A few of my own rules . . .

[stockwellpete]

I restrict myself against the AI in three ways so far (for historical reality purposes really) . . .

i) fleets can never be scrapped (this would damage national morale very seriously if it happened)
ii) army units can only be scrapped if they fall below 5 strength points (to simulate army re-organisation after major battles)
iii) I do not attack neutral countries to gain PP bonuses (ahistoric)

Anyone else self-limiting their play in this sort of way?

[Samhain]

If you feel the need to make rules of your own then modding or playing at a higher difficulty is in order.

[stockwellpete]

It is only me being a bit "anal" when it comes to history! Another way that I can torment myself is to put the commanders in the appropriate theatre whether it is helpful to me or not. I managed a marginal victory with the Central Powers on "balanced" the other day so I am trying the Entente now. I don't think I am ready to play at the hardest level. I wish I knew how to do modding but I don't have the faintest idea.

[ncali]

I agree with your approach. You're deciding to make a better game at whatever level you're playing at by avoiding known exploits (particularly i and iii). In this way, you're anticipating the first patch. It sounds like number iii is definitely going to be addressed from comments elsewhere, and I think i will eventually be addressed in some way. These are also good houserules for PBEM, I think.

[Amaranthus]

Yes, I think these suggestions are on the money. I dislike 'gameiness' in wargaming - after all, we're trying to simulate a semi-historical reconstruction as armchair generals, so what is the point of exploiting using tactics that would NEVER be viable in the real world? I just don't get it, but then, I'm not a 'win at any cost' guy. I prefer my satisfaction to be drawn out...

[nobikaigan]

Agreed... I also enjoy 'houseruling' on stuff, but usually once I am competent with the game... I like your suggestions, but I am still not able to even come close to beating the AI on balanced if I don't scrap fleets! I can avoid scrapping most full strength ground units, and I avoid attacking neutrals, but still can't support those expensive fleets and far-away infantry units!

I like making stuff up too, for example "The Czar's personal advisor believes that the technology of flight is the devils work..." Effect: Russia cannot research or produce aircraft. MAjor handicap, but fun to try these kinds of self-made restrictions.

[Egil_Skallagrimsson]

iii) I do not attack neutral countries to gain PP bonuses (ahistoric)

I can understand it from a balance perspective. To say it is ahistoric I would think it depend on what country you attack. It maybe didnt happen in history but I am not here to recreate history, Im here to rewrite it Whos for instance to say the dutch could never have been attacked? And the scripted entry of Italy into the entente everytime regardless of situation, a thing I so far believe is the case, never saw them join the CP, I would say that is, maybe not ahistoric, but bordering on it since choosing side for Italy as far as I know was a matter of negotiations and could possibly have gone the other way (remember they were even allied to the CP at the onset of the war).

My latest little violation of neutrality is a british/canadian campain versus the USA. Once prepared all of the US falls in a campain lasting 4-5 turns bringing somewhere around 16 pp/turn at once and then of course it will grow from there once Washington repairs. Meanwhile disband the army and make the big buck. Now, that is totally ahistoric I would certanly agree but still I think it was fun to try. And in mp, unless agreed upon from start you need to be aware it can happen. Dont know if it is a wise move in mp though.

I most certanly hope they do not take away the ability to attack the neutral nations. (Perhaps with some common sence, Britain attacking USA should not be a winning move, it should be a loosing). And I do hope that unless somehow checked by the opponent, AI or human, it will bring some benefit. But they could of course make it harder. Most cities should have garrison of some sort, maybe with some starting entrenchment and the pp the neutrals make should be spread on the cities, not everything at the capital. Also attacking some neutral should perhaps provoke some others to declare war on you (not all, why would Persia declare if England declares on Norway?).

One should remember though that both sides have neutrals they can more easily conquer then the other side so if both take advantage I dont know what side would benefit most.

Effect: Russia cannot research or produce aircraft. MAjor handicap, but fun to try these kinds of self-made restrictions.

That probably works to your advantage. I never build an airplane with the russians nor any airlabs. I cant afford it. Might be bad in MP, but in SP what do you need them for? Better to focus on the art and inf. Not researching inf, that I could agree could end up a nightmare if the opponent survives long enough to start outtech you.

[Umeu]

russian bombers are the most advanced at the start of the game, they are on 3/4th tech and the last upgrade only increases their aerial ability and tactical bombardment. so not a very neccesary upgrade. in the 1914 one id advice to always make 1 bomber because theyre so advanced they will do the job an early artillery battery will do at 20% of the ammo cost. in later starts they already have a bomber.

[nobikaigan]

Effect: Russia cannot research or produce aircraft. MAjor handicap, but fun to try these kinds of self-made restrictions.

That probably works to your advantage. I never build an airplane with the russians nor any airlabs. I cant afford it. Might be bad in MP, but in SP what do you need them for? Better to focus on the art and inf. Not researching inf, that I could agree could end up a nightmare if the opponent survives long enough to start outtech you.

As pointed out by Umeu above, Russian bombers are very helpful IMHO for the 1914 SP mode... With all of the manpower that Russia needs, I always find it very difficult for them to expand their ammo production, so a bomber fills that role very well. I do see your point, as I never build air research labs for Russia, but with the tech for bombers 3/4 filled from the beginning, I utilize them early on as a pretty effective assault weapon that uses very little ammo, therefore requires no infrastructure expansion.