East First breaks the game

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

East First breaks the game

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> East First breaks the game

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

East First breaks the game - 3/20/2020 8:37:07 PM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

I have now played four games with an East First strategy. What does that mean? The Germans put EVERYTHING into the East and attack the Baltic Fleet on Turn 1. What happens:
The Northern part of the Russian front gets easily ruptured and broken. Due to the very lax ZOC rules, the scarce Russian units in the North cannot prevent one or two deep cavalry raids. This means you are caught wrong footed in the Northern Front on T1 already, you spend the rest of the few game turns trying to plug the holes. Of course, against German corps, this is futile. The NM difference in a few turns makes any defense meaningless, even with an early Trench 1 level.

In the South, the Austrians can sit back and relax. The Germans can take the heavy lifting and will do so after T2. The Austrians, even with an all-out assault on Belgrad (which always succeeds, unfortunately, as you can never retake the city with the few Serbs) do not lose NM as fast as the Russians.

Then comes the death blow to the Russians, the German navy quickly moves in the Baltic and kills off the Russian navy there without meaningful resistance. The Germans can now cruise with 100+ morale and defend in the West. They can do some easy pickings against the French, of course, Belgium is ignored until much later in 1915.

In 1915, the Russians are losing the game already even against Turks.

All this, because the game gives an ahistorical Schlieffen East option. I do not think it should be allowed in this game as it never was a realistic game plan. It only should be available if both players agree. But even then, I would not as the Allies as you will ALWAYS lose.

You can try the strategy above. There is no real resistance to this in the East. It gets even worse if you try to challenge the German fleet, with the massive NM bonus, the Germans can afford a full blown battle with their ships and even a loss. They still inflict so many casualties, that the Western Allies lose incredibly in NM and from then on, the writing is on the wall. I cannot see that any game goes beyond 1915 with that strategy.

And yes, I played the first SCWWI and the problem was always the ships. But that could be navigated with a reasonable player. What I see here is not fun and I will not continue to play with any East Firsters.

Post #: 1

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/20/2020 10:02:23 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

Yeah this guy made similar points. Definitely something that needs to be looked at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcinlassen

I have played this game several times now and I find that it is plagued with numerous flaws. While it is an interesting game, these flaws make it frustrating to play. 1) apparently you cannot disable the end game date in multiplayer pbem games. 2) I find the national morale system flawed in that units may rush behind enemy lines (germans against Russia in particular) and take cities for the only purpose of lowering the morale. its does not appear that cutting these units off effects them very much, as apparently they can draw supply from enemy cities when trapped behind enemy lines. This encourages players to make moves that have no military or realistic applications..just sacrifice a cavalry unit to cause great morale loss. even if the city is recaptured the next turn, there is no adjustment for raising the national morale up again. 3) all nationalities of units are the same. an Italian corp is just as good as a german corp. no history in the effect of what the units were like in reality. 4) apparently the north to the Baltic is a one way sea lane. just pop those british and French warships into the middle of the german navy. Denmark doesn't particually mind as I see little change in their diplomatic status. All in all, I cannot recommend this game to anyone. If I am in error in any of these observations, I readily await correction or explanation.

_____________________________

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 2

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/20/2020 11:00:30 PM

Chernobyl

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline

Can you actually destroy the Russian vessels if they remain in port? Or only if the AI moves them out to sea

You say you're winning by 1915 if you attack to the east, but I also win by 1915 if I attack to the west and do nothing with my navy. The AI is just stupid and you can beat it no matter what strategy you use.

Are you claiming it would be impossible to win as Entente in a human vs human game? Cause I feel I could defeat the Germans in the west if they don't devote most of their forces there.

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 3/20/2020 11:03:03 PM >

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 3

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/20/2020 11:25:22 PM

Chernobyl

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcinlassen
I find the national morale system flawed in that units may rush behind enemy lines
all nationalities of units are the same. an Italian corp is just as good as a german corp

I don't mind that the units are mostly the same. I think giving German corps a further advantage over Italian corps would make the whole thing really tough to balance and I do understand that this game is trying to keep things simple. On that note I will point out that the game gives a bizarre bonus to ANZAC corps (not sure why they are the most powerful unit in the game) which I do find to be unwarranted.

And a surrounded unit that has taken an enemy city really does get too much supply. It should get reduced supply and movement (still more for taking a city but not the full amount). And you should regain most of the NM you lost when you retake a NM Objective city.

Lastly I will add that I think the biggest flaw of the game (besides the AI) is the snowball effect. National Morale (both plus and minus) and HQ experience both combine to make one side invincible. Once you go above 110% morale and your opponent dips below 90%, you are basically unstoppable and will ALWAYS inflict higher losses on the enemy than you take, and then guess what the NM gap widens even MORE. There's not much chance of a comeback for the other side.

I'm not sure what the solution would be, but for starters I would reduce the effects of NM and HQ experience on unit morale (which ultimately affects readiness and thus combat performance). I would also consider making NM lower OFFENSIVE capability more than DEFENSIVE capability. After all the French units that mutinied in 1917 never refused to defend - they just refused to participate in more frontal attacks.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 4

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/21/2020 9:23:37 AM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

Ok, I think I can safely say that the game utterly broken. We played this again with an East First strategy. Due to the lack of ZOCs for the cavalry, it only takes two or three cavalry units to totally demoralize the Russians. They then fall below 80% (of course, holding on to Warsaw while German cav corps are rampaging in your rear areas is futile), and then the game breaks down. The Germans, with no adequate possibility to be attacked in the West (I laugh at the French trying to break through!), are at 105% morale in no time. Then it is pure slaughter. No research needed, nothing. You just grind down the Russian. The French have not enough money to speed up UK entry, so at worst, you have to hold out for 3 or more turns against the 105% Germans. GOOD LUCK!

Sorry, I did not have the impression that the first iteration SCWWI was so broken (it might have been, but I am loathe to try out).

Save your money folks until some fixes have come (I say this with a broken heart as I am a fanboy of the series). I am extremely disappointed at this and will not play anymore until we see some REAL fixes or implementing some house rules like not advancing with cavalry through holes in the line (by the way, why does the game have ZOCs which do not work as in history?).

(in reply to Chernobyl)

Post #: 5

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/21/2020 9:30:56 AM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

Can you actually destroy the Russian vessels if they remain in port? Or only if the AI moves them out to sea

I play against humans. You can lay one mine but your DD is dead afterwards. The rest of the fleet must hunker down in port or it destroyed. The Russian ships cannot leave port and must flee. Silly.

quote:

You say you're winning by 1915 if you attack to the east, but I also win by 1915 if I attack to the west and do nothing with my navy. The AI is just stupid and you can beat it no matter what strategy you use.

Well, the game has such an easy PBEM mode that I find it is not necessary to play against the AI. But the AI is even worse as we all know.

quote:

Are you claiming it would be impossible to win as Entente in a human vs human game?

Yes. It is. Try it out against a competent Central Powers player. He wipes the floor with you in the first 3 turns in the East. It looks a bit different with a West First strategy, but not much.

quote:

Cause I feel I could defeat the Germans in the west if they don't devote most of their forces there.

Not if the Germans leave Belgium alone. You do not have enough points to attack and your NM is worse than his and you have no artillery. Good luck!

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 6

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/21/2020 5:11:40 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks for the feedback everyone and I believe we can implement some fairly straightforward logical adjustments/fixes to address what has been highlighted here, and especially so for concerns regarding the East first strategy.

That being said, in terms of the unit differences (or perceived lack thereof), Bill I feel addressed this quite well in the following thread, post #10:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4728623

Regarding the inability to not be able to disable the end game date for PBEM++, this has already been adjusted on my end for the next update.

Essentially nothing is ever set in stone from our end, and as issues crop up, inevitably they will once thousands of players start playing the game upon release, we always do our best to address them and generally improve the game as needed.

Hubert

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fury-Software/233842800005900

Join our Steam Community:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/strategiccommand3

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 7

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/21/2020 8:27:08 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

Just my two cents here, but shouldn't the French be able to give the Germans a hard time in the West, if they go East first?

I know that the AI will invade Belgium if the Germans don't...but I'm not so sure how well this would help against a human East first strategy.

C

_____________________________

�Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.�

-Aristotle-

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 8

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/21/2020 10:02:45 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks for the feedback everyone and I believe we can implement some fairly straightforward logical adjustments/fixes to address what has been highlighted here, and especially so for concerns regarding the East first strategy.

That being said, in terms of the unit differences (or perceived lack thereof), Bill I feel addressed this quite well in the following thread, post #10:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4728623

Regarding the inability to not be able to disable the end game date for PBEM++, this has already been adjusted on my end for the next update.

Essentially nothing is ever set in stone from our end, and as issues crop up, inevitably they will once thousands of players start playing the game upon release, we always do our best to address them and generally improve the game as needed.

Hubert

Thanks as always Bill and Hubert!

_____________________________

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 9

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/21/2020 11:02:39 PM

Chernobyl

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline

quote:

I play against humans. You can lay one mine but your DD is dead afterwards. The rest of the fleet must hunker down in port or it destroyed. The Russian ships cannot leave port and must flee. Silly.

Okay but I assumed from the beginning that the Russian vessels had better stay in port. If they are safe in port then I don't really see the problem. They're essentially in the same situation the Austrian navy is in.

quote:

He wipes the floor with you in the first 3 turns in the East.

I can confirm this. The central powers can cut both rail lines into Poland on turn #1 before Russia can do anything about it, and this SEVERELY reduces supply values for ALL the Russian troops in Poland.
Hex supply levels drop from 7 thru 10 to just 4 to 5. You can even take the city of Brest-Litovsk on turn #1 if you are lucky. You destroy the recon bombers there with cavalry and walk in. This reduces Russian national morale by 2,000 points (a significant blow).

I absolutely agree that this needs to be fixed. I imagine a smart Central Powers player would defend in the West, sell tech to rail corps to Poland, and absolutely crush the Russian armies there while they are at pathetically low supply.
This would win the war. The Russian units in Poland are not only weaker combat-wise, but they actually lose an action point due to low supply! All before the Entente player even gets to move.

An example is shown below. Note that this isn't really the best the Central Powers can do on turn #1 (you can also send a corps to Byalistok, entrench more, and rail more stuff in) and also note that you don't even have to take Brest-Litovsk to cripple the Polish army, all you have to do is cut the two rail lines.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 3/21/2020 11:57:02 PM >

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 10

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 1:52:56 AM

darth254

Posts: 17
Joined: 6/17/2019
Status: offline

I haven't played multiplayer yet myself but similar to what was evidenced above by Chernobyl, I also came across a stream on youtube of guy playing a PBEM game where he initially deployed some cavalry at the Masurian Lakes tile which ran right through on turn 1 to Bialystok, and then Brest-Litovsk without a fight. To be able to take a fort and sever rails that deep in Russian territory without a fight without really any preventive measure does seem like "cheese" that should be addressed.

Now this is a particular initial deployment cheese in the East using cavalry. I don't know if that necessarily addresses OP's general complaint about going East first and how limited/helpless the Entente is in the West to do really anything about it.

< Message edited by darth254 -- 3/22/2020 1:53:27 AM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)

Post #: 11

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 2:27:39 AM

budd

Posts: 2972
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

When have Mr. Cater and Mr. Runacre ever not addressed issues like this or taken input from the community. I have no problem recommending this game, a long history of dedicated support of their games should count for something, shouldn't it.

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to darth254)

Post #: 12

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 3:53:52 AM

darth254

Posts: 17
Joined: 6/17/2019
Status: offline

I definitely agree. I disagree with OP when it comes to recommending this game. I've really enjoyed it.

(in reply to budd)

Post #: 13

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 3:59:22 PM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

I did not say I do not recommend the game, I just said it needs urgent fixes to be interesting in the long run.

(in reply to darth254)

Post #: 14

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 4:20:39 PM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PK1914

I did not say I do not recommend the game, I just said it needs urgent fixes to be interesting in the long run.

Hi

Thanks for your feedback, as it and the ensuing discussion is providing some ideas for changes to limit the ability for the German army to rampage in the east from the word go.

Bill

_____________________________

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 15

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 4:36:20 PM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

By the way, the problem also exists in the reverse. I am trying now to save the game by limiting my German attack in the West and playing more conservatively. I see that my opponent as the Russian can insert his two cavalry corps into Germany again and cause some problems. Fortunately, there are more garrison and other troops to stop that behaviour.

There could be the solution to simply have some garrison troops for the Russians in some places. But that might not be enough if ZOCs stay fluid.

I suggest that some hardcore folks use this strategy and test out the fixes by going all risk with the cavalry units.

Of course, one more solution could be also to scale down cavalry in firepower as they were pretty useless historically against machine guns.

Lots of options to fix this.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 16

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 4:39:27 PM

lwarmonger

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline

So, I would love to play the OP... I've had a number of players try the east first strategy on me... to me right now that looks like a loser. Russia just needs to hang on until 1916, which it can easily do. By that point Britain and France are in the Ruhr. I'm not saying your experience is invalid... just that I have had a completely different experience playing allies. East first seems like a loser, because you cant knock out Russia as fast as you can knock out France.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 17

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 5:05:58 PM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

The Russians will not survive until 1916. Their NM is at 50% or below then and Germany at 110%. You cannot win, especially if you have some naval losses as the Allies. You should not play me as I refuse to do these things like cavalry raids in the rear.

(in reply to lwarmonger)

Post #: 18

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 7:20:48 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks everyone once again from my end as well, and definitely feel free to provide further feedback or countering points of view here.

Indeed, in the past we've found that sometimes different players/opponents will either reach the same conclusions, or have alternate opinions depending on play style and counter strategies.

It's always a careful balance of acknowledging the perceived faults and adjusting for them in the design, versus potentially swinging the game too far in another direction, or fixing something that in the end didn't need fixing because the applicable counter strategy hasn't yet played itself out.

Not necessarily saying any or all of the above apply, we just want to make sure we get things as right as possible whenever we contemplate potential changes.

_____________________________

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 19

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/22/2020 7:56:52 PM

Chernobyl

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PK1914
I see that my opponent as the Russian can insert his two cavalry corps into Germany again and cause some problems. Fortunately, there are more garrison and other troops to stop that behaviour.

There could be the solution to simply have some garrison troops for the Russians in some places. But that might not be enough if ZOCs stay fluid.

Lots of options to fix this.

Yes Bromberg Thorn and Posen are all technically in reach of the Russian cavalry turn on turn 1. Careful placement of garrisons and ZOC usage are enough to stop the Russians from taking a NM city.

The simplest solution to German cavalry in the east would be to simply restrict the hexes you are allowed to place units in. It appears to me like German cavalry in the west was playtested but cavalry in the east was not.
Secondly you could consider adding a garrison to Brest-Litovsk.
Thirdly the Austrian IX corps which begins at hex (192,82) should not be allowed to move up three hexes to block the Kovel-Lublin railroad. Perhaps move it south or southeast one hex.

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 3/22/2020 7:57:55 PM >

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 20

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/23/2020 12:09:24 AM

lwarmonger

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline

Those are not solid cordons... and both of those units are dead on the allied player turn. While 2000 NM points is a bit of a blow, I dont see anything a good allied player cant recover from.

That being said, I think some garrisons in poland might be a good idea. But dealing with cavalry and detachment raids is part of playing in the east, both as Entente and central powers.

(in reply to Chernobyl)

Post #: 21

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/23/2020 8:41:22 AM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

Those are not solid cordons... and both of those units are dead on the allied player turn. While 2000 NM points is a bit of a blow, I dont see anything a good allied player cant recover from.

That being said, I think some garrisons in poland might be a good idea. But dealing with cavalry and detachment raids is part of playing in the east, both as Entente and central powers.

Sorry, but it does not work at all. I just play a game with the Central Powers. The Russian player has inserted three cavalry corps into the German hinterland. They are rampaging, I have to send all unnecessary units to screen some cities, yet the cavalry can still sneak through holes and drop the German morale. The Germans are now at 89% even with taking Nancy and other places and the Russians at 98%. Ridiculous.

If this is not changed, the game should have a caveat: looks like a WW1 game, but plays like WW2 and produces nothing like the real result.

(in reply to lwarmonger)

Post #: 22

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/23/2020 8:44:39 AM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

That being said, I think some garrisons in poland might be a good idea. But dealing with cavalry and detachment raids is part of playing in the east, both as Entente and central powers.

Maybe in the first 2 weeks of the war in East Prussia. But not after that. Read a book about World War One in the East (Norman Stone�s book comes to mind).

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 23

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/23/2020 11:42:57 AM

PK1914

Posts: 10
Joined: 1/8/2018
Status: offline

Ok, I tried again as the CP player against an excellent player. He was able to smash the CP in the first turns with Russian cavalry overrunning most Silesian, Galician and East Prussian towns, I played hide and seek with them and had to pull all cavalry and all reinforcements to chase them. This is the oppsosite of fun and reminds me of Pacman.

German morale is at 86% now. Game over, man, game over. In the West, even taking Nancy will not save you then.

I will monitor this thread to see whether the game has been fixed. Until then, it is still a great game, but horrible history. See you later, thanks for listening.

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 24

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/23/2020 8:10:55 PM

FOARP

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: budd

When have Mr. Cater and Mr. Runacre ever not addressed issues like this or taken input from the community. I have no problem recommending this game, a long history of dedicated support of their games should count for something, shouldn't it.

+1

If it's possible to beat the AI with a particular strategy, this is not a game-breaker. What might be a game-breaker is if in MP it results in victory every time, but an aggressive offensive in the West does seem to address it.

(in reply to budd)

Post #: 25

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/24/2020 3:52:16 AM

lwarmonger

Posts: 152
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PK1914

quote:

Those are not solid cordons... and both of those units are dead on the allied player turn. While 2000 NM points is a bit of a blow, I dont see anything a good allied player cant recover from.

That being said, I think some garrisons in poland might be a good idea. But dealing with cavalry and detachment raids is part of playing in the east, both as Entente and central powers.

Sorry, but it does not work at all. I just play a game with the Central Powers. The Russian player has inserted three cavalry corps into the German hinterland. They are rampaging, I have to send all unnecessary units to screen some cities, yet the cavalry can still sneak through holes and drop the German morale. The Germans are now at 89% even with taking Nancy and other places and the Russians at 98%. Ridiculous.

If this is not changed, the game should have a caveat: looks like a WW1 game, but plays like WW2 and produces nothing like the real result.

I've encountered raiding strategies like this... you can counter them, and I have. And after 4 turns you should have a fairly solid front anyways, stopping this unless the enemy achieves a breakthrough (in which case cavalry is working as designed).

That being said, from a game design perspective,a fairly easy and realistic way to deal with this is to simply have garrisons start in the national morale forts behind the lines in Germany and Russia. It isnt like these fortresses were empty in real life, and the garrisons have negligible combat power, so they shouldnt change the balance.

(in reply to PK1914)

Post #: 26

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/24/2020 10:46:38 AM

Xsillione

Posts: 212
Joined: 1/18/2019
Status: offline

Yep, probably that would be the simplest and most realistic solution, have a garrison in each fort that currently empty at start, and some more garrisons in the closest NM cities, that can be reached on turn one by cavalry.

(in reply to lwarmonger)

Post #: 27

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/24/2020 1:34:52 PM

FOARP

Posts: 641
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xsillione

Yep, probably that would be the simplest and most realistic solution, have a garrison in each fort that currently empty at start, and some more garrisons in the closest NM cities, that can be reached on turn one by cavalry.

Especially if the garrisons were locked so that they couldn't be moved, or at least locked until fired on, the game balance wouldn't suffer much at all.

(in reply to Xsillione)

Post #: 28

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/24/2020 3:02:51 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xsillione

Yep, probably that would be the simplest and most realistic solution, have a garrison in each fort that currently empty at start, and some more garrisons in the closest NM cities, that can be reached on turn one by cavalry.

+1

C

_____________________________

(in reply to Xsillione)

Post #: 29

RE: East First breaks the game - 3/24/2020 10:17:03 PM

eightroomofelixir

Posts: 123
Joined: 11/17/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger
That being said, from a game design perspective,a fairly easy and realistic way to deal with this is to simply have garrisons start in the national morale forts behind the lines in Germany and Russia. It isnt like these fortresses were empty in real life, and the garrisons have negligible combat power, so they shouldnt change the balance.

+1. The East Front in WWI wasn't that empty, and the Russian superiority in numbers isn't really represented in the game (their weakness is fully represented though).

_____________________________

No conquest without labor.

(in reply to lwarmonger)

Post #: 30