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.
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.
The Turkish Straits are entirely contained within the territory of Constantinople, so moving from Constantinople to Bulgaria does not require crossing the straits. As the straits are contained within a single territory and not at a border between territories, transports are never needed to cross them.
It doesn’t matter what the odds are. Fighters may attack a hostile territory as long as at least one infantry also attacks (all of the units end their move in the same territory, so the infantry satisfies the fighters’ land unit requirement). Of course, if there is only one infantry, all of the fighters will have to be taken as casualties before it can be taken (see page 19 of the rulebook).
@debjyoti1981 said in Axis & Allies WW1 Units Shortage:
With the initial set-up of Germany & France, I’ve noticed, in case of Germany, no infantry units remained after initial game set-up. It seems this will become a serious issue when following situations will arise:
Invasion of hostile territory will require an Infantry unit
An army in a territory must contain at least one infantry unit (Rule-book Page 15 -Phase 2: Movement)
Contested situation will require 1 infantry unit
This situation will become more critical at the European theater, I’ve noticed at the end of the initial set-up two countries hugely affected with unit shortage would be British Empire & Germany, as by the time all infantry units will be used up.
I had already mailed the Support team, this is what they have to say:
Thanks for contacting Wizards of the Coast Customer Service! Unfortunately we no longer support A&A 1914, our Product Replacement team no longer has pieces for this version of the game. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Wizards of the Coast | Customer Service Representative
Where can the additional set be brought? At ebay.com did not find replacement set for Germany, UK & Austria-Hungary
I think I’ll point out one issue you may have missed:
If you move all of your units out of a territory you control, you still retain control of that territory until an enemy moves into and captures it. (A&A 1914 Rule Book, pg 15).
This means that you do not need to maintain infantry in every territory you control. Now you do have to keep infantry in territories where you otherwise have troops, An army in a territory must contain at least one infantry unit. (A&A 1914 Rule Book, pg 15). But if you pull everybody out, you don’t need to leave a trail of infantry behind.
I’m not saying that A&A '14 has all of the pieces it should have, but the piece shortage is exacerbated when you leave garrisons behind when you don’t need to.
My 2 IPCs,
Russia needs to have at least one unit in territories shared between it and the Central Powers, in order to indicate this shared status. However, there’s no reason why you need to leave any units in territories that Russia has full control of, other than simply not taking the time to remove them during the game.
@SelfishPopcorn Hi there. You do not do a multi-national attack. No such thing exists - because each Power attacks in its own turn.
However, two Powers successively attacking a common enemy can be a powerful tactic. For example Germany attacks Russia in G2 and then AH follows up in AH3. That can be advantageous even when the R stack outnumbers both G and AH as individuals, but not their combined strength.
AH leading this co-ordinated attack in AH2 is less likely to be advantageous as the G2 follow-up would be after R’s reply in R2, meaning R may have wiped out AH before G can reinforce.
An attacking reinforcement may not involve an actual attack though. Sticking with the same example, a G2 advance into a R territory leads to a battle, but an AH2 follow-up into the same territory does not do so, unless AH so wishes, provided G is still contesting the territory. Which means that R is then faced with the challenge of any attack it decides to make in that territory being against G & AH’s multinational force. This increases the possibility that G & AH will find a co-ordinated attack beneficial, particularly if their rate of turn by turn reinforcements exceeds R’s.
I hope I have understood your query correctly.
Since WW1 with standard rules is considered a positional slog, I don’t think that adding zombies to the mix is going to make the game more dynamic. Its going to create an even more stagnated wall of positional battle. Also, territory control is quite different than the other editions so zombies would have to be added into that mix and perhaps you could do whoever has the most units controls?
The unit pallette is also smaller, which means the tech and interaction between the units and zombies would have to be fixed on a unit by unit basis (planes dont attack zombies, for example, because they dont attack anything).
to @djensen @Panther @redrum . You all have put a lot of work into the transition. @simon33 has been helpful with his comments as well.
And thank you to everyone else helping out with the change.
It may take a while to get used to the new program, but it’s gonna work just fine : )
@JDOW said in Introduce or Re-Introduce Yourself (Nov. 2018):
Well, I personally think a KJF works worst against a J1 DOW.
But as a risk-averse player, I do not like J1 DOW that much, same as G1 DOW, although I played them both successfully so far. I do not like the shaky Yunnan attack in a J1 and the attack against the battleship in 37.
Some players attack at sz62, too. This is too much power in MARTI’s hands to me so early in the game
Shaky Yunnan attack? It’s 96%, 83% of keeping the artillery and planes.
SZ37? 100% of keeping the bombers with 4 units attacking, 91% of keeping 3.
That’s pretty risk averse.
While I agree with the point about the SZ62 attack placing too much power in MARTI’s hands, the chance should be taken. 40% of the time the Axis win big whereas losing the DD makes little difference. This is one thing that should have been changed in the setup in BM.
@SS-GEN said in The new forum has been a lot of work and it's not done yet:
I know it’s getting better but I posted a reply for my game report in house rules and with the changes the stuff just gets buried. Somebody post another tread reply and such now you have to go threw every topic to find it. Just sayin.
If I’m understanding correctly, there’s no difference between the old forum and the new forum for this situation. If you post a topic, and a bunch of folks post different topics, your topic will eventually end up on another page unless somebody replies. On forums, “stuff gets buried” all the time.
Also, you absolutely do not have to go through every topic to find your topic. This has come up multiple times, there are tips and tricks that cover this, I added helpers in the navigation bar. Not to be harsh but I’m just not sure what else we’re supposed to do.
Here’s a recap of your options:
Notifications: there is a bell near your avatar on the toolbar. When somebody replies, there will be a red number. Click that and you’ll get all of your notifications.
Replies to your Posts: I literally added this to the toolbar because people were complaining about finding their stuff. It’s the double-left arrow in the nav bar. It’s literally the same as clicking Notifications followed by “See all Notifications”
Recent Topics: Click the clock in the nav bar. Where it says “All Topics” select “Watched Topics” instead. You can even select a category to further narrow it down.
Recent Watched Topics: Click the eye in the nav bar. That will give you “recent” watched topics, including any topic you made or any topic you replied to. (I think I’ll change this to the next one)
All of Your Watched Topics: Go to your profile. Click the 3 dots. Click Watched.
Your Topics: Go to your profile. Click the 3 dots. Click Topics.
Bookmarks: If a particular topic is super important, then click the three dots on a topic, the one next to Reply, Quite, <heart>, < 3 dots> and click Bookmark. To find your bookmarks: Go to your profile. Click the 3 dots. Click Bookmarks.
That 6 ways to find your stuff. The old forums had a stupid icon that was hard to see and made no sense, I think it was a face or something. The replies to your posts was nice but we have that and more.
Note: there’s a bug with your watched topics if you have infinite scrolling turned on. I’ll file it later.