I was wondering if there was a version of TA 1914 with the tournament rules variant from Larry Harris. If there is, I can’t find it, so if someone could link that I would much appreciate it. If this version does not exist is there the possibility of one being made by one of the fine individuals on this site?
Dealing with the WWI Period
-
Wars conducted by industrial powers had changed rapidly between 1900 and 1941. The Russo Japanese War illustrated the power of machine guns and entrenchments. However, aside from the use of Rail, horse and horse drawn wagons, etc…was still most common in WWI. So how do you represent this in 1914 vs. other Axis and Allies titles?
I personally think the A&A system works best for WWI, rather than WWII. Area movement is fine for infantry and cavalry, but armored units with break throughs and lack of supply lines, etc…never made sense to me.
Grab one territory, consolidate, move on…seems to work best here.
As I’ve said in other posts, I plan to create a National Morale Track on a 3 Front Model for winning and game ending conditions (othewise it feels like capture the flag ). Aside from this, I’m going a step further in modifying the movement rules of the game that will incorporate technology of the day and benefit more industrialized nations by creating a generic movement/attack/fortify deck for all nations to use. It will create a fog of war aspect to some degree and will only allow a player to move some regions per turn and will have to pay for the card when played the same as paying for replacement units. This will make IPC’s reflective of a nations logistical abilities as well as industrial/military. Smaller, less wealth nations will have to launch offensives in a careful manner as not to squander resources, while some will have greater operational flexibility.
I believe this will help create a more realistic game.
-
I definitely agree with a simple strategic rail movement rule, for every strategic war game from c1850 - 1950.
I like the idea of event & tactical cards, but as an optional extra dimension, not something integral to the game system.
Horses were used to move material from rail heads to the front, which on this scale is not really relevant, since this should be a maximum of one area. The exception is regions without rail, and here cavalry units would be more relevant.
My dislike of capture the flag, AKA capture the capital is well stated.
However, I have a hunch that 1914 will be the best A&A game yet. If it is realistic in the way strategy develops, there’ll be little chance of capitals being captured, so there will have to be alternative victory conditions.
Some of the other bugbears I have with previous versions have been dealt with, so A&A is evolving slowly. If only Larry would see how silly it is to make infantry march across the map one space at a time we’d be more than halfway there.
-
I personally think the A&A system works best for WWI, rather than WWII. […] Grab one territory, consolidate, move on…seems to work best here.
Yes, the global-scale and theatre-scale A&A games basically operate using a four-stroke engine which keeps repeating this cycle:
- Territory provides income
- Income buys units
- Units fight battles
- Battles win (or lose) territory
Given the long period of static warfare on the Western Front, the classic A&A game mechanic isn’t inherently well suited to that particular theatre. On the other hand, there was a lot of movement throughout WWI in many of the other theatres (notably on the Eastern Front), and even the Western Front saw a lot of movement in both the early and final months of the war (especially the former).
-
I definitely agree with a simple strategic rail movement rule, for every strategic war game from c1850 - 1950.
I like the idea of event & tactical cards, but as an optional extra dimension, not something integral to the game system.
Horses were used to move material from rail heads to the front, which on this scale is not really relevant, since this should be a maximum of one area. The exception is regions without rail, and here cavalry units would be more relevant.
My dislike of capture the flag, AKA capture the capital is well stated.
However, I have a hunch that 1914 will be the best A&A game yet. If it is realistic in the way strategy develops, there’ll be little chance of capitals being captured, so there will have to be alternative victory conditions.
Some of the other bugbears I have with previous versions have been dealt with, so A&A is evolving slowly. If only Larry would see how silly it is to make infantry march across the map one space at a time we’d be more than halfway there.
The only way to deal with rail or river movement with a scale this large is cards…look at Academy Games Birth of a Nation: 1812 game…it does a good job of handling abstract movement on an area movement map. I plan to make about 60 cards similar, but instead of simply playing them which creates a lot of random luck, if you get a really good one you would have to pay the operational/logistic cost of playing it so it levels out somewhat.
-
Wars conducted by industrial powers had changed rapidly between 1900 and 1941. The Russo Japanese War illustrated the power of machine guns and entrenchments. However, aside from the use of Rail, horse and horse drawn wagons, etc…was still most common in WWI. So how do you represent this in 1914 vs. other Axis and Allies titles?
I personally think the A&A system works best for WWI, rather than WWII. Area movement is fine for infantry and cavalry, but armored units with break throughs and lack of supply lines, etc…never made sense to me.
I agree with most of what you say here, however it needs to be mentioned that the majority of the German army in WWII was marching on foot, and using the horse and ox to drag artillery and supplies around. The Panzergruppen that spearheaded Barbarossa had an a large cache of wheeled transport (much of it captured from the French and British), however the advance was dependent on receiving supply from rail heads, which advanced at a much slower pace than the attack given the need to re-gauge Russian rail lines. One of the major reasons for the long stops after Minsk and Smolensk was the lack of motor transport. The Panzer divisions weren’t just running low on fuel, but also on ammunition and were in dire need of a rest and refit. Most roads in Russia at the time were un-improved and took a terrible toll on vehicle maintenance. As a result they had to wait for not only the foot bound infantry, but also the rail heads to catch up.
-
I think that movement of one territory at a time definitely favors this 1914 game, and I like the concept of contested territories. The first thing that comes to mind is how all ground units are built in your (central) capital territory, and you can’t capture, or build a minor IC at the front to produce units like you can in other AA global games (not 100% sure, but it sounds like it). The fact that you will have new units always moving forward will give you somewhat of a feel of a rail system IMO because of a continuous line of supply from your factories to the front (should also be fewer gaps of non-garrisoned territories).
I know it also makes sense to be able to rail units faster through your original territories (or even your ally’s orig territories) from your capital to the front as long as they stay with-in the territories completely controlled by your side. I have also heard that Russian rail was different then other European countries, and needed to be re-worked (or possibly Russian trains were confiscated in some area’s). With that said, rail as a game mechanic would result in several territories near the heart of the production centers again being left empty IMO. I also think you have to look at balance when allowing a major power to shift all his units from one front to the other in one or two turns (like German/Austrian units moving from the Russian front to French front after the forced Russian Revolution). Some of those units would be railed across for sure, but wouldn’t some be given a short leave before being redeployed (maybe not). I know theoretically this could be achieved in 1-2 game tuns representing 6-8 months, so exploring some limited rail ability as a house rule will be fun.
Speculation, the English Empire will certainly have some building options other then in London. I think they will also be able to build units (other then ships) in Canada and Bombay. Canada obviously has a capital of its own, and I think their efforts will be reflected into the game some how by the UK being able to mobilize units across the pond. Bombay could be given a regional capital statues and both India and Anzac will be represented as English units being mobilized there well. There will probably be some limitations, or a certain amount of income that can be spent. Could even be a set number of inf/art are mobilized each turn unless the territory(s) is captured or contested.
-
The way Larry described it ALL countries are the same - new units come into play in the capital. Ships are built in naval bases.
For that reason, I do not see the large NBs at Oran, Alexandria or Tripoli being represented. Either that, or overseas tts are not considered as “home”. It would be the silliest thing ever in A&A if Britain was able to build battleships in Egypt, but not be able to build tanks or recruit infantry in northern England.
Also, if Austria has only one Naval Base, can it build only one ship per turn, or as many as it can afford?
Canada is an odd one out, in that it may be possible to build ships there, but then again to transport what?
Doesn’t look like Anzacs will be represented at all, while India just gets its starting units.
Anyhoo, I’m beginning to think about a completely different system for bringing infantry units into play, based on an ordered draft of units at regular stages. They still have to be payed for (training and equipment), but only so many are available and only on certain turns and in certain tts. Its on a use 'em or lose 'em basis - if you pass on a scheduled draft (to buy a dreadnought for example) you miss out on the units permanently. Eventually the numbers available will decline, as indeed the number of new recruits inevitably did in the war. It also ensures that you recruit units from all over your empire, and from each reasonably well populated tt.
The UK is slightly different in having no conscription. It will have to reply on volunteers at first. But passing the Conscription Bill will rope in the slackers, at the coast of a few morale points…
The USA is similar in having no initial conscription. However (assuming America goes to war in c1917) numbers available when the draft is introduced will be high through lack of early war attrition.
Suggested Topics
