Oh well.
Already Looking Forward to 1914 2nd Edition
-
But again, in 1914 any power MIGHT have developed the idea; you can’t say that only Germany can have them because only Germany DID have them in great numbers.
Yea sure, the allies developed airships so Zeppelin sculpts should be distributed to everybody. Awesome. Just whitewash History because the internet says Russia made a balloon and extrapolate 600 foot floating war machines with the Czar painted on the side. Good for comics, but not good for a Historical game.
because some nation “thought” about it or built one prototype, does not mean 100’s of new sculpt ideas for piece junkies. At some point you got to just deal with reality and make a game based on what happened rather than Twilight Zone.
-
@Imperious:
because some nation “thought” about it or built one prototype, does not mean 100’s of new sculpt ideas for piece junkies. At some point you got to just deal with reality and make a game based on what happened rather than Twilight Zone.
Yeah we need to errata Global 1940 and make it illegal for Germany to buy Carriers, since none ever reached operational status in World War II. :roll:
-
Yeah we need to errata Global 1940 and make it illegal for Germany to buy Carriers, since none ever reached operational status in World War II. rolleyes
They built one and they don’t start with one. Makes good common sense. :roll:
-
Storm troops were not a fantasy, all Allied armies used them in large numbers. Their inclusion is fully justified historically, unlike German tanks.
And yet, your rules will probably allow Turkey to shell out tanks like peas from a pod even though Turkey at no time had the industry capable of producing anything more advanced than a peddle powered go-cart.
I’m the one dealing with historical reality; you’re prepared to compromise it at evey turn in the name of “game balance”.
Include what is possible given national and military policy, exclude what is impossible due to lack of capability, including Turkish tanks.
-
Indeed in terms of tech WWI was far more innovative than WWII.
In WWI many technologies were INVENTED and in ADDITION as everything was so new there was much continous advance/progress as well (like in WWII).
Fighters, tanks, ASW (anti submarine warfare with hydrophones and depth charges), even the submarine was new (though already available 1914 but hardly known what to do with it!). In addition there were all the improvements e.g. the fighter race causing alternating air superiority!So Flashman, you are not alone!
At least in a BIG/limited/collector’s edition tech is supposed to be there as a prominent factor (as well as (real) diplomacy!)
And - even if simulated historically correct - it would hardly be “decisive” per se.
-
Storm troops were not a fantasy, all Allied armies used them in large numbers. Their inclusion is fully justified historically, unlike German tanks.
Name all the divisions that the allies employed as Shock troops. Why are they not represented in any strategic wargame based on the Great War?
And yet, your rules will probably allow Turkey to shell out tanks like peas from a pod even though Turkey at no time had the industry capable of producing anything more advanced than a peddle powered go-cart.
WE assume the CP could sell them and railed them. And Turkey cant build tanks till 2 turns before the game ends (technology) and they cant even afford them, so the point is fail. Also, in Axis and Allies some sculpts are not denied some nations. This allows people to make up new scenarios and house rules like some people.
I’m the one dealing with historical reality; you’re prepared to compromise it at evey turn in the name of “game balance”.
Rather, we don’t look up stuff on the internet and find out they made one of whatever, and force feed the game to include 15 different sculpts of it because the internet said so.
Include what is possible given national and military policy, exclude what is impossible due to lack of capability, including Turkish tanks.
And AA guns, silly armored trains, aircraft carriers, and 15 different fighters…
-
And AA guns, silly armored trains, aircraft carriers, and 15 different fighters…
Yes, they were all real and had an impact on the war. Unlike Turkish weapons production.
BTW, you say Turkey can only build tanks 2 turns from the end. I assume from this that you do have a set number of turns, which presumably each represent a specific (and roughly equal) period.
So, on your scripted timeline, on which turns do the following key events occur:
1. Turkish entry (Nov 1 1914)
2. Italian entry (May 23 1915)
3. Wilson wins election by a gnat’s wing - war declaration delayed (Nov 7 1916)
4. The note that triggers the war (Jan 16 1917)
5. USW Declared (Feb 1 1917)
6. Uncle Sam goes to War (Apr 6 1917)
7. The (2nd) Russian Revolution (Nov 7 1917)
8. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (end of eastern front war) (Mar 3 1918)
9. Allies invade Russia to re-open eastern front war (Aug 1918)
10. Germany surrenders (Nov 11 1918)Interested to see if these events match the turn record.
My guess is that history magically ends in March 1918 and that the last few months of the war are open to the players to decide what happens. But I could be wrong.
I’ve no objection to the inclusion of Turkish tank units, as long as they’re built in industrialized nations and transferred to Turkey by rail or sea transport. Same goes for any other unit: Turkey undoubtedly had modern weapons, but they were built by other countries. Even though (by your criteria) Austria and Turkey should not have tanks at all because historically they produced none.
-
Name all the divisions that the allies employed as Shock troops.
Are you saying that Allied shock troops are irrelevant because they weren’t organized on a divisional basis? Surely the total numbers is what counts. Artillery were organized under divisional command, yet they have separate units.
Even so the Italians evidently created an entire army corps of 2 divisions of Arditi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arditi
Shock tactics used by Russia in the Brusilov offensive may well have given Germany the idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusilov_Offensive#Breakthrough
Or it could have been the French:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_troops#Development_of_tactics
Britain used infiltration tactics similar to Germany’s in 1917/18, often employing Canadians and Anzacs in the role:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_troops#World_War_I
http://alihollington.typepad.com/historic_battlefields/2008/01/how-did-they-do.html
https://plus.google.com/photos/110169237000562683075/albums/5596620209409457953?banner=pwa&sqi&sqsi
Why are they not represented in any strategic wargame based on the Great War?
WWII. People see them as forerunners of the Nazi Stormtroopers, while Allied equivalents did not form long term political organizations. The name is associated with German elite units, so people miss the fact that the Allies had similar units, and in fact used them more effectively as they didn’t weaken standard formations to create them.
Moreover, in a game starting in 1914, nobody has them. But if they had decided to develop the concept, anyone might have done so later on, yes even the Turks since shock troops are about training not technology.
Allied shock troops were an integral part of later WWI just as much as the German storm troopers, and fully justify inclusion; unlike German tanks which were so few in number that they had no impact.
So, to be consistent, either:
-
Allow any power to train shock troops, or
-
Ban allied shock troops (on the grounds of lack of divisional formations, except Italy, obviously), but also ban German tanks on the same principle.
-
-
So, on your scripted timeline, on which turns do the following key events occur:
1. Turkish entry (Nov 1 1914)
2. Italian entry (May 23 1915)
3. Wilson wins election by a gnat’s wing - war declaration delayed (Nov 7 1916)
4. The note that triggers the war (Jan 16 1917)
5. USW Declared (Feb 1 1917)
6. Uncle Sam goes to War (Apr 6 1917)
7. The (2nd) Russian Revolution (Nov 7 1917)
8. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (end of eastern front war) (Mar 3 1918)
9. Allies invade Russia to re-open eastern front war (Aug 1918)
10. Germany surrenders (Nov 11 1918)you got it wrong. we have 13 game turns and Ottomans get the ability to buy tanks on turn 14 ( which is part of the extended game)
An extended game can be played to turn 15 if all agree.
Turns:
Each game turn constitutes four months (except the first) of real time outlined as follows:- August 1st - December 1914 9. May - August 1917
- January - April 1915 10. September - December 1917
- May - August 1915 11. January - April 1918
- September - December 1915 12. May - August 1918
- January - April 1916 13. September - December 1918
- May - August 1916 14. January - April 1919 (extended game)
- September - December 1916 15. May - August 1919
- January - April 1917
Actually they don’t get any tanks in the regular game which ends on turn 13. On turn 14, all nations get all techs because this is outside the period of the war and purely hypothetical so tanks for ottomans are allowed for 2 freaking turns. There you have it.
-
Name all the divisions that the allies employed as Shock troops.
Are you saying that Allied shock troops are irrelevant because they weren’t organized on a divisional basis? Surely the total numbers is what counts. Artillery were organized under divisional command, yet they have separate units.
If they are organized on the Corps basis, they should be represented but they were not.
Even so the Italians evidently created an entire army corps of 2 divisions of Arditi:
Not enough to be represented.
Shock tactics used by Russia in the Brusilov offensive may well have given Germany the idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusilov_Offensive#Breakthrough
Not large enough to be represented.
Or it could have been the French:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_troops#Development_of_tactics
Not large enough to be represented.
Britain used infiltration tactics similar to Germany’s in 1917/18, often employing Canadians and Anzacs in the role:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_troops#World_War_I
http://alihollington.typepad.com/historic_battlefields/2008/01/how-did-they-do.html
https://plus.google.com/photos/110169237000562683075/albums/5596620209409457953?banner=pwa&sqi&sqsi
Not large enough to be represented.
Why are they not represented in any strategic wargame based on the Great War?
WWII. People see them as forerunners of the Nazi Stormtroopers, while Allied equivalents did not form long term political organizations. The name is associated with German elite units, so people miss the fact that the Allies had similar units, and in fact used them more effectively as they didn’t weaken standard formations to create them.
Not large enough to be represented.
Moreover, in a game starting in 1914, nobody has them. But if they had decided to develop the concept, anyone might have done so later on, yes even the Turks since shock troops are about training not technology.
Allied shock troops were an integral part of later WWI just as much as the German storm troopers, and fully justify inclusion; unlike German tanks which were so few in number that they had no impact.
So, to be consistent, either:
-
Allow any power to train shock troops, or
-
Ban allied shock troops (on the grounds of lack of divisional formations, except Italy, obviously), but also ban German tanks on the same principle.
The latter makes more sense, so when you get them in the game, throw them away and don’t use them. Solved.
-
-
<yawn.>Once again IL argues with only “common sense” against actual sources, and attacks the idea of providing sources because he knows that if he abides by procedures that reasonable people use to settle disputes, he will lose utterly.
Just because you don’t want it in your game does not mean it is inappropriate for an A&A style game. Get over yourself. You are not the God of Axis & Allies.</yawn.>
-
Once again IL argues with only “common sense” against actual sources, and attacks the idea of providing sources because he knows that if he abides by procedures that reasonable people use to settle disputes, he will lose utterly.
Just because you don’t want it in your game does not mean it is inappropriate for an A&A style game. Get over yourself. You are not the God of Axis & Allies.
Once again IL wins with only “common sense” and established actual sources, and attacks the idea of somebody who spent 275 posts trying to make up other arguments and claim they were IL’s main argument and failed because they know that the note triggered the war, so they attempt to make another new argument out of thin air. Then lose again.
Because you have a failed argument does not mean you should “find something else” and try and make it stick. The note triggered the war, get over it.
-
I personally don’t want too much detail in these games. I want them to easily playable with a feel of the conflict. They don’t have to be burdened down with 5 different types of infantry or 12 different types of artillery it makes to hard to understand and too hard to explain to new players. KISS theory is a good one. That is why the original AA was so successful. Just my opinion now you can rip me to shreds.
-
I personally don’t want too much detail in these games. I want them to easily playable with a feel of the conflict. They don’t have to be burdened down with 5 different types of infantry or 12 different types of artillery it makes to hard to understand and too hard to explain to new players. KISS theory is a good one. That is why the original AA was so successful. Just my opinion now you can rip me to shreds.
I am not trying to rip you to shreds, but for me personally at this point, Original A&A is so boring for me. Personally I would like the complexity to keep building (in my mind this is progressing), but the flip side is that I can see that since this is the first official WWI game, the first edition should be quite simple.
-
I can understand that point of view Von and appreciate that. I think there needs to be some sort of Advanced AA. Unit types for each country cost differently, attack differently,etc,etc,. I personally like these games to be playable in 5 to 6 hours. I don’t need some huge campaign that takes 16 hours to play. I have a wife and 2 kids and unfortunately cannot donate that kind of time to these games.Just my 2 cents.
-
At a retail price of 100 dollar-pounds, I expect something rather more complex. If they wanted an entry level game then produce a “budget” version such as A&A 1941. For all its faults, ILs game looks a much better bet, though of course he may price it at a level only he can afford…
I’m arguing here more for historical accuracy rather than complexity; If you’re going to have shock troops for Germany then the same should apply to anyone else.
20 German tanks is by any standards “not enough to be represented”, yet they’ll be in there. An entire Italian army corps of shock troops can be dismissed only by ignoring the facts. If Turkey can produce mechanical units then so can Liberia & Haiti.
-
Our game is either $99 or $119 depending on final accounting. Not more or less.
20 German tanks is by any standards “not enough to be represented”, yet they’ll be in there. An entire Italian army corps of shock troops can be dismissed only by ignoring the facts. If Turkey can produce mechanical units then so can Liberia & Haiti.
Throw the non accurate units in the trash can. Problem solved.
-
Man, you guys really ran with this topic! I was just having a hard time believing this game wouldn’t lead to other editions and sub-conflicts (BOTB, Guad.) Great ideas, heated differences, and overall eager anticipation for more of this historical conflict…Bravo Gentlemen.
-
@Imperious:
Throw the non accurate units in the trash can. Problem solved.
But won’t that unbalance the game? I expect this sort of thing to be done by the designers. They should read some books, man.
-
But won’t that unbalance the game? I expect this sort of thing to be done by the designers. They should read some books, man.
Accuracy is more important. Like not letting Germany build more than one tank and other arbitrary rules.
Suggested Topics
