First of all, I'm a new player so hello forums.
Secondly, this is the closest thread I could find to a suggestions thread.
I like the idea of this game a lot. But I'm not willing to spend €50~ per game in order to stand a chance at winning. I have no problems with people being able to spend money on GM to give them a tactical edge in the game, but as it stands GM use can give a player an overwhelming advantage.
Personally, it seems to me that the two areas where GM abuse is rife is the ability to buy resources and the specialist spy missions.
Buying Resources:
There are three problems I perceive with this;
1) Decline in trade. People using GM don't need to trade with other provinces and so certain resources become extremely scarce, leading to a breaking down in trade. I was playing Sweden and GB was using GM so there was almost no coal on offer as Germany fell quickly to GB. This lead to me buying coal in increasing prices from the stock market (when it was available) and burning oil, weakening me hugely. Also it lessened the fun in playing as a substantial element of the game was removed for me.
2) Abuse of the reduce production time option. Having access to a near-infinite amount of resources means you can spam out masses of tanks and artillery, even if the whole world is allied against you. Without the ability to give yourself resources, reducing the building time would become a much more tactical option. The GM player would still have to manage their resources and conduct trade in order to build things.
3) Too many infantry. A player can hugely increase their armies at the start of the game by building barracks in almost every province and giving themselves plenty of grain. This happened in a game I was playing recently and it was extremely hard to counter, as the more allies we got against the GM abuser, the more armies he gained.
Specialist Spy Missions:
Reading through the forums I see this come up again and again as a problem with GM. The ability to cripple your enemy late game, without any chance of being stopped, is ridiculous. It completely ruins the end game if one player decides to demoralise a player's entire army.
In conclusion, while I understand that Bryto Labs want to make a profit, I think that the game suffers from the advantage that GM abuse can bring. By disabling, or having the option to host a game with the two GM uses above disabled I think that Bryto Labs could still make a tidy profit and improve the game substantially.
TL; DR: I think GM are too powerful as they stand, but rather than totally get rid of them, just remove the ability to buy resources and hire specialists and they'd be an advantage rather than a sure win.
Secondly, this is the closest thread I could find to a suggestions thread.
I like the idea of this game a lot. But I'm not willing to spend €50~ per game in order to stand a chance at winning. I have no problems with people being able to spend money on GM to give them a tactical edge in the game, but as it stands GM use can give a player an overwhelming advantage.
Personally, it seems to me that the two areas where GM abuse is rife is the ability to buy resources and the specialist spy missions.
Buying Resources:
There are three problems I perceive with this;
1) Decline in trade. People using GM don't need to trade with other provinces and so certain resources become extremely scarce, leading to a breaking down in trade. I was playing Sweden and GB was using GM so there was almost no coal on offer as Germany fell quickly to GB. This lead to me buying coal in increasing prices from the stock market (when it was available) and burning oil, weakening me hugely. Also it lessened the fun in playing as a substantial element of the game was removed for me.
2) Abuse of the reduce production time option. Having access to a near-infinite amount of resources means you can spam out masses of tanks and artillery, even if the whole world is allied against you. Without the ability to give yourself resources, reducing the building time would become a much more tactical option. The GM player would still have to manage their resources and conduct trade in order to build things.
3) Too many infantry. A player can hugely increase their armies at the start of the game by building barracks in almost every province and giving themselves plenty of grain. This happened in a game I was playing recently and it was extremely hard to counter, as the more allies we got against the GM abuser, the more armies he gained.
Specialist Spy Missions:
Reading through the forums I see this come up again and again as a problem with GM. The ability to cripple your enemy late game, without any chance of being stopped, is ridiculous. It completely ruins the end game if one player decides to demoralise a player's entire army.
In conclusion, while I understand that Bryto Labs want to make a profit, I think that the game suffers from the advantage that GM abuse can bring. By disabling, or having the option to host a game with the two GM uses above disabled I think that Bryto Labs could still make a tidy profit and improve the game substantially.
TL; DR: I think GM are too powerful as they stand, but rather than totally get rid of them, just remove the ability to buy resources and hire specialists and they'd be an advantage rather than a sure win.