Unit Lineup speculation/wish list


  • Thats why the other world war one game will be better. No candyland.

    Of course in that game, tanks will be a technology upgrade and the first house rules will include technology.


  • @Imperious:

    Thats why the other world war one game will be better. No candyland.

    What other game?


  • Can’t say too much, but you will be shocked how great it will be. And it will be.

  • Customizer

    I’m disappointed that the official A&A version will be so lightweight. I’m unconvinced that the target audience want it that way. Nevertheless the game will be ripe for pimping, with techs the obvious place to start.

    I suspect that it won’t be quite as bad as you suggest; perhaps the introduction of tanks will be only after a number of turns; then again the USA coming in as early as turn 4 means that the game clearly pays little regard to the historical time line.

    And no bombers? Rail transport? Cavalry? = Risk 1914.

    @Clyde85:

    I am very disturbed by the fact that tanks will be available from turn 1. The whole no tech thing requires it be that way but this is a massive miscarriage of history to a rather revolting degree. Depending on how the initial set-up is and what the starting economies are, we are facing a scenario where some of the better off nations, like Germany and Britain maybe, will not need to buy anything else but tanks from the word go. If there starting forces are large enough they might only need to buy tanks to augment their existing forces. Given that Germany only produced around 20 tanks during the war, having any by the end of turn one would be ridiculous.

    Dose this not bother anyone else?


  • @Imperious:

    Can’t say too much, but you will be shocked how great it will be. And it will be.

    Are you referring to another game using the A&A map or something you are publishing? Your entire posting is highly ominous.

    On the side, WWI is very interesting because all sides are equally evil. I always  feel a little horrible celebrating a WWII axis win. Maybe that’s just me…


  • I’m still perfectly optomistic about the game, we hardly know enough to really make judgments yet. Plus I’m just excited to have a ww1 game (sorry, whatever you guys are talking about just sounds far to complicated for me to pay attention to)

  • Customizer

    First draft of unit specifics and preferred models.

    (attached)

    GreatWarC.xls


  • No aircraft carriers. They weren’t used except as seaplane tenders for observation. Biplanes didn’t launch to attack and sink enemy warships from carriers.

    If you add them, also add missile guided cruisers.

    No Battleships either. Dreadnoughts. A few ships classified as Battleships existed, but these are pre 1900.


  • IL, is the website for that other game working again yet? or are we back in the dark about it?


  • IL, is the website for that other game working again yet? or are we back in the dark about it?

    What other game? what website?

  • Sponsor '17 TripleA '11 '10

    I believe Yavid is referring to “The Conflict” from Legion Games.


  • “The Conflict” from Legion Games.

    http://www.legiongaming.com/

    This game said release in 2012. Was it ever released, their forum is down.


  • That would be yet another WW1 game.

  • Customizer

    Holy Cowpat, Batman! No America!

    Has battleships, so IL can’t be involved.


  • @Variable:

    I believe Yavid is referring to “The Conflict” from Legion Games.

    you are correct


  • @oztea:

    Units would be:
    Artillery 2/2/1 4 IPCs
    Special Rules

    • Fire Support: Supports Infantry at a 1:1 basis, boosting their attack to ‘2’

    Cavalry 2/1/2 6 IPCs
    Special Rules

    • Withdrawal: Cavalry units may remove themselves from combat after all dice have been rolled and retreat to a friendly territory

    Aircraft 2/3/3 10 IPCs
    Special Rules

    • Dog Fight: If enemy air units are present, roll all air units as a separate combat
    • Air Reconnaissance: For each air unit you have in combat, raise the attack power of an adjacent strategic artillery unit to ‘3’

    I’m gonna comment on a couple of these, so bear with me:

    • Cavalry: these units are not represented in Imp Games’ The Great War, with the explanation that they so quickly became outdated by the early days of the war that they never saw much action
    • Artillery: I can’t see these functioning the same way as in WWII because, well… they didn’t
    • Aircraft: TGW tried this and it didn’t work; it was too easy for “the side that goes first” to mass their aircraft and destroy the enemy’s air force early in the game, and have air supremacy throughout. The rules were later changed to be almost identical to typical A&A
    • Navy: It’s disappointing that 1914 is going to be using d6; a d12 would provide the granularity to allow for more types of ships, and do justice to a war that was really the twilight of the “Big Ship” fleet engagement.
    • Machine Guns: generally regarded as the most deadly new invention of the war (although artillery caused the most casualties, but was really just an upgrade on older field cannons) I would like to see machine guns/bunkers/pillboxes represented in a way similar to AA guns or D-Day fighters.
    • Tunnel mines/Flame cannons: I’ve seen documentaries on these, and in almost every case, they completely reversed the status quo of trench warfare and broke enemy lines wide open, almost akin to a Heavy Bombers tech. I would like to see some mention/representation of these in the game.

  • Customizer

    I would say that machine-guns were a part of every infantry unit; we can assume that the defensive ability of infantry includes their MGs.

    Regarding aircraft, in 1914 there were no fighter aircraft, just observation planes. These should have a low combat ability of 1-1 (movement 4) against any target. Their main use is for giving artillery more accurate targeting.

    Later, techs will make fighter aircraft available, my suggestion is for two developments: forward firing MGS (2-2-2) and twin synchronized MGs (3-3-2).  Bombers also need to be a tech at 4-1-6.

    Do you have a link to TGW rules anywhere?

  • Customizer

    Regarding the look of the map:

    I’m not a fan of the muddy style of recent A&A boards. I’d rather have clear light green for lowlands, darker green for difficult terrain, grey for mountain ranges.

    Would really like railway lines printed on the map, these would nicely emphasize the importance of certain tts as transport hubs.


  • @Flashman:

    Would really like railway lines printed on the map, these would nicely emphasize the importance of certain tts as transport hubs.

    The way (IIRC) that this was handled in TGW was that you could rail infantry to and from any friendly industrial complexes, so long as there was an unbroken land connection in between. IC’s were printed on the map and were in most major European cities.

    @Flashman:

    I would say that machine-guns were a part of every infantry unit; we can assume that the defensive ability of infantry includes their MGs.

    One mechanic that was used in TGW was that infantry normally defend on a ‘1’; however, if they spend a turn to “entrench” instead of moving, their defense becomes ‘2’. There were also Stormtroopers which broke entrenchment and provided better defenses against poison gas.
    I just think since machine guns were a such a game-changing new weapon, it would be interesting to give them some love and have them represented in the game; the WWII equivalent would probably be the advent of aircraft carriers (or nukes, I guess?)

    @Flashman:

    Regarding aircraft, in 1914 there were no fighter aircraft, just observation planes. These should have a low combat ability of 1-1 (movement 4) against any target. Their main use is for giving artillery more accurate targeting.

    The way it worked in TGW was that the aircraft would first have a “dogfight” against any defending aircraft in the territory (in WWI, this was a very clunky affair at first, with pilots trying to shoot each other with pistols, hurl bricks at one another, etc.) and then when the dogfight is concluded (IIRC) the side with any aircraft remaining granted a “spotting” bonus to their attacking infantry in the ground battle. As I mentioned, it was fairly imbalanced and eventually revised out.

    @Flashman:

    Later, techs will make fighter aircraft available, my suggestion is for two developments: forward firing MGS (2-2-2) and
    twin synchronized MGs (3-3-2).  Bombers also need to be a tech at 4-1-6.

    TGW has Interruptor Gears as an aircraft tech; for those unfamiliar, this is the timing mechanism that allowed for “synchronized MGs” that would fire in between the blades of their own plane’s propellers (rather than shoot them to pieces and make you crash-land).

    @Flashman:

    Do you have a link to TGW rules anywhere?

    I do not, as it is a commercial product rather than something that is freely distributed.

    The game does not exist in any physical format (although it has a MapView module).
    Hmmm… If you go to the Imp Games -> Products page, and click on Order Now, it seems you can only get the TGW rules on CD-ROM or as part of a purchase package with E&W (if i am reading the descriptions correctly). I think you used to be able to purchase an electronic copy of the rules separately (as you still can for E&W); I placed an order to purchase a replacement rulebook for E&W and they emailed back, offering to send me an electronic copy instead. So maybe that would work, if you are interested in purchasing just the rules?

    I haven’t had any luck with their email address recently though, so maybe try their forums…?

  • Customizer

    Any map scans?

    Anyway, been thinking about implementing supply rules, using the “bullet” pieces from old Diplomacy to represent shells.

    Shells cost, say, 1PC for 10?  You need to transport them around with your units, or rail them to where they’re needed. Transport ships can carry and unload them; battle fleets carry their own; aircraft cannot carry cargo.

    In essence, each army* expends one shell per combat round, regardless of number of units (I’m broadly going with Larry’s rule of having only one round of combat per turn, so it’d need reworking for other systems.)

    Shells can be stockpiled in dumps, perhaps just behind front lines. If a tt is captured, all unexpended shells are also captured.

    This system might be used only to supply artillery, but I was thinking of an item to represent the general supplying of armies.

    *An “Army” being the total units of one side in a land area; a “Fleet” being a group at sea or in port. Depending on the scale of the map, land areas might be closer to Army Group formations. Regarding which:

    Would a stacking limit be appropriate here? Would forcing players to build “mixed” armies be a good thing; that is a large all-infantry stack without artillery or air defences would have little combat effectiveness. Actually, I don’t like artificial “combined arms” bonuses - it should be inherent to the combat rules that a mixed army is more effective. An infantry stack with no artillery against one of the same size but with artillery and aircraft should be smashed to pieces.

    How about Generals (and Admirals) to command each army and fleet?

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 2
  • 2
  • 7
  • 3
  • 28
  • 18
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts