True, true. I’d rather get the old games before getting new ones. But yeah, I’d like a Kursk and Stalingrad game in the future, maybe even naval battles like Leyte Gulf.
2nd Edition Wish List
-
Cavalry had a measuarable impact in that all armies had lots of them, and they were expensive to maintain. Contrary to popular belief cavalry were not all disbanded or converted into infantry regiments, but remained an important element of most armies till the end, and indeed until and including WWII.
It is still a matter of debate as to Germany’s decision to use all its cavalry on the Eastern front after 1915 cost them the war, as they failed to exploit the breakthroughs of Spring 1918 due to (according to some) a lack of cavalry.
All of us who’ve contacted Wizards have received a generous supply of extra pieces; as I’ve said I’m not bothered about the lack of unique artillery or cruiser pieces.
However the game is unbalanced with OOB rules, hence the debate about fixes and tweaks.
I see where you are coming from cavalry, but it also has to do with the level of their deployment. Pretty much every country had attached cavalry to their infantry corps, but when you represent that with a piece in the game, you are talking representation at a divisional or, probably closer, corps level. Most cavalry divisions, were rougly about 6,000 men in number (depending on nation, give or take) with limited artillery support? So the amount of arses in the saddle is about a half to 2/3s less than boots on the ground at your average division size. My point isn’t to parse numbers of this and that, but the level of deployment does matter. Arty in the game don’t bother me because they represent a large concentration of artillery as opposed to a set number. But this is something that was pivotal in the war.
-
I appreciate the original post. It was very concise and wrapped up much of what others have been suggesting all over this board.
I have to say, however, that the responses to this post were disappointing. Allow me throw in my two cents on all posts regarding “fixing” or “balancing” AA1914. I’m not trying to be negative in this post, but I want to give an honest critique of some of the posts I see on here that call for drastic changes to this or that aspect of the game.
First of all, when I open up a thread and it starts with a yards-long wall of text regarding adding cavalry/gas attacks/railroads/zeppelins/telegrams/supply lines/Mexico/etc./etc./etc., I can’t close the thread fast enough. I, like others, think that the game in its OOB state is not complete. I like tweaks to add realism here and there, but doing a massive overhaul of the rules so that it simulates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the war is inane. This is a high level strategy game. It is not a perfect war simulation. I’m in favor of the added tournament rules, because they add things like rail movement without having to draw little ladder lines all over the board.
In the introduction of the rules, Larry says explicitly that he’s not trying to represent machine guns and gas attacks in the game, those things are low level aspects. Other things like cavalry and zeppelins had no measurable impact on the war, so it makes sense that these things are not represented.
Just take a step back, people. The reality is that no one is going to want to play with house rules that require a law degree to master.
Again, I agree with OP in that we need changes that are realistic to a reasonable degree (correct map, etc.), but we can’t hope for a perfect simulation.
Good to see someone else understands the way this game works. As such, I suggest you take a look at the OP of the “Balancing 1914” thread (the thread itself went off topic pretty quickly like you said happens, but the OP is well-written and lists some options that don’t aim to create “1914 Historical Edition” or whatever.
And in general, instead of posting a wish list and hoping it will be implemented, take some initiative and start testing some of your suggested changes out to see if it helps make the game an actual contest.
-
Well said.
-
Reminder:
The topic title is “wish list”.
That includes pretty much anything anyone would like to see, so what’s the beef?
-
Reminder:
The topic title is “wish list”.
That includes pretty much anything anyone would like to see, so what’s the beef?
Honestly Flash (can I call you Flash?), I don’t have much of a problem with your posts. For the most part, you just want to make the game slightly more realistic, although you can get carried away at times.
I didn’t want to point anybody out, but mainly what I’m talking about is posts like this one: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33029.0
I would need a Sherlock-style board with pins connected by string to decipher this. Nothing against the author, I too have gotten crazy with house rules that I later realized weren’t practical.
On the other side of the spectrum, I don’t like posters who are opposed to house rules just for the sake of being opposed to house rules. Even if the game is balanced (which it is not), house rules can add flavor and interest. I’ve seen some on this particular forum discourage all forms of house rule talk (cough, IL, cough), and I think this is extreme.
I’m simply promoting moderation when it comes to game tweaks. Keep in mind that if you want people to play them, house rules have to be fun and somewhat simple. And of course this is a wish list. But the thing that I liked about OP’s post was that I could see his changes actually becoming part of the game.
-
Remove Africa except eqypt Adds nothing to the game and the removal may make it easier to enlarge certain parts of Europe where the board is frankly to small.
Make Italy completly neutral round1 with its seazone passable Have tried this as a house rule and it works wonders to balance the game.
Germany may build in Munich Used this as a house rule together with the Italy rule and its nice.
-
What about Turkey neutral until its own turn?
Could do with the protection from Russia and Britain before it gets started, particularly with the PTR giving Russia extra units in Sevastopol. This would be historical, as Turkey invaded Egypt and the Russian Caucasus after declaring war. Otherwise, it is likely to face the Russians in Mesopotamia and the Brits in T-J and have nothing to do but fall back to defend the capital.
-
Guess what? Map.
-
Not particularly relevant, but I wanted to post it anyway.
-
No beef, really. I just draw a distinction between what might foreseeably happen in a new, 2.0 version vs. what would occur with house rules/tweaking.
Given the WotC delivery on generic sculpts, no cold, hard, IPCs, and the like, I doubt anything like cavalry would make an appearence. Changes in the rules, however, are a more likely thing. Africa, especially, needs some simple but specific rules (ie. restrictive movement, reduced unit attacks/defense, etc.)
However, they would be something I would consider adding in a house-rule/variant derived from A&A 1914. But they would need to add something significant or unique to the game play. I know that’s been discussed in other threads, and personally, I’m split on the issue. I am more likely to add trains and fortresses to the mix (e.g. the latter did significantly affect the course of the war, such as in Liege or Przemsyl). It gives another focus for artillery/infantry, and siphons off troops from the otherwise attritional wars o’ stacks.
Point being, I’m just drawing distinctions between “what might” and “would if”. And nothing personal was intended.
Suggested Topics
