Battle Board for Axis & Allies 1914, Combat rounds,IPC chart, Task Force Cards

Well I’ll be continuing playing A&A for as long as possible.  Getting a job is going to make me have significant less time.

@WILD:

So I was thinking, instead of mandating naval battles only go one round, why not just give both parties a retreat option (TBD). In many cases this would self restrict naval battles to one round.

Yes, but when you retreat, the other is not allowed to chase you. In real naval battles it is common to chase each other, but in a game that kind of behavior violates the turn order.

I think time is an issue. A game turn is considered to be like 6 months, while a real life naval battle usually took less than a day. On top of that, our ships seems to be stuck in their little seazone. In the real world a ship could easily sail around the world in 6 months, as is the length of a game turn. Now imagine that in a game, a ship with unlimited movement.

I think in order to make a game that behave as close to the real world as possible, we must analyze every naval battles from 1904 to 1945, and then we will see that WiF is the game that come close, and that Axis and Allies has a long way to go.

protevangelium makes some great points about how lopsided the sea’s were, and sub warfare being the best option for the CP in the war. Subs are a bit lacking in this edition as well as others IMO (nearly impossible to raid convoys, or inflict econ damage). The Austrians, and Turks were very limited in their abilities. The Germans did have a more modern surface fleet (tried to enter a naval arms race before the war), but failed in comparison to the Brits. In this game the Germans can get temporary control of the North Sea early though and add to their fleet. Once the rest of French Fleet comes up the UK still doesn’t need to build much to protect allied transports OOB (two French BB’s is a nice way to start for the allies rebuild). If the allies want to knock the German fleet out, then it could get expensive, but do they need to, or just set-up a multi national defense that the Germans can’t touch to keep allied transports afloat. Then there is always the 1-2 punch if the allies want to go aggressive. I still believe the problem lies with the French fleet (and the abilities of the sub to a point).

When we play we always reduce the Atlantic French Fleet to just a cruiser (swap BB for cruiser and remove the transport). We have done this even before Larry introduced it in the Tourney rules. It does help for game play, and better reflects what the French had in the Atlantic. The French Atlantic fleet was more of a support to the Brits (not nearly equal). Before the war the French naval focus was in the Med not knowing the intentions of the Italians (fearing an Italian attack which the game doesn’t reflect).

It would have been nice for the sub to have a larger roll in this edition having more raiding ability or sz’s to attack econ. Should destroyers be introduced so subs have a better survival rate? Maybe the naval set-up cost should be tweaked. BB’s at 12 IPCs is too cost effective IMO (should they be 15 IPCs?), no one buys cruisers. Just thinking out load……don’t read to much into it. WB

Causing the Russian revolution without many casualties on the CP side always outnumbers the IPC gained. For example you can send the remaining Austrian army to India to support the Ottomans. In general it is better to lose German armies than your Austrian or Ottoman army

AH softening France’s air force up to open the way for Germany to have air supremacy: this will henceforth be known as the “Happy Artillery” strategy.  Thanks for making my day, WB.

@WILD:

Yep, makes sense for the CP to have Germany go full tilt in one front, and Austria the other. We have seen Germany push France back to the brink, and Austria start off defending against Russia (and those damn Italians) then actually gaining the upper hand on their front as well with an aggressive Russia (they will need some inf from Germany, and the Turks). It is also helpful to have say a 10 unit friendly force with you to take out smaller adversaries, or grab more land so you don’t splinter off your main force. This can also help you to gain air superiority for the larger partner. Like Austria sacrifices a few inf and ftrs into a French stack just to force a dog fight and kill off a couple allied ftrs. Then Germany goes in full force, finishes off the air, and has very happy artillery.

@KimRYoung:

@rjpeters70:

Dude, no offense was meant whatsoever.�  I was not knocking you or Koreans at all (I’ve even been to the ROK, and loved it).�  It’s just the first thing that jumps in my head these days, given that we have a crazy dictator actively threatening nuclear war named Kim.

I’m not offended at all RJ, just letting everyone know who I am. It was also bad in the late 60’s when the name Kim became a common girls name (short for Kimberly), then if they didn’t know, they thought I was a girl. In H.S. I got put in an all girls health education class, which I thought was great! I still get mail to Ms. Kim Young  :lol:

Kim (white, non-Korean male  8-)

For what it’s worth, I know a Korean named Robert E. Lee.

In essence, this is what the game is all about. Allies have to balance the advantages of mutual defence against the need for large one-nation forces in attack.

@The-Janus said in Playable Nations in 1914:

defensive

Actually The King of Greece was married to the Kaiser’s sister and was more inclined to support the central powers. It was only due to a allied supported civil war that pushed Greece over to the Allies.