Hi Mukremin, it seems where both from the Netherlands and I’m curious which print shop you used.
I haven’t come across a shop that prints on vinyl, but it seems that most do print on PVC material for outdoor banners which might be comparable to vinyl.
Hi mate! I have printed it in a regular copy&co shop, in Tilburg. I have printed it on regular hard poster paper, it isn’t perfect but it did very well and the lads liked it more than the original board. If only i can get a larger print on vinyl/PVC. That would be awesome.
@Flashman, i did not have any trouble with crowded tts, only issue was in Switzerland. If you have a 20cm more larger map then your troubles are over, no more over crowded issue.
One of the other stickies in this forum is the actual FAQ thread, titled “Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread”. However, you are correct in that there are contradictions (including the one you brought up) in this thread. The Russian Revolution rules used to be a lot different before they were rehauled in the official errata, and those previous FAQ questions and answers still reside here. It would be nice if this thread were to get cleaned up, but Jim010 hasn’t been on in almost two months, so I don’t know if he still pays attention to this thread.
What I can tell, though, is that all the information summarized before the Q&A begins is accurate. The Q&A in the first 6 posts was made before the Russian Revolution changes, so only trust answers to RR questions from the 7th post on. If I’m still wrong on that, the stuff in red in the first post of this thread is for sure correct; anything contradicting it is wrong.
Yes. From page 19 of the rulebook:
Each player can select any unit in their attacking or defending force as a casualty, including fighters. However, at no time can an army not have at least one infantry unit present. In other words, if a player has one infantry, one tank and one artillery unit left and is required to remove two of these three units, the infantry unit cannot be selected as one of the casualties because this would leave him or her with no infantry. Infantry belonging to a friendly power in the same territory do not fulfill this requirement.
To respond to your points:
To be fair, I prefer stacking Galacia over hitting Poland AH1. I only brought up the possibility of hitting Poland as a hypothetical.
I don’t particularly care about winning in Serbia round 1. I only even attack Serbia at all because the rules of the game force you to. The rules of 1914 allow you to choose whether or not to press combat each turn, so you can simply have the Austrians not attack the Serbians each turn, which allows you to potentially roll 3s with your stack there instead of 2s (assuming the Entente presses combat).
That being said, I think I was a bit off in assuming the Serbia guys would be capable of hitting Romania round 2. You’d probably need to split the Galacia mega-stack to hit both Romania and Ukraine, depending on what Russia does.
You can most definitely contest Romania and Ukraine AH2 if you’re committing 100% of Germany’s buys towards Russia. Yes the battles won’t go in your favor initially (and you may have to spend some turns not pressing combat in Ukraine), but your objective in a Kill-Russia-First style of strategy should be to hit Russia on multiple fronts and force them to lose more troops each turn than they can feasibly replace. Starting fights in Poland (with Germany), Ukraine and Romania should be enough to accomplish this goal.
Side-Note: Your 10 INF/4 ART swings for 36 (8@3 + 6@2) and has a 60% chance to wipe the Romania stack in one round of combat. Those are pretty good odds, but it’s not exactly consistent, especially considering that a big chunk of your strategy hinges on having the Romania stack available to march on into Ukraine AH2.
On the topic of fighting/holding off Italy, I prefer killing Italy first as Austria over killing Russia first, but that’s beyond the scope of this conversation. However, because Italy goes after Austria, you can send some of your turn 1 buy into Trieste Round 2 to slow down Italy if you’d rather send 100% of the Vienna guys East.
I don’t have much more to add, really. If I were Russia playing against this I would just shuffle all of my units into Ukraine R1 and hope that France/Italy/UK can do something productive in other theaters.
So with the prices of the 1914 game being put of reach for some of us I was thinking about different maps.
Could I use the 1940 global map? I know the zones would be different but that could be worked around.
Thought about buying the 1939 or 1936 global map from HBG but not sure it would be that much better.
I’m late to the game on this post, but since I have played many many games of AA1914 over the last couple years (and it’s my favorite AA game), I’d like to share on how my group’s thoughts have evolved about tanks.
The first few games, we barely made any, thinking they were not worth sacrificing 2 infantry units for the same cost. We lowered the IPC cost to 5, and within 2 games, tanks were on every battlefield. We figured we probably underestimated them, so we returned to the original cost.
Now, they are always on the game board for some powers, namely Germany, France and the UK. Other countries may field them based on whether or not they are clearly in the attack mode. Our games will never last less than 10 turns, usually more like 14 or 15 before we call a winner.
It’s important to remember that AA1914 is about weapons having synergies with each other, which means you need to figure out their niche for each and everyone of them, and they DO exist.
What we found out about tanks is that, once they start protecting a high percentage of your per-turn production (say 25% or higher), they give you tremendous staying power on the offensive. For the main powers, this means that 3 tanks or more will have an impact. For small powers like Italy, a single tank may make a difference if they are on the offensive.
When you play the usual rules, it takes time to bring reinforcements to the front (we use trucks as land transport equivalents so it is a bit faster) and therefore you want your offensive power to not erode as quickly, especially since the defender will have faster reinforcements. Many AA games were lost because the attacker made it to the enemy capital only to completely run out of steam, which meant a large scale retreat was needed.
While it’s true that tanks alone will lose a fight, their role is to skew the results of a offensive battle in your favor. Since their effect is guaranteed compared to rolling dice, you know you will cut your losses. This turns a relatively equal fight into an advantage, or an unlucky roll into a salvageable situation. Their effect will show over 2 or 3 turns, eating into your enemy’s kills and allowing your units to actually be there to defend when he would choose to counterattack.
Tanks alone are not worth it. But a few of them on a battlefield progressively eat away at your enemy’s army by forcing him to accept subpar kill ratios. Yes, more infantry MIGHT be good… if they were alive to defend for the counterattack. Tanks insure you will have a better attrition rate than your enemy, but the trick is you have to have a meaningful number of them compared to your IPC rate for them to make a difference. So, you either build enough of them to be worth it, or none at all.
The one caveat I would have is if you and your enemies have a tendency to stack ungodly large armies on a single region and wait for that epic clash of arms. In my experience, you should avoid this situation at all costs and force engagements when armies have more than 25 infantry divisions, otherwise it becomes a stacking game, and those are typically slow with a predictable outcome (the losing side just hopes something will happen to turn the tides, while the winning side simply keeps increasing its leverage while waiting for the inevitable). Go on the offensive, move that front, make it as fluid as you can !
All in all, if you feel you are going to be on the attack for a while, build tanks and watch your enemy lose more and more units for less and less of yours. Your staying power will be greatly enhanced and they will turn the tide of war in your favor.
@Patchman123 I think that the szs should be either
ankara, sevastopol+rum and constantinople+bulg
Constantinople+Ankara+bulgaria, Sevastopol+romania (this way i think it is in oob)
The one for bulgaria+romania is unnecessary. Ottoman fleet, while exposed should be able to protect either Constantinople and Ankara at the same time or separately.
@DoManMacgee Totally agree with your thoughts. I also thought that Russia just needed to do something to throw the CPs off their game. In regards to the 1 Inf, I think its just an annoying move people made so the opponent couldn’t just grab free IPCs, but I’ll check with some of the other players to make sure that rule was understood right.
@Midnight_Reaper said in 20 Years of Axis & Allies .org:
@CWO-Marc As for what we did and did not have back in 2000, I made a small chart
Great chart, Midnight Reaper; it brings back lots of memories. A further point to note is that, in Classic, only the infantry sculpt was nation-specific and was based on authentic WWII designs; the equipment sculpts started following the same design principle with Europe / Pacific / Revised, though it took a long while to achieve (by combining E1940.2, P1940.2 and 1941) a full array for everyone except France. We were also treated to some neat special-category sculpts: the German blockhouses in D-Day, the American and German trucks in Bulge, and the entirely-other-war sculpt set of 1914. Another nice development in the official games has been the addition of China, Italy, ANZAC and France to the original five powers (US, UK, USSR, Germany and Japan). And in the early days, people who wanted extra types of units (or extra colours to represent other countries) had to make do with third-party products like the Xeno and Table Tactics ones or the Enemy on the Horizon expansion set, the quality of which was uneven and the availability of which wasn’t always great. Things certainly have changed.
Oh, one more thing. The huge Japanese battleship was called Yamato. Yamamoto was the name of Japan’s most famous admiral. Maybe the arrival of Admiral Yamamoto would indeed correspond to having an extra battleship, but I’m not sure that’s what you intended.
@Imperious-Leader said in Axis & Brollies : Action Cards and Event Cards:
you should set it up with card decks made at “Artscow” or something like it in terms of name. They are sold as long as you set up account and you will earn a bit of change
www.makeplayingcards.com was recently (2019) used successfully by siredblood to produce his “Blood Bath” A&A version card deck - at a resulting fair price for consumers
drivethrucards.com was recently (2018) used successfully by Young Grasshopper to produce his co-deck “Omaha” and “Utah” cards for A&A G’40 - at an absolute steal of a deal for consumers
If you have not already done so, please consider selling your deck(s) at either or both sites - I would love to see you get paid for your work.
@JustLuthor I have the True Neutral Lid done (All true neutrals and mongolia). I’ll work on the other one soon. Let me know if you need the sides of the box too. The colors may not be fully match with out of game box if printed out.
True Neutral Box