It is part of Egypt and the border changes for Italy don’t appear on the map ( only strip of land showing)
At last! I had visions of Turkey having joint control of the Suez Canal.
Slowly, slowly, we get there.
Also, with regard to air combat…
Planes fight in aerial combat until one side is defeated or retreats. Fighters, Zeppelins, and Bombers can be scrambled once this is completed the side with planes provides aerial spotting for one round for qualifying land units ( artillery, railguns) where all these units fight at +1 ( this can be defender or attacker).
Planes also roll and hit land units and land units can now hit air units ( the player would hardly choose planes for loses in any event)
In naval combat all planes and ships just fight together, but planes with metal frame technology can participate in sea combat or Zeppelins.
Mmmm, I was thinking about fighters raiding a tt on their own to knock out enemy air power, then returning home.
It makes sense that they have to undergo fire from enemy ground units, otherwise they’d just massacre them. Also relevant if accompanying bombers to targets.
Mmmm, I was thinking about fighters raiding a tt on their own to knock out enemy air power,
Realistic but is busts the game because players with larger air forces will bully and easily defeat poorer nations straight away and they don’t get the ability to effect air power on their turn.
Air planes are expensive and to allow hordes of “plane hunters” to wipe them out makes the game less fun. Of course they can retreat after a round, but it would be too commonplace to do this.
Planes were used in conjunction with land combat, rather than sending over fighters in a quiet area where no land combat occurs.
Air power in this game should really be an after thought, given how flimsy they were and how new most of the technology was. Planes barley had the ability to shoot through their own propellers by the end of the war their impact was anecdotal at best. The best use for planes would be to provide an attack in a territory like any other unit, however if the enemy had planes present as well then a separate battle would have to be resolved between the two opposing air forces (with their attacks being rolled against eachother and nothing else) until one side is destroyed or decides to retreat. Then the aircraft could contribute its attacks to the larger land battle going on.
That is exactly how air combat works, with surviving planes providing aerial spotting for artillery and railguns.
@Imperious:
with surviving planes providing aerial spotting for artillery and railguns.
But I think this is too in-depth for what Larry is planning and wouldn’t be in this game. Also, I think that is too in depth of a task for aircraft period. They should be a stand alone unit with their own attacks, not just another piece to “bump” this or that thing.
In the Great War, planes didn’t have substantial effect against land units. It wasn’t till they got interrupter gear that allowed them to even shoot. Before that, they just had pistols and shot at other pilots as they went by on a fluke or dropped grenades personally ( literally had a small bomb and the pilot would throw it out of the plane) They fought in Dogfights while land units fought land units. They helped as forward observers to direct artillery fire much like Balloons did in the Civil War. Go check it out. They are not “tactical bombers” or “dive-bombers” etc.
I have a fairly simple idea for an implementation of rail movement:
Each country has a certain amount of strategic movement points (perhaps equal to, or a fraction of their IPC). During the non-combat movement phase a player can move units into any territory owned at the start of their turn. Strategic rail movement cannot result in a unit ending in a contested territory.
This is basically what I’ve been advocating for years. I don’t even have limited movement points, railways could shift a lot of materiel. Of course the movement can only be between connected land tts, but you forgot to mention that, didn’t you?
I have a fairly simple idea for an implementation of rail movement:
Each country has a certain amount of strategic movement points (perhaps equal to, or a fraction of their IPC). During the non-combat movement phase a player can move units into any territory owned at the start of their turn. Strategic rail movement cannot result in a unit ending in a contested territory.
Rail movement could much more easily be achieved by
“infinite non-combat movement amongst friendly territories not bordered by enemy controlled territory”
Right. In 6 month turns the entire army could be moved by rail, no limits.
When Russia falls Germany needs to run her army to finish off France and to say " hey they can only move 10 men" would entail too many allied victories.
I’m wondering how the victory conditions will work in this game. The Great War wasn’t like WW2 with capitals falling to enemies advances. Hell, Germany taking Pairs should be a major event in this game, not turn one necessity. As far as I can tell there were only like 3 enemy capitals that ever actually ever taking, Belgrade, Brussels, and I think Bucharest. Is this game going to have a mechanic to represent war weariness, or the blockade, or some other way of taking down the Central Powers that doesn’t involve storming into Berlin and Vienna?
P.E. (post-edit)
I did forget one, Podgorica was also occupied.
@Imperious:
Right. In 6 month turns the entire army could be moved by rail, no limits.
When Russia falls Germany needs to run her army to finish off France and to say " hey they can only move 10 men" would entail too many allied victories.
Absolutely. If Larry’s game doesn’t have rail movement, the Central Powers will not be able to fight effectively on both fronts. Even if the Schleiffen plan works, they won’t be able to switch units to the east in time to save central Europe from the Russians.
Mind you, I’ve been saying the same thing about the A&A WWII games for years, to no effect.
The same principle applies if there is ever an A&A Civil War game: there is an absolute break in the nature of warfare after rail transport becomes available. In essence, set piece Napoleonic battles are no longer decisive, as each side can fill up the gaps in its front line faster than the enemy can exploit any victory. It becomes a war of attrition.
This is what I meant by the need for a political dimension to the game.
There should be a morale/revolution/disorder chart as well as the national income tracker.
Various factors push a nation further along the track to revolution; the general trend should be more “minus” factors than “positive”, so that the lifespan of the war is finite - ultimately the war will collapse under its own weight. It becomes a matter of who can survive the longest, not who can capture the enemy crown jewels.
Factors?
Lose your capital: -5
Lose any other starting tt: -3
Lose any other tt: -1
Lose control of one of your convoy zones: - <value of=“” the=“” cz=“”>(representing food shortages)
Lose a battle in which more than 5 of your units are destroyed: -3
Win a battle in which more than 5 of your units are destroyed: -1
(dog fights count towards these unit totals)
Capture an enemy (not minor nations) capital: +5
Capture any other enemy (not minor nations) tt: +1
Suffer a bombing raid on your capital: -3 (once only)
Suffer one of your dreadnoughts destroyed: -2
What else?
Consequences of reaching the targets? Next post.
I’m wondering how the victory conditions will work in this game. The Great War wasn’t like WW2 with capitals falling to enemies advances. Hell, Germany taking Pairs should be a major event in this game, not turn one necessity. As far as I can tell there were only like 3 enemy capitals that ever actually ever taking, Belgrade, Brussels, and I think Bucharest. Is this game going to have a mechanic to represent war weariness, or the blockade, or some other way of taking down the Central Powers that doesn’t involve storming into Berlin and Vienna?
P.E. (post-edit)
I did forget one, Podgorica was also occupied.</value>
Throwing out some ideas for Empires falling into Revolution.
Roll a dice for each home area still held that has units. On a roll of X that area mutinies and joins the revolution. Replace all units there with Red units.
Red units are controlled by the Alliance opposed to the relevant Empire. They can only operate within the original tt of that Empire. They may attack “White” units at will, but can only recruit new infantry and cavalry units.
Surviving units of the Empire (“Whites”) are still controlled by the original player. They can fight the Reds and any enemy units at will. They too cannot build new mechanical units.
Extra: “Blacks”
If an area has an ethnic majority (i.e of a nationality other than the main one of the Empire, e.g. Ireland, Poland, Transylvania) X requires a lower roll; however if the roll is for revolution, the units there are replaced by “Black” nationalist units. These are not controlled by anyone, but may be attacked.
Possible: Roll for every area: if there are no units in the tt and there is a revolt place one relevant (Red or Black) infantry there.
Only when all Reds have been eliminated is the revolution over and the Empire back to normal. Original Allies are free to intervene and help put down the Reds.
The game is won when all Empires of one side are either defeated (capital occupied) or in Revolution.
This is basically what I’ve been advocating for years. I don’t even have limited movement points, railways could shift a lot of materiel. Of course the movement can only be between connected land tts, but you forgot to mention that, didn’t you?
I have a fairly simple idea for an implementation of rail movement:
Each country has a certain amount of strategic movement points (perhaps equal to, or a fraction of their IPC). During the non-combat movement phase a player can move units into any territory owned at the start of their turn. Strategic rail movement cannot result in a unit ending in a contested territory.
Good catch on the “connected land tts.” BTW, I would highly suggest everyone who is looking for a really in-depth WWI game to check out “The Guns of August” by Avalon Hill.
Further on the breakdown idea:
After each year, move the targets needed for Disorder & Revolution down - all nations become increasingly weary of war.
So two steps to a power collapsing: Disorder, then Revolution. The latter as described above;
Disorder: the power continues to operate as normal, but combat units are liable to mutiny. Fleets may refuse to sail out of port; armies may refuse to leave the trenches to attack.
It should be possible for a power to recover from Disorder; most countries had mutinies at some point.
All powers begin on the chart at 0. It might go up to +10 for early successes, then steadily down for everyone. “Disorder” and “Revolution” markers begin at appropriate points (Revolution at the end) and are moved down at intervals, probably at the end of each year.
Perhaps another chart to track American involvement, influenced by U-Boat sinking, invasion of neutrals etc. Just possible for it to swing far enough for America to join the CPs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_entry_into_World_War_I
Think I mentioned this before, but a way of balancing towards the CP is to allow only them to attack neutrals, and only them to annex and exploit conquered tt (the Allies have to liberate it).
On the global aspect of the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bp9CNtY7ho
Japan as a power, but what about China?
Did Japan have a modern industry in 1914?
IL, do you have a global map or just sections outside Europe; you said no Central Africa.
Some other issues:
Ammunition - armies need ammo to fight. Thinking of using “bullets” from old version of Diplomacy. Produced in factories, need to be transported by rail or ship to keep units in supply. Can be stockpiled and captured.
Motor Torpedo Boats - cheap naval units which can attack bigger ships. Problem is, I don’t want people building loads of these to soak up hits. Perhaps they can only attack when accompanied by big ships, or you can choose which units to attack in naval combat?
Edit: MTBs can only operate off the coast of friendly tts.
Techs - to what extent can these be shared with your allies? I would say that, after a power gains a tech:
the next turn it can build the new units
two turns later its Allies can build it
two turns after that its enemies can produce their own version
OR
you have to physically deliver a unit to an ally for it to gain the tech.
I’m assuming that units delivered to an ally’s home tt can be converted to its units - otherwise Turkey would have no modern weapons (it should have no factories).
Updated XL file attached.
Ship mechanics:
One of the most enduring Myths created by A&A is that
“Ships were continually at sea, making them sitting ducks for enemy aircraft”
So three new proposals:
1. Ships can be moored in port, and are thus protected against attack by sea and air (the enemy has to attack the entire tt).
2. Ships must stay within range of friendly (&/or neutral?) tt at all times (fueling).
3. Range of ships is increased (along the lines of rail movement). However, locations of ships (or just subs?) are recorded secretly. A player must announce when and where a fleet is refueling, if it is entering and capturing a convoy zone, or when it picks up or unloads units. But thereafter the position is written down in secret, and can be revealed at any time the player chooses.
Is this worth doing? Writing down moves of numbered ships might sound like a chore, but wouldn’t it breathe new life into naval combat?
