@Krieghund Thanks. I don’t play a lot of 1914 so some of the mine rules are pretty wonky for me. The bit about mines halting movement in particular is pretty important.
Gold mine for new pieces.
-
ok I’ll bite, you guys are over complacting the crap out of this game. Larry said it will be as complex of a game as Spring '42 and the stuff I’m reading here it sounds like you guys want it way more complacted then G40
-
ok I’ll bite, you guys are over complacting the crap out of this game. Larry said it will be as complex of a game as Spring '42 and the stuff I’m reading here it sounds like you guys want it way more complacted then G40
this
-
I want the most complicated WWI board game of all time.
-
-
The reason I think the politics is essential is this:
When the Germans surrendered, they (and their Austrian allies) not only had not been invaded, but they actually held about twice as much territory as they started with in 1914.
Allied victory conditions defaulting to “capture two enemy capitals” will not do; realistically it is not plausible given the nature of the warfare. Therefore, there has to be a system whereby countries are liable to break down into disorder under certain conditions. Economic blockades and revolutionary violence are essential to the story. Without them its really just a glorified RISK, and we don’t want that, now do we boys?
-
@Imperious:
Tanks: Attack at 3, Defend at 3, Move 1, Cost 6
   Only Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the United States may have tanks. Each tank negates the effects of two entrenched infantry. For example, If you�re attacking with 3 tanks then up to 6 defending entrenched infantry no longer fire preemptively (ignore step 4: defending infantry fire in step 5). In combat, rolling a 6 cause�s one tank to suffer a mechanical breakdown and the unit must retreat from combat. Entrenched infantry are still effected that combat round.What is the reasoning behind the nations allowed? Only France, UK, and Germany had tanks. France and UK built over 2000 each, let’s round down to 4000 (but I think it was closer to 5). As I said at the beginning of this thread, Germany built 20. That’s 0.5% of the allied total. Not really worth mentioning, in terms of quantity.
Also, the German tank was considered an unsuccessful design and did not even appear until the 2nd quarter of 1918, which from an A&A game perspective is the second last turn at best. So it would be more appropriate historically to limit them to France and UK only…
However, that is not what the game is about. Existing A&A games allow completely ahistorical builds that are commonly used by players. Japanese and Italian mech inf jump to mind right away.
It also more then reasonable to assume that other powers had tank designs in the works (Russian Tsar tank, for example) that may well have appeared if production priorities were different. I’m sure several people at the time were more concerned with keeping higher artillery production a priority. I don’t think the capability to manufacture a tank was a problem for any of the powers.
I think we should take precedent from previous A&A titles and keep it simple. If you want a tank, build a tank. :)
-
What is the reasoning behind the nations allowed?
Regardless of how many of X were built, it was only a military priority that decided how many tanks Germany would make. They also took a number of allied tanks. Look at how many planes USA made in WW2. If you want to apply some ratio argument China and Italy would have no air forces. USA built like 130,000 planes so by that argument get rid of the flying tigers. :-(
-
Regardless of how many of X were built, it was only a military priority that decided how many tanks Germany would make
But that’s what I’m saying. :-) It was not a priority for the Centrals/Triple Alliance. I think it’s fair to say if any nation made them a priority they could have pulled off producing them. So my point still stands, if you want a tank, build a tank.
As a side note, it’s true that Germany captured a small amount of allied tanks (Germany had about 50 tanks, including their own throughout the war and probably much less than that number at any given time), but those tanks were deployed in one’s and two’s where ever they were captured and were not often around long. There was never a mass formation.
For another piece option, Germany did develop anti-tank weapons. Maybe that would be a more interesting piece for the Centrals instead.
-
The threshold should be if they made them they could be allowed to make any number of them in the game. Because they made so few should not preclude this.
-
Tanks should be a tech.
Whoever develops the tech can build tanks. Thereafter, they can pass the tech on to their allies. It should then become possible for the enemy to produce the tech, they simply copy the design from a captured model.
So a delay of say 2 rounds before Allies can build, 2 more before Enemies can produce their own (unless they develop it by themselves before this).
All major powers (other than Turkey) had the industrial base necessary to produce any of the techs pertinent to the war. The numbers produced should be entirely up to the player.
-
I think alot of the suggestions on this site make alot of sense but I haven’t read a single one I think will be the game. The game is suppose to be as complacated as '42 and I don’t see '42 as complacated
-
I can tell you that Russia will go into revolution on the specific fixed turn, unless they are defeated in the normal fashion.
America enters on a specific fixed turn unless something like Paris or London falls early.
-
I’m thinking russia is thrown into revolution after lossing a set amount of territories of loss of a set amount of income.
-
I’m thinking russia is thrown into revolution after lossing a set amount of territories of loss of a set amount of income.
That’s a tad predictable. It would be a little more interesting to have a chit draw starting on turn X. Draw a revolution chit and it happens.
-
I’m just thinking something simple and it’s not that far off from lossing one’s capital only this way it’s lossing poland and the ukraine
-
Its the people who revolt. I’m not sure the people were that bothered about losing this or that outlying tt.
They were bothered about:
Not having enough to eat
Their menfolk being killed in an apparently useless war
Their cities being bombed
-
and the loss of thousands and thousands of the nations sons for nothing but lossing the war
-
Just a thought coming from one of the games I linked;
Do we need models for transport ships?
Wouldn’t it be better to have flat card transports the cargo can be physically placed on when at sea?
Or even no pieces at all: cargo is simply placed in the sea zone or moves across, with enemy subs able to intercept. You just pay a fee whenever a piece is “sunk”.
This might free up transport models for use as minelayers/sweepers
-
that would kick ass
-
Suggestion for observation balloons (can be retro-fitted to any game from Napoleonic wars onward):
unit costs 2
gives observation/artillery bonus, that is it can “see” over the border into enemy tt
in combat vs plane balloon is always destroyed, BUT on a roll of 1 the gas explosion destroys the attacking plane
Would anyone risk an expensive fighter just to destroy balloons? Clearly the advantages of observing the enemy must be sufficient to be worth countering. Eventually, large dogfights between several planes represent exactly the same thing at a more advanced level.
Suggested Topics
