Some more questions, observations and suggestions

[jwood314]

First of all, what other PC games has Mr. Hunter designed? Are they still available?

Observations

1) When a country surrenders, all of my forces that were in the country are basically gone and they don’t come back for a long time, is this by design?

2) Why can’t I train A level troops with assault?

3) Are the surrender boundaries variable?

4) Does taking more territory create a better post surrender area?

5) Do I receive ‘tribute’ from the conquered country?

6) Can I have the option to totally conquer a major power?

7) Artillery is the King of the battlefield. I don’t even attack into France, just shell them into submission.

8) There is no Greek flag when I am running through their territory

9) Any way to attack the India area? If not, why is it on the map, is this for the resources coming from there?

10) Minors will be able to receive build points from the major powers in 1.2?

11) Any way to create a system to continually give food/BP/raw material per turn.

12) I can not tell a difference when unrestricted sub war fare is on.

13) Anyway to display the deaths per country and not per side?

14) Is artillery effectiveness decreased based on the number of damage points it has sustained?

15) Is there a size 32 British Corp? I ran into this on my latest game.

[FrankHunter]

1) When a country surrenders, all of my forces that were in the country are basically gone and they don’t come back for a long time, is this by design?

Yes, some forces are used as garrisons. 

2) Why can’t I train A level troops with assault?

I thought you could although their quality won't be increased.

3) Are the surrender boundaries variable?

No

4) Does taking more territory create a better post surrender area?

No

5) Do I receive ‘tribute’ from the conquered country?

Not really.

6) Can I have the option to totally conquer a major power?

You mean annex every hex of it?  No

 

9) Any way to attack the India area? If not, why is it on the map, is this for the resources coming from there?

Its there as a place for the Brits to prepare for an invasion of Iraq.  It can't be invaded because there was no way an invasion of India by the Central Powers was possible.

10) Minors will be able to receive build points from the major powers in 1.2?

Yes

11) Any way to create a system to continually give food/BP/raw material per turn.

I hadn't actually thought of it so its not on the plate at the present time.

12) I can not tell a difference when unrestricted sub war fare is on.

Your chances of finding and hitting enemy shipping with your subs is increased 25%.

13) Anyway to display the deaths per country and not per side?

Yes, will also be in v1.2

14) Is artillery effectiveness decreased based on the number of damage points it has sustained?

Not at the moment

15) Is there a size 32 British Corp? I ran into this on my latest game.

Yes, the Australians and Canadians are both rated as being 32 strength corps.

[kcole4080]

Here's one: why does some of French territory become ceded, while the rest goes neutral?
For instance, I now control Rouen, Arras, Verdun, Nancy, Epinal & Dunkirk, but lost Paris & Belfort.
I was still fighting a Brit army north of Rouen when France capitulated.

[FrankHunter]

why does some of French territory become ceded, while the rest goes neutral?

Because I don't believe Germany would have annexed all of France.

[SMK-at-work]

Germany had no desire to annex any of France at all.

they were only interested in German-speaking areas - certainly Luxembourg would have disasppeared (there had been moves towards that all through the 19th century), and possibly a few more bits of Alsasce-Lorraine (it actually only took about 3/4th of Alsasce and 10% of Lorraine in 1871) where there were German speakers - possibly the bits of alsasce they hadn't annexed in 1871 such as het area around Belfort, plus a few more bits of Lorraine - they only took over about 75% of Alsasce and 25% of Lorraine originaly.

there was a small number of German speaking Belgians in the eastern areas, so maybe teh 2 border hexes of Belgium would be annexed too...and of course Belgian industry and resources would have been apporpriated.

Probably they would ahve secured French raw materials by trade provisions of any peace treaty, likely including occupation without annexation of resources & indiutry near hte border as per what happened in the Rhineland after WW1 - it remains nominally Frnech but is occupied by the Germans for several years, so to me that is what the "annexation" represents. Once hte game ends the politicial machinations would sort out the exact details in a reverse Versailles.

So to me the German occupation of northern France represents that - an occupation to secure resources for the war, rather than annexation per se.

[hjaco]

One further note on this subject.

German ideas about lebensraum originated in the expansion time in the end of the 19th century where German population grew phenomenally by various reasons.

At that time most regions with German speaking population was already a part of the Second German Reich which was the doing of Bismarck so that was certainly still an issue but not the important one.

One major point of grabbing colonies apart from a matter of national pride (which should certainly not be underestimated) was on a long time perspective to gain "breathing space" for the rapidly growing population.

Therefore the lebensraum theory came up which became predominant in German thinking in especially the German political society and a long term goal in itself although the military was in reality not so keen in pursuing it because they considered the Russians for the greater foe of Germany. After all they kicked French butt in 70'.

Bottom line is they had not grand scale territorial ambitions in the west where annexing of great parts of French speaking population just would have been a prelude for another war with France.