't want the USA's mobilization to go up any more and tempt him to try some diplo. He eventually won the war for other reasons not in the scope of this discussion, but the USA didn't get in...or move up from the 38%. So..yes, something is 'off' like you say. Very rarely do the Americans get in.

The basic problem is that in the real war the advantage was generally with the defending side. Hundreds of thousands and millions of shells could be used prior to an infantry assault and still the attacks were beaten back. In the game it seems to me that the advantage is generally with the attacker. A hex can be blasted to kingdom come by artillery and then the infantry can just saunter in afterwards barely losing a strength point. And this is why the war ends before the US can get properly engaged.

Said this before, but the Zimmerman Telegram needs to be an event that nearly always happens (and not a DE where a player can choose) so that US belligerency rises rapidly.

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete
This would be enough to defend northern Italy from the Austro-Hungarians who usually have been clobbered by the Russians and are usually still trying to defeat Serbs/Albanians/Greeks on their southern borders. The Austro-Hungarians would be in no position to invade northern Italy - they have no Mountain Corps for a start.

You talk as though Serbia is still alive and the Russian front isn't stabilized by the time Italy joins. Neither of these are necessarily true, both in SP and in MP. Especially the Serbia still being alive part. Or even if Serbia still exists, usually it's just a few units holding out near Uskub. Which means Austria has a free HQ and extra corps to spare at the very least.

Mountain corps don't matter very much in Italy believe it or not. Artillery does. And Austria can have an artillery upgraded and ready to fire by the time Italy joins (or 1-2 turns after). The first target for Austria is Udine which is not a mountain hex. 3-4 corps attacking do the trick after you fire your shells. Bring your aircraft to spot because you probably won't be able to see the unit behind Udine, and walk in. I am not entirely certain of Italy's counterattacking chances but I have never seen them do it successfully. And in any case the deed is already done in terms of the NM swing.

Basically it's Italy not Austria who I find is under fire from soon after Italy joins.

And even if Austria is tied up in Serbia and Russia and can spare few forces to defend against the Italians, isn't this situation historically accurate? I gather you believe the problem is that the AI Italians are human wave marching across the mountains instead of human wave bashing their heads on the Isonzo/Trieste. Well it seems to me the mountain strategy is probably a better idea consider it forces the Centrals to rail in units to defend NM objectives. I don't see the problem with it.

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

You talk as though Serbia is still alive and the Russian front isn't stabilized by the time Italy joins. Neither of these are necessarily true, both in SP and in MP. Especially the Serbia still being alive part. Or even if Serbia still exists, usually it's just a few units holding out near Uskub. Which means Austria has a free HQ and extra corps to spare at the very least.

I did say "usually". That has been my experience in SP and in the single MP game that I have played.

Mountain corps don't matter very much in Italy believe it or not. Artillery does. And Austria can have an artillery upgraded and ready to fire by the time Italy joins (or 1-2 turns after). The first target for Austria is Udine which is not a mountain hex. 3-4 corps attacking do the trick after you fire your shells. Bring your aircraft to spot because you probably won't be able to see the unit behind Udine, and walk in. I am not entirely certain of Italy's counterattacking chances but I have never seen them do it successfully. And in any case the deed is already done in terms of the NM swing.

Basically it's Italy not Austria who I find is under fire from soon after Italy joins.

I have not found that. Italy mobilises very quickly and the Austro-Hungarians are usually scrambling to form an effective defence line.

And even if Austria is tied up in Serbia and Russia and can spare few forces to defend against the Italians, isn't this situation historically accurate? I gather you believe the problem is that the AI Italians are human wave marching across the mountains instead of human wave bashing their heads on the Isonzo/Trieste. Well it seems to me the mountain strategy is probably a better idea consider it forces the Centrals to rail in units to defend NM objectives. I don't see the problem with it.

You don't see a problem with 5 or 6 Infantry Corps marching up steep mountains towards Salzburg even though this never happened in 1915? OK, fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I do have a problem with it though as it was physically impossible to do this and Italian nationalists wanted Trieste, Fiume and Trento where other Italians lived. Hardly anyone lived up the mountains.

Double post.

If Italys current mobilization gets nerfed...Italy will get crushed at Udine. And..it doesn't take German help to do it.

Austria-Hungary can do it on its own if it has too..by temporarily suspending operations in Serbia if need be or having the Germans take up the mantle against the Serbs. In Galicia..its already a mixed German-AH defence anyway.
Austro-Hungarian units from the 'dead pile' (by that hands of the Russsians), can be deployed on and around the Isonzo in 1915. No operational movement necessary )
Udine is an easy target..because Italy's trench tech is either non-existent or only lvl 1.

My first test with the Trento Fortress edit proves how vulnerable Italy is in 1915.

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

If Italys current mobilization gets nerfed...Italy will get crushed at Udine. And..it doesn't take German help to do it.

We are talking in the context of Germany not being at war with Italy in 1915, right? I am not suggesting this change for vanilla as it is now, but as part of a wider change - fortress at Trento, high mountain hexes, only A-H as the Italian enemy and consequently a slower Italian mobilisation.

Austria-Hungary can do it on its own if it has too..by temporarily suspending operations in Serbia if need be or having the Germans take up the mantle against the Serbs. In Galicia..its already a mixed German-AH defence anyway.
Austro-Hungarian units from the 'dead pile' (by that hands of the Russsians), can be deployed on and around the Isonzo in 1915. No operational movement necessary )
Udine is an easy target..because Italy's trench tech is either non-existent or only lvl 1.

Well, we are in the realms of alt-history here, which is fine. If the Germans are left to deal with Serbia by themselves then they will have to make sacrifices elsewhere. I think Italy could have 1x Mountain Corps in their initial mobilisation and 1x HQ and 5x other Infantry Corps plus various Detachments would probably have a chance of holding Udine. There is no reason why the Italian unit starting in Udine should not be given very good stats either to make it stronger.

My first test with the Trento Fortress edit proves how vulnerable Italy is in 1915.

What happened? Were there German troops involved? If so, it is not really valid in terms of what I am suggesting.

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

My first test with the Trento Fortress edit proves how vulnerable Italy is in 1915.

What happened? Were there German troops involved? If so, it is not really valid in terms of what I am suggesting.

Just go look at the last 3 or 4 turns on the Trento edit thread. All KuK on the Isonzo. Btw..I will post one more turn (CP) that Dark Taboo ran on that test.

After that..I will post Test 2 which will involve only Italians and Austro-Hungarians on the Alpine Front...from c. April 1915 to Aug 1915. We are still not through with it because we are doing a full campaign blow-out but are house ruling no Germans in Tyrol or Slovenia unless the Italians take Trento or break through and take Klagenfurt or Trieste/Pola. That should mirror the historical situation somewhat with Germany not at war with Italy till 1916.

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

Said this before, but the Zimmerman Telegram needs to be an event that nearly always happens (and not a DE where a player can choose) so that US belligerency rises rapidly.

I could add this as an event that is switched off by default, and that you would need to switch on when playing (at any time in SP, when setting up the game in MP).

It could be set to happen automatically on its historic date, and with the same potential outcomes as the current DE or would you want it to always be intercepted by the British and (effectively) fail? i.e. it could just be one script that fires moving the US to join the Entente, rather than the multiple scripts that it is now.

This would have to be an optional script as opinions on US involvement in the war vary so widely that having it happen automatically is not something I would be willing to do, because it would be punishing a German player whether or not they have carried out unrestricted naval warfare.

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I could add this as an event that is switched off by default, and that you would need to switch on when playing (at any time in SP, when setting up the game in MP).

It could be set to happen automatically on its historic date, and with the same potential outcomes as the current DE or would you want it to always be intercepted by the British and (effectively) fail? i.e. it could just be one script that fires moving the US to join the Entente, rather than the multiple scripts that it is now.

This would have to be an optional script as opinions on US involvement in the war vary so widely that having it happen automatically is not something I would be willing to do, because it would be punishing a German player whether or not they have carried out unrestricted naval warfare.

I was thinking that it might be an automatic event that happens in maybe 8 games out of 10 on its historic date (and it is always intercepted) so that US belligerency is increased to bring them much closer to joining the war. Then the other 2 times it is either not sent at all, or sent but not intercepted.

I am not exactly sure of all the possible outcomes and effects of this DE, but at the moment in SP I just never send the Telegram and then with a couple of Diplo chits I feel I can keep the USA out of the war even if I do some unrestricted submarine warfare. I am not sure how it plays in MP but some players have said that the USA rarely gets in the fight at all.

Thanks for weighing in Bill. I agree that making the USA come in when the Germans don't pursue unrestricted submarine warfare is a little too punishing for the CP player, since they don't reap the benefits of avoiding it while reaping all the downsides.

@Stockwellpete
It does not matter if Germany is at war with Italy or not, as those German corps that were originally earmarked for duty in Italy can easily be sent to Galicia or Serbia, and a corresponding Austrian unit taking its place in the Alps. The end result is identical. As for Gallipoli, why would anyone want to purposefully repeat a disaster? It's like insisting that AH has to launch an offensive into Poland in 1914, or the Ottomans into the caucusus, or the French into Alsace Lorraine. As for the removal of Turkish troops from the peninsula to other theatres, I see no issue with that. If the player wants to risk an unexpected landing to improve their situation elsewhere, by all means. Historically, I recall the area was only garrisoned lightly prior to the landings as well. Troops were only moved in in larger quantities when the boats had already landed.

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

@Stockwellpete
It does not matter if Germany is at war with Italy or not, as those German corps that were originally earmarked for duty in Italy can easily be sent to Galicia or Serbia, and a corresponding Austrian unit taking its place in the Alps. The end result is identical.

I am assuming that many players would like to see the game as historically accurate as possible. So much care has been taken to get most other things right so it seems to me that this is the intention of the designers. Once you have got the history correct you then need to build in plausible alt-history options to enhance gameplay and replayability. So there should be at least some possibility of Germany and Italy not going to war, certainly not in 1915 anyway. If the CP player wants to shuffle German and A-H troops around then fine. A-H units are generally not as good as German units for starters so the end result is not identical.

As for Gallipoli, why would anyone want to purposefully repeat a disaster? It's like insisting that AH has to launch an offensive into Poland in 1914, or the Ottomans into the caucusus, or the French into Alsace Lorraine. As for the removal of Turkish troops from the peninsula to other theatres, I see no issue with that. If the player wants to risk an unexpected landing to improve their situation elsewhere, by all means. Historically, I recall the area was only garrisoned lightly prior to the landings as well. Troops were only moved in in larger quantities when the boats had already landed.

They wouldn't have to - and why would it necessarily be a disaster? I have suggested creating the possibility for the Entente to try the "Gallipoli gambit". It would be triggered by the Entente moving a capital ship within a certain number of hexes of Constantinople. If the Entente player doesn't fancy it, don't do it, and the event does not occur. But are you seriously suggesting that the game would not be improved and made more interesting by the possibility of it happening?

So TEU mentioned that he thinks the Central Powers have the advantage. I'll give my 2000 cents:

In my tentative opinion I think the Centrals are in a bind. The first long term problem for the Centrals is there isn't a way to reliable defeat Russia. If Russia adopts a long term strategy to minimize NM losses (after their violent attacks in 1914) and take advantage of their overpowered Industry Tech (+125 MPP per turn per tech advance which is double what Germany gets) and large tech pool (1600 is as large as Germany, we are talking about a country which couldn't produce its own aircraft or submarines and had to rely on foreign imports) then I don't really see how you force their NM to get low enough for the Bolsheviks to take over. Russia has a LOT of space to trade for time. Once Warsaw is lost the remaining NM objectives you have to lose aren't that impactful (-1000 or so each), and it takes MANY turns for the Centrals to get to them. If Russia simply retreats and entrenches one hex every turn on fronts where the Centrals want to attack, then you can do so for a very long time. There just isn't anything forcing Russia to stand and fight. The Germany levels of MPP per turn (700+ is quite possible) once they get level 3+ Industry Tech means they can always repurchase any losses and Russia actually starts buying extra corps even if they have taken very high losses consistently. This combined with 4 artillery units (they can purchase up to limits before their scripted artillery spawns) makes it impractical to push against Russia in multiple sectors. You're not going to take Riga Kiev or Minsk for a LONG time if ever, and Russia can even make a stand near Brest-Litovsk if she chooses to do so. The Russians are perfectly capable of firing their artillery shells and destroying a Central corps every now and then while simultaneously retreating and taking no losses.

I will note that I haven't explored enough is what exactly triggers the series of events in Russia. I gather they need low NM, something like 10%, but I'm not sure exactly what level of low NM triggers what. There are a series of desertion events which help weaken Russian corps and I'm not sure what triggers those. So to have a complete opinion on Russia I'd need to review the exact numbers. I think I can reliably get Russian NM below 50%, but the problem is once you get them there they just start retreating and refusing to engage. I want to examine this further.

The other long term problem for the Centrals is diplomacy. Specifically the Netherlands will deal NM damage every turn to Germany if she is anything but Central-aligned. And the reality is that the Entente get an insane number of diplo chits with no restrictions and the Centrals simply can't match this. Not sure why they give the Entente 18 diplomatic chits (UK France Italy Russia) while the Centrals only get 12, but basically there's no way to stop the Netherlands from swinging. And again it isn't really even the large MPP loss (65 seems too large, should be like 35 and just give Germany a couple extra cities to make up for the difference) that is the main problem but it's the NM damage every turn that hurts the most. I'm not quite sure what historical events the developers are intending here because there already is blockade which deals NM damage every turn. Was the Netherlands really a giant supplier of calories for Germany? Did millions of tons of grain come through the blockade and sneak into Germany to the Netherlands during WWI? There's also a NM hit to Germany once Norway swings but the Netherlands is the main way to hurt the central powers using diplomatic chits. I think the France Russia and Italy should lose some diplo chits (come on was Italy really able to influence anyone at all during the war?) and probably Russia and Ottomans shouldn't be able to influence far away countries like Netherlands... or Spain.

France may be the Entente's main problem and the main reason is they lose Verdun which causes a ticking NM loss for France. And the Entente has to place most of their artillery in France to hold the line and prevent prevent a French collapse. But here is why I think ultimately French NM will outlast German NM: the UK has a giant NM pool and can take over much/most of the fighting in France. Yes between France and the UK that's a giant 95000 NM pool (I know events subtract or add from this but still it's roughly accurate). And worst of all for the Central Powers, there's no ticking NM damage that affects UK (unless you want to try convoy raiding in the Atlantic against a competent Entente admiral, good luck with that). Ultimately this combined NM pool can outlast Germany's pool, especially given the artillery levels on the front, which again make most of the possible advances in France impossible. Again, the ability to get an "extra" artillery unit (purchase up to limit before your event arty spawns) helps tremendously. Industry Tech gives the UK (really every major, except Serbia and possibly Italy and Ottomans) quite a bit of extra MPP which goes into purchasing extra units and the front fills out which makes a "breakthrough" impossible even if a successful attack is carried out. The issue becomes less about fighting and winning battles and more about how much NM are you losing every turn due to events. The loss per turn is zero for the UK*.

*Yes you can rail in an Austrian army to share some of the NM losses between the centrals, so it's not just the Entente that can manage NM pools in this way, but the Austrians have a smaller pool and weak technology....

Elsewhere Italy is a liability for the Entente and the Caucasus front is a liability for the Centrals. I think both sides are just trying to limit the damage here. I think it's difficult for either theatre to become fatal for either side (progress is slow in the Caucasus and the Entente can always rail in units to help Italy). If the Russians choose to place an artillery in the Caucasus then either the Ottomans ultimately give up Erzurum and Trabzon or it basically becomes a NM farm for Russia where they devour an Ottoman unit every couple turns for the badly needed NM. I think the Ottomans could use an Enver Pasha HQ in the Caucasus upon mobilization and I would actually give the Italians a half strength artillery unit and one chit invested in Trench Warfare to start. I was reading about the Italian generous use of artillery during the early battles of the Isonzo.

So yeah I do suspect the Entente has it better in the long term. I think Russia needs its tech levels and economy toned down and probably needs higher NM penalties upon retreating because I don't see them falling apart in 1917 as they did historically if the Russian player moves to avoid this. The Ottomans are weak and will need to be bailed out in one way or another. And probably most critically Germany takes quite a bit of ticking NM damage and in my opinion Germany runs out before France does.

I think the intention was for unrestricted sub warfare to give Germany a NM boost every turn (or every now and then). But in MP it just isn't possible for Centrals to raid with subs in the Atlantic (raiding in the Med more possible once you take Greece but this doesn't have any NM Objective hexes). Your subs WILL gets spotted either leaving or returning past the blockade or simply out at sea. Entente submarines and aircraft are excellent sub spotters, S&I will randomly detect your subs when they are vulnerable, and if those somehow fail the Entente can simply do it the old fashioned way by patrolling with surface vessels and keeping an anti-sub mob ready in a central location. Any raiding you do isn't worth the NM and MPP swing from losing subs (not to mention you anger the USA).

Suggestions:
-Lower Russia tech pool to 1400 from 1600 (this is WWI not WWII, Russia was NOT a tech leader)
-Additional penalties for Russia to retreat (Russian regime historically was shaky and should be in mortal danger if the war appears to be going badly, collapse in 1917 should be a real threat)
-Change Industry Tech to +10% instead of +15% (should reduce late game unit bloat)
-Reduce max chits invested and max tech level in Gas/Shell Production from 3 to 2 to slightly slow it down and limit shell production from 4 to 3
-Change max stored shells from 10 to 3 + logistics
-Reduce Entente diplo chits (UK France Russia Italy) from 5/5/5/3 to 5/4/3/1 (lower Ottomans from 3 to 2) and restrict Russia and Ottomans from influencing Netherlands Spain etc.
-Give Italy a starting arty unit and give Ottomans a low quality starting HQ in the Caucasus, give Italy one chit in Trench Warfare being researched
-Reduce the effect of the Netherlands both in MPP and NM unless there's some great reason why this nation was so critical for German food imports (I don't believe the Netherlands changed its export policy during the war, it was also affected by the blockade and experienced food shortages on its own)
-Also reduce the ticking NM effect of Verdun to balance it
-And finally, Make Unrestricted sub warfare Great Again

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I could add this as an event that is switched off by default, and that you would need to switch on when playing (at any time in SP, when setting up the game in MP).

It could be set to happen automatically on its historic date, and with the same potential outcomes as the current DE or would you want it to always be intercepted by the British and (effectively) fail? i.e. it could just be one script that fires moving the US to join the Entente, rather than the multiple scripts that it is now.

This would have to be an optional script as opinions on US involvement in the war vary so widely that having it happen automatically is not something I would be willing to do, because it would be punishing a German player whether or not they have carried out unrestricted naval warfare.

I was thinking that it might be an automatic event that happens in maybe 8 games out of 10 on its historic date (and it is always intercepted) so that US belligerency is increased to bring them much closer to joining the war. Then the other 2 times it is either not sent at all, or sent but not intercepted.

I am not exactly sure of all the possible outcomes and effects of this DE, but at the moment in SP I just never send the Telegram and then with a couple of Diplo chits I feel I can keep the USA out of the war even if I do some unrestricted submarine warfare. I am not sure how it plays in MP but some players have said that the USA rarely gets in the fight at all.

I can set it to happen in 80% of games when the script is switched on, that's not a problem.

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre
I can set it to happen in 80% of games when the script is switched on, that's not a problem.

OK, that would be great.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Suggestions:
-Lower Russia tech pool to 1400 from 1600 (this is WWI not WWII, Russia was NOT a tech leader)
-Additional penalties for Russia to retreat (Russian regime historically was shaky and should be in mortal danger if the war appears to be going badly, collapse in 1917 should be a real threat)
-Change Industry Tech to +10% instead of +15% (should reduce late game unit bloat)
-Reduce max chits invested and max tech level in Gas/Shell Production from 3 to 2 to slightly slow it down and limit shell production from 4 to 3
-Change max stored shells from 10 to 3 + logistics
-Reduce Entente diplo chits (UK France Russia Italy) from 5/5/5/3 to 5/4/3/1 (lower Ottomans from 3 to 2) and restrict Russia and Ottomans from influencing Netherlands Spain etc.
-Give Italy a starting arty unit and give Ottomans a low quality starting HQ in the Caucasus, give Italy one chit in Trench Warfare being researched
-Reduce the effect of the Netherlands both in MPP and NM unless there's some great reason why this nation was so critical for German food imports (I don't believe the Netherlands changed its export policy during the war, it was also affected by the blockade and experienced food shortages on its own)
-Also reduce the ticking NM effect of Verdun to balance it
-And finally, Make Unrestricted sub warfare Great Again

These suggestions I highly endorse!

ThisEndUp is right that the Central Powers have an advantage, but in my opinion, only an early advantage. They have the initiative and the position
of 'interior lines' and get to pick their battles early on...but they can make no mistakes and they have to keep the fire hot.

The greatest weaknesses the Central Powers have are the Ottoman Empire and the loss of The Netherlands as a pro-CP power. Regarding the Dutch, I didn't like the loss of the 65 mmp per turn when it happened to me in a match early last year...but then I realised I was also suffering from a continuous NM loss because of it. The Blockade, coupled with this, far outweighed my gains against the Russians..and even the taking of Verdun.

Anyway...I could go on. Well written analysis Chernobyl.

I agree with TEU it would make more sense to enforce the Zimmerman event only once sub raiding/unrestricted warfare is actually profitable.

Suggestions:
-Lower Russia tech pool to 1400 from 1600 (this is WWI not WWII, Russia was NOT a tech leader)
-Additional penalties for Russia to retreat (Russian regime historically was shaky and should be in mortal danger if the war appears to be going badly, collapse in 1917 should be a real threat)
-Change Industry Tech to +10% instead of +15% (should reduce late game unit bloat)
-Reduce max chits invested and max tech level in Gas/Shell Production from 3 to 2 to slightly slow it down and limit shell production from 4 to 3
-Change max stored shells from 10 to 3 + logistics
-Reduce Entente diplo chits (UK France Russia Italy) from 5/5/5/3 to 5/4/3/1 (lower Ottomans from 3 to 2) and restrict Russia and Ottomans from influencing Netherlands Spain etc.
-Give Italy a starting arty unit and give Ottomans a low quality starting HQ in the Caucasus, give Italy one chit in Trench Warfare being researched
-Reduce the effect of the Netherlands both in MPP and NM unless there's some great reason why this nation was so critical for German food imports (I don't believe the Netherlands changed its export policy during the war, it was also affected by the blockade and experienced food shortages on its own)
-Also reduce the ticking NM effect of Verdun to balance it
-And finally, Make Unrestricted sub warfare Great Again

I don't think Russia needs to be nerfed that hard. Their techs already cost more per chit, and the progress per chit is also stunted. The Russian retreat should not be penalised either IMO; historically they revolted because of food shortages in the cities (not even a geral shortage, they just had a crap distribution system). Even under Kerensky, the average soldier was entirely content to sit and defend; it was the costly offensives they hated, and which Kerensky idiotically pushed for, that led to the Provisional Governments downfall.

I think 5 + logistics is a better balance.

Don't the Ottomans already have a HQ in the caususus?

The Netherlands was essential to Germany for access to the world market. They were a loophold in the blockade system until the Entents closed it later in the war, reflected by the alignment slip I suppose. They did experience their own food shortages, but that was much later on when the blockade policy went into its furthest extent. 50 NM per turn isn't that large anyway. Just let Germany occupy Serbia instead or soemthing.

Everything else I agree with in principle, although I think a further rework of the Balkans with respect to Greece and Bulgaria would also be good.

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
I don't think Russia needs to be nerfed that hard. Their techs already cost more per chit, and the progress per chit is also stunted.

Yes the later techs for Russia Austria and Ottomans come more slowly (for those who don't know, they research tech levels 1-5 at base rates of 5/4/3/2/1 percent per turn, plus all the bonuses like catchup and S&I), but it's not that important considering 1) later techs are less important than earlier techs; 2) many techs don't even have high levels (for example artillery only gets to level 2; 3) base tech rate only part of the equation when factoring in ally/catchup bonuses.

And Russia does have a few slight extra costs to techs but it isn't enough to prevent them from researching everything they need simultaneously. For such a hideously technologically backward major, the game in its current form doesn't present Russia with any research dilemma.

Russia can simultaneously research:
Trench Warfare x4 (300)
Industry Tech x3 (375)
Infantry Warfare (125)
Artillery Weapons x2 (250)
Gas/Shell Production x3 (300)
C+C x2 (200)

Total cost is only 1550. That's pretty much everything Russia needs to research at their maximum rates. No need to research Spying for the team bonus because England can do that. Meanwhile Germany is must spend MPP and research capacity on S+I tech which makes the few higher tech prices Russia pays moot. Austria is limited to a harsh 1200 which often leaves Austria having to make a choice about what to research but Russia can keep pace with Germany except perhaps she may be a bit slower to finish off the level 4/5 Trench Warfare and Industry techs. Russia's army quality will consistently be higher than Austria's (you have to put off Command+Control as Austria for quite a while or else you will be slow to get Arty 2 or high Gas/Shell levels). Was Austria-Hungary dramatically technologically inferior to Russia in WWI? Was Russia broadly technologically equal to Germany and GB during WWI?

I'm not particularly interested in nerfing Russia so much as simply balancing their ability turtle, tech up and rev up their economy. Right now Russia feels too much like the USSR in terms of the ability to bring to bear massive amounts of industry and high quality weapons given a year and a half. This isn't the USSR; there should be a much lower level of industrial and technological potential. I would actually consider giving Russia an initial MPP increase (perhaps raise their base Industrial Modifier from 25% to 30%) but their long term ability to powerup is neither historical nor sensical when you compare Russia's MPP and tech potential to Germany and/or Austria in this game.

With a tech limit of say 1400, Russia could research all of the above but it would at least come at the cost of slowing down ONE thing like C+C or Infantry Warfare research. Or she could put a bit less into Gas/Shell tech or be slightly slower in trench warfare. It would at least affect the speed of ONE important tech. But right now the 1600 limit means Russia just hums along grabbing all the important techs at full speed.