Sorry to hear that, I hope you do too. I really enjoy this game, even though it definitely has its flaws. It’s a completely different game from the WWII editions.
Looking forward to this new addition
-
oztea– your idea about pairing fighters and artillery in that manner seems inspired. Hats off to you.
-
I hope we get some real previews on this as well. Getting tired of Larry saying he will answer all of our questions and then he says I can’t go there right now. It is a board game for Petes sake not the Strategic defense initiative! Give us some rules,a few pictures and victory conditions. The way they did AA revised back in 2004 was awesome. An update every week giving you a little more info at at time. I hope this will be the same.
-
I’m wondering if this game will be like Axis & Allies meets Risk, where you roll and roll and watch your mass armies of men dwindle before your eyes.
This is just pure speculation on my part, but if I were to translate this line from Larry’s designer notes…
“I hope you get a feel for what it must have been like to move hundreds of thousands of troops into vital strategic locations only to again move hundreds of thousands more into the same contested battlefield to replace the staggering number of casualties.”
…into a game mechanic, I’d base it on three principles:
-
A combat system that generates high infantry casualties on both sides during battles (to represent WWI’s massive attrition rates).
-
A replenishment system that generates large numbers of replacement troops during the early and middle parts of the game (to represent the massive enlistment and/or conscription efforts deployed by the various governments).
-
A cap on the number of replacement troops generated by the replenishment system towards the end of the game (to represent the fact that, in the later phases of the war, certain countries – especially France and Germany – were running out of men of regular military age). One of the overall strategic aims of each side during WWI (such as during the Battle of Verdun) was to “bleed the other side white”, and by 1917 and 1918 those cumulative losses had become so great that France and Germany were getting close to the bottom of their manpower reserves.
-
-
I wonder if the end of the game will be equally as unfulfilling as the end of the war…
-
I think instead the cost of infantry, etc. should increase to reflect a shortage of manpower.
-
Larry wrote that this would be a game of yards, not armies sweeping across continents. When I first read that, Bulge was the first thing that popped into my mind, maybe a hex style of play???
-
It disappointed me that the map will go all the way down to South Africa. Seems like a LOT of wasted space down there. We could do without the few skirmishes down there in exchange for a western and eastern front with more than 3 territories each.
I swear I will be so mad if France is any less than 5 territories (West France, South France, Paris, Alsace Lorrane, Picardy)
There is no way we can have attrition on the western front without a wide buffer between Paris and the German Border. -
I agree with oztea. While there was some battles to take over the German colonies in Africa, I don’t think they had that much of an impact on the war. The main drama happened in Europe, with perhaps some of the action around Turkey like the Dardanelles landings and Russia’s invasion of Turkey from the Caucasus. It seems to me that a map similar to the original A&A Europe would be ideal.
By making such a large map, it almost seems like Larry is treating this war like WW2 which is a mistake. The style of fighting was vastly different. -
Second that. I’d like to see Africa turned into blow up boxes in just about all my A&A games. How often does the Africa play mean anything vs. how much space it takes up that could equal larger regions in Europe.
When I read one round of dice rolling in combat I was thinking more of the D-Day type fight where a territory might end conflicted rather than controlled. We killed 6 of you you killed 4 of me but we each have 12 units remaining in the zone sort of thing.
-
The D-Day comparison is spot on.
Larry said the map would be similar in size and scope as the current europe 40 map is.
If thats the case, unless africa and north america are shrunken away, then europe is going to look much like it does now. Perhaps a “few” more territories.
But realistically we need many, many, many territories in europe.The game Diplomacy would be a good measuring stick to go by.
-
perhaps the reason why the map includes basically the same area as global, it might be that another companion game representing the pacific is on the way. Then you could have a scramble for colonies style of game for an earlier point in time.
The map is the same size as Global from what i’ve read.
-
WWI in the pacific would be as dull as dishwater.
-
I think he means a period before WW1, with the great powers scrambling for colonies. The Great War could have easily started in 1905 or in the 1800’s
-
It disappointed me that the map will go all the way down to South Africa. Seems like a LOT of wasted space down there. We could do without the few skirmishes down there in exchange for a western and eastern front with more than 3 territories each.
My guess is that the land masses will be proportioned differently than in Europe 1940. A&A maps are traditionally oversized in the areas where the most activity took place in WWII and undersized elsewhere. A good example is the northern part of Africa, which is very large on the E40 map due to the North Africa campaigns involving the Afrika Corps. Sub-Saharan Africa is, by contrast, quite small on the E40 map. So I expect that Larry’s WWI map will allocate lots of space to the Western and Eastern Fronts, and that Africa will have a small size as compensation (while nevertheless being included to reflect the colonial actions there, such as von Lettow-Vorbeck’s East African Campaign).
-
I love it I love it I love it. Everytime someone asks what the next game should be I’ve always answered Axis and Allies 1914. And I know IL likes it, He removed his tag asking for WW1 game.
I think the next question is for Coach or well the fine people at HBG will you be making pieces for this one too?
-
He removed his tag asking for WW1 game.
I did not. it is still at HGD. Never had it here because Larry does not visit here. IN my own way i prodded Larry ( not unlike what Peullo does)
-
Everytime someone asks what the next game should be I’ve always answered Axis and Allies 1914.
For my own unofficial use, I’ve code-named this game “Archdukes and Armistices”, based on how WWI started and ended. Â
-
@Imperious:
He removed his tag asking for WW1 game.
I did not. it is still at HGD. Never had it here because Larry does not visit here. IN my own way i prodded Larry ( not unlike what Peullo does)
after I wrote that I went to larry’s site and saw you still had it up there. I thought you had it here too, my bad.
-
This game has the potential to be very exciting! I really hope that LH and Kreig did their homework and give us a game that will be fun for years, not just weeks and months. Because we don’t have a standard mold for WWI A&A games, I am open to all kinds of new possibilities with this game, and I expect that LH was as well. Personally I cannot wait!
-
It looks like being a pretty basic game. I just hope the main components don’t preclude an official expansion with the techs and rules that some of us will consider essential for that authentic WWI experience.
Techs in particular are vital to the period; essentially the war was all about producing new ways of killing the enemy to break the stalemate; not so for WWII where there was no stalemate.
Tanks & Fighter Planes in 1914 are just wrong.
Suggested Topics
