• Customizer

    I’m moving towards one round of combat only in naval battles, making the RN/KM confrontation more of an attritional conflict than the all-or-nothing round one battle.

    Essentially, it would be more of a stalemate with each fleet making straffing attacks before retreating behind their own minefields.

    However it might unbalance by allowing the UK to spend heavily on ground units B1; usually it has to spend everything on a new navy at this point. Consider balance with new USW rules.

    I’m also in favour of moving the SZ8/SZ9 border so that US shuttles have to unload in Brest (I’d guess this was the original setup, but was changed to get the Yanks into battle sooner).

    Why not allow Austrian subs to count towards USW rather than an artificial German build in Trieste?

    Regarding neutral Italy; it is essential that if Italy is neutral it does not have a turn. A nation at war should not be allowed to do anything more than maintain its peacetime establishment and deployment (i.e opening setup).

    Same for USA; how boring is it for the American player to have to buy unit sit cannot yet use? Far better to not have turn until at war then have a higher base income.

  • '14

    Has anyone considered giving the humble cruiser more to do? It’s the one naval piece that really, other than speed, doesn’t have much of a purpose. I would say factor its role in commerce raiding purposes, but that was only true for the first few months of the war. Other than the Koiningsberg in East Africa, all were sunk by March 1915.

    Armed merchant cruisers, like those used by the Germans, were also very destructive on the high seas. They sunk a fair amount of shipping, but also wasted a lot of resources in the hunt involved in neutralizing them. Maybe a role for German transports in this… This might produce some wild goose chases and give the cruisers something to do for once.

    I agree with most of the above. Austrian subs would probably be better suited to conducting USW warfare rather than German subs. Any German subs operating in the Med were dependent upon A-H bases and resources anyhow for operations.

  • Customizer

    German subs also operated out of Constantinople, though probably under nominal Ottoman control.

    The most obvious use of cruisers is as defacto destroyers in anti-sub role; Battleships sunk a total of 1 sub in the war (by ramming).


  • Some pretty cool ideas have been thrown out here, but I would suggest we try to bring our focus back in a bit. If we truly want to just balance the OOB game (which I’m sure is a goal many people would agree should be done), then we should make small changes to boost the weaker side until both sides have a chance, or at least either side can punish smaller mistakes by the other. That’s why I think we should pick one “drastic” change to make to get the game close, and then tweak it by bid/extra pieces. These “drastic” changes fall around aspects of the war that are underrepresented or not represented at all (in no particular order):

    1. Italy stays neutral R1. They do not start with money, cannot move troops, and SZ 17 is open to all and no one rolls mines. They declare war before their collect phase so that they do get their starting income.

    2. Representing the efficient railway system the Central Powers had. PTR is an option that can be implemented OOB, but having special “armored train” pieces (something like A0D0M4 carry any 2 units, cannot enter hostile TT, must end movement if entering contested TT) is another option.

    3a) USW rule changes. The two main fixes to USW rules themselves in this thread are:
    i) Restricted and Unrestricted stages. Restricted targets UK only, and does rolled damage at 2 or less. Unrestricted targets US as well, add SZ 1, and does rolled damage at 3 or less. US entry upon taking damage.

    ii) Either nothing or Unrestricted, with a “strike policy”. 3 or more US damage causes entry, or 10 UK+US damage. 1-2=1 damage, 3-4=2 damage, 5-6=no damage
    3b) USW expansion. Add SZ 3,4,9,16,17,19 as UK only blockade zones
    3c) Submarine changes. Submerging subs can only be hit by surface ships @2. Possible additional stuff:
    i) Can only be hit @1 for round 1 only.
    ii) Fighters adjacent to a SZ that have not moved allow surface warships to hit submerging submarines at their full attack value. (I prefer just @3, Dreadnoughts were never effective at sinking subs. Maybe only give the bonus to cruisers to increase their importance.)
    iii) Do blockades before the respective powers’ turn.
    3d) Setup change: French SZ 15 BB->CA, +Brit CA SZ 8, +German Sub SZ 3

    That said, changing up the Battle of the Atlantic is my personal preference because it gives the UK the conundrum of spending in India early to contain the Ottomans and risk the noose around Britain getting too tight, or build navy to break the blockade early and risk the Ottomans getting so strong that the normal UK isn’t enough to push them back.

    Re: German subs out of Trieste/Constantinople-Perhaps let Germany buy subs for Austria/Ottomans if the CPs control a connected series of territories from Berlin to Trieste/Constantinople? i.e. Germany spends 6 IPCs during its purchase phase, but puts an Austrian/Ottoman sub in the mobilization zone and then mobilizes it in the respective sea zone.

    Has anyone had any time to test any combination of changes yet? I tried a solo game with 3a,3c(+i),3d and the Allies definitely had to play better to make sure the CPs couldn’t make too much progress. (As a note: I always play with Russian Revolution in effect, as it is a good boost to the CPs to be able to “kill” ~60 Russians for only ~40 Germans or Austrians) I kind of like the “lower luck” blockade rules, but my TripleA representation can only roll blockades normally and there’s already a ton of editing needed.)

  • '14

    @Flashman:

    German subs also operated out of Constantinople, though probably under nominal Ottoman control.

    The most obvious use of cruisers is as defacto destroyers in anti-sub role; Battleships sunk a total of 1 sub in the war (by ramming).

    A U.S. battleship, wasn’t it? Assigned to the Grand Fleet in Scapa Flow?

    I just kind of look at cruisers as representing about half a battleship, i.e. a crusier squadron at most.


  • I know you want to fix the OOB but I have found the tournament rules even this thing up quite a bit. I do think the game would have been better with more production zones per country and more victory city’s. We have had more central victories with the tourney rules because of the collapse system that Larry has come up with. I really like this game and hope he does an upgrade with new units and a bigger map. Cool game.

  • Customizer

    Don’t you find it a pain in the arse having to check the collapse thresholds, especially as they’re given in the negative?

    Doesn’t the collapse system inevitably lead to KTF and KIF?

    I think my VC system is simpler.

    Do you play with time limits, if so is the Economic Victory system viable; i.e. can the Allies ever win an EV?


  • I do agree with you Flash we only play for about 6 hours. At that point we kind of come to an agreement who is the victor or call it a draw. I am with you that there should be a victory point system it would make achieving victory easier to calculate. After having multiple cocktails and the combat fatigue of playing this you sometimes lose track of what it takes for all of the countries to collapse.


  • As the co-champion in the Origins 1914 tournament I might have a little insight here maybe…
    My partner at the time also won the GenCon 1914 tourney as well…so I know how he plays.
    By now he has probably over 30 games of experience…6 games in tourney format.
    I myself have played the game 10-12 times- 3 in the tourney format.

    The tourney format at GenCon and Origins were slightly different than Larry tourney rules (here -->

    (http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=18335)

    …GenCon/Origins adopted them but changed 2 things:

    1. They didn’t use the new setup

    2. They allowed US to enter at turn 3 instead of 4.

    This yielded in an average 18-20 IPCs given to the Allies in order for the other side to take the Axis.  However, personally I like the tournament rules AS written by Larry WITH the setup changes and the US still entering on round 4.  This makes the bid much lower too- balancing the game better IMHO.


  • I agree, just played Larry’s tourney rules last week for the first time and accomplished our first “real” CP victory.  The game was over in 4 rounds and all players were relieved by the relatively quick play.  I think with the new tourney rules this game is getting closer to being one of the best A&A games.  But as a WWI buff I’m a bit biased on that point.  Looking forward to a new and improved 2nd edition in the future.


  • Our games ended at about the 6 hour mark.  I’m safe to tell people its a solid 6 hour game give or take an hour.


  • This is my suggestion for a balanced A&A1914 second edition:

    Set-Up like the TT-Rules (but OOB-Setup for Africa)

    New IPCs:

    Germany has 37 IPC with
    Hannover 3 IPC
    Kiel 3 IPC

    France still has 24 IPC but with
    Picardy 3 IPC
    Lorraine 3 IPC and
    Burgundy-tt erased (its 6 Inf 2 Art were split and 3Inf/1 Art go to Brest, the other 3 Inf/1Art to Bordeaux)

    Switzerland 4 IPC
    Norway 3 IPC
    Sweden 3 IPC

    Additional USW-Zones: 2,3,4,7,8,9,15

    Faster economical/political collapse for:
    Russia 10/12

    Different economical/political collapse for:
    France 12/14
    Germany 18/20

    Edit: changed Switzerland to 4 IPC and gave the Burgundy units to Brest and Bordeaux.

    (Because from Marseille they could be shipped with two transports and 1 BS to the Ottomans Round1 and contest Smyrna; Together with the invasion of Mesopotamia by Russia and Trans Jordan by Britain OE would be in economical collapse before they get a turn.)

    1914Balance.png

  • Customizer

    Surprised you haven’t corrected the Prussia-Poland and the Bulgaria-Greece borders.

    My guess is that on this map Germany will take Paris most of the time; making Switzerland impassable may be the only way to balance Paris being nearer.


  • @Flashman:

    Surprised you haven’t corrected the Prussia-Poland and the Bulgaria-Greece borders.

    My guess is that on this map Germany will take Paris most of the time; making Switzerland impassable may be the only way to balance Paris being nearer.

    I did not want to change too much of the OOB-map because I dont know what was the intention behind this unhistorical borders (also Finland/Norway etc.)

    What I can tell from 2 games we played this map is that Germany allthough they threw everything into the West could only manage to contest Paris (actually for the first time ever in A&A1914) but couldnt manage to capture it because of arriving Americans. Maybe it was bad luck on dices…

    This scnario keeps Great Britain on focusing more on the Western front than putting all their forces into the Near East wich gives the Ottomans time to breathe. I also like that Russia goes faster to Revolution just in time for the US entry…

    Dont forget that Switzerland is not that easy to take with 3 IPCs…

  • Customizer

    But possibly worth it given the strategic location. My inclination would be to make it 4 to reflect the terrain.


  • Yes thats true I corrected Switzerland up to 4 IPC.


  • I suggested a rule once concerning limited India builds:

    India can build four units (IPC worth of India)
    This can be increased by +1 for conquering Afghanistan and +2 by conquering Persia. This way it isn’t four builds from the start and Britain really has to do something to get those builds and it will be ultimately limited to 7 builds.


  • Nice tavenier.
    I think sorting out India’s production(lessening it), will greatly help balance.

  • Customizer

    As I suggested elsewhere, allow units to be placed in any controlled homeland tt up to the IPC value in number of units.

    For the UK, India (and Canada if you wish) counts as homeland. I don’t like more than this for India, as it should be naturally limited to the capacity of India and the Pacific colonies, representing the flow of manpower from these areas. Britain should not be allowed to teleport units to India out of home production.


  • @Flashman:

    As I suggested elsewhere, allow units to be placed in any controlled homeland tt up to the IPC value in number of units.

    Goes this together with the OOB-movement or are the PTR still needed?

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
  • 56
  • 57
  • 25
  • 1
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

28

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts