All types including destroyers, 3 sculpts of each type German for CP and two for Entente, just to have some differences.
Zeppelins and Airships included.
If you like pieces, mine is the one to get. WE spare no expense for the 5 x 4 hardbound map
@Imperious:
If you like pieces, mine is the one to get. WE spare no expense for the 5 x 4 hardbound map
all types, so that includes battlecruisers?
when is the release date? if its not too soon to say
Shouldn’t the German tank be bigger than the armoured car? Those things had a crew of 18.
What scale infantry are you using: some very nice 1/72s in production from HaT:
http://www.hat.com/currentW.html
Is that 3 types of artillery; I was expecting only 2.
all types, so that includes battlecruisers?
Dreadnoughts
Battlecruisers/ Armored Cruisers
Destroyers
Transports
Subs
Sea mines
counter for seaplane tender ( ONLY FOR UK)
when is the release date? if its not too soon to say
Cant say right now, definitely next year
Is that 3 types of artillery; I was expecting only 2.
yes
@Imperious:
Hmm, when does USSR go to war against the Germany? When does Russia go to war? It is a fixed time-frame, which is to say if the Axis don’t do something early, they cant get into the game. It is definitely and permanently placed. It is FIXED, not variable. If USA and RUSSIA could attack Germany on turn one without Germany doing anything to provoke them, you might have a variable system because BOTH SIDES HAVE FULL LEVERAGE TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT AT ANYTIME WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. So stop babbling about gibberish.
It’s people like you who are more worried about looking correct than moving a discussion forward that cause most of the problems in any sort of discourse, and this quoted section above confirms that to be true. But hey, refusing to concede points like a reasonable being gets your post count up, and we all know that the more posts one has, the more correct they are. :roll:
We have a great example of a game with multiple possible war entries for multiple nations that does a pretty good job of being balanced in spite of that variability (in Global 1940). It shows that a game where major events happen at variable times is possible to balance, even if not astoundingly easy.
With a provocation point system similar to mine (well, the group with whom I played it, but the one I posted), The more success the CP had, the sooner the Americans joined. A balancing factor, and fits historical flavor well. Likewise, the more the central powers committed to Russia, the better chance they had of getting a revolution earlier, but this came at the cost of a difficult and potentially impossible (if too aggressive in the east) situation in the West. A balancing factor, and has a lot of historical flavor as well. (note when I say “historical” I mean that it take historical patterns and ideas into account, not re-enactment of events that ignore the preceding events.)
In the end this coming game will likely look little like either of ours, but as long as you continue to assert that a provocation system CANNOT work in a WWI game I will argue against that point.
Motor Torpedo Boats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAS_(ship)
Observation Balloons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_(aircraft)#After_the_American_Civil_War
Recon plane (2 seater) longer range than fighters
French Taxis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAFbdLdmYLk
By the way, don’t you mean PLYWOOD frames; i.e. the Albatross & Camel?
Which metal frame planes are you referring to?
Well I am sure it will be a cool game, but I was thinking instead of just one cruiser type piece you would have battlecruisers and light cruisers. Especially if your gonna have multiple types of infantry, artillery and aircraft.
The game has 3 fighter sculpts ( two allied)
I remember 1 french 1 UK and 1 German design ( all biplanes, not the 3 wing job).
Don’t want to give away too many pics too soon, but will periodically post a few at a time.
@vonLettowVorbeck1914; You really need to drop the vitriol act once you figured out how wrong you were. I will never concede anything unless i were wrong and i wasn’t. We simply could not balance the game if it allows anybody to enter any earlier that the fixed entry date. Balance is all important and delicate, you can’t just allow it to get messed up with chrome rules. MY game has both standard and advanced rule sections and many optional rules.
As if when you started the posts, it was against my experience that you began to whine. I didn’t reply based on your idea, you responded to my idea. You quoted me and i defended my experience. The discussion was about my ideas, not your point system. Then you realized i was talking about ANOTHER GAME, not Larry’s. Twilight Zone realization kicks in and now you understand whats going on.
Try playing Global with everybody at war at start. See how that fairs for the Axis or Allies. You need some restrictions or you would not have a historical game or the setup would have to dramatically change to compensate whom was effected by early entry. Either way the game would not look like WW2 in the slightest. At a minimum, the setup would need to change again and it would be Historical. ( it wasn’t too much anyway, but the new one would look crazy).
@Imperious:
@vonLettowVorbeck1914; You really need to drop the vitriol act once you figured out how wrong you were. I will never concede anything unless i were wrong and i wasn’t. We simply could not balance the game if it allows anybody to enter any earlier that the fixed entry date.
Yet Germany and Russia go to war in Global before turn 4 quite often, Japan and USA are at war before turn 3 quite often. That all happens BEFORE your precious “fixed” date.
But you still say that the Russian revolution, American entry, etc. CAN’T happen before your golden date in any World War I game? Don’t try to backtrack and say that every post you made in this thread about the impending Axis and Allies game (that the whole thread is about) only dealt with some game you made up in 2007 and not the game the thread was made for discussing.
You truly must be a politician, dodging actual answers constantly.
You keep making broad statements about what can and cannot happen in a World War I game, and as soon as I show conclusively that a lot of these allegedly “DOOM FOR BALANCE” factors are already present in one form or another in Global, you say that you were talking about some house-rule game that was made in 2007 that you don’t say you were talking about till several pages into the thread.
I’m going to try to ignore the backtracking and double talk on your part and get to the bare bones of it.
Do you still assert that a WWI game will be automatically busted if events like the Russian Revolution and US entry are possible before a specific turn in the game?
Yet Germany and Russia go to war in Global before turn 4 quite often, Japan and USA are at war before turn 3 quite often. That all happens BEFORE your precious “fixed” date.
Silly, they cant do it on their own accord. It depends entirely on whether the Euro-Axis are having a good game. It is their decision alone. Check how many times Germany declares war on USA and or invades Russia.They don’t and you know it, stop your gibberish son.
But you still say that the Russian revolution, American entry, etc. CAN’T happen before your golden date in any World War I game? Don’t try to backtrack and say that every post you made in this thread about the impending Axis and Allies game (that the whole thread is about) only dealt with some game you made up in 2007 and not the game the thread was made for discussing.
You truly must be a politician, dodging actual answers constantly.
You got it wrong again… This thread allows what people would like to see in a game. I on the other hand have a complete game of which to draw my input. Stop arguing with people and just contribute. If you don’t like my ideas, refrain from commenting. You alone hijacked it with garbage.
You keep making broad statements about what can and cannot happen in a World War I game, and as soon as I show conclusively that a lot of these allegedly “DOOM FOR BALANCE” factors are already present in one form or another in Global, you say that you were talking about some house-rule game that was made in 2007 that you don’t say you were talking about till several pages into the thread.
oh boy their you go again. That’s all your own view. Why worry so much about mine? I threaten your way of life or what? Can you be an adult?
I’m going to try to ignore the backtracking and double talk on your part and get to the bare bones of it.
Do you still assert that a WWI game will be automatically busted if events like the Russian Revolution and US entry are possible before a specific turn in the game?
Nice “try”, and yes if the event came early the CP don’t have enough time to have a realistic chance. You cannot have a a setup for whether US player starts in France early or if Russia never falls, or falls early. It upsets the balance. The CP have a limited number of “hits” against the Entente and the burden of facing full allied opposition proved with playtest proved it. Stop arguing with me, i really don’t care.
Another evasive answer. Of course if the Revolution happens too early to be balanced then it happened to early to be balanced, but that is NOT the same as saying that if the Revolution happens before turn X (IN A GAME YOU HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN) then it cannot be balanced.
I will reprhase the question.
Is EVERY potential World War I game (not talking about the one you already made, talking about all possible games) automatically balance-doomed if the Russian Revolution and the US entry are allowed to happen before the turns that represent the start of those events in reality (whichever turns correspond to early-mid 1917)?
Stop trying to force your game’s rules on everyone else by declaring anyone else idea’s impossible. It’s one thing to say yours are better (opinion), it quite another to do what you are doing by saying that everything that other people put out is impossible and could never work in a game for which we have hardly any specific detail (ignorant fallacy). The inability to consider ideas other than your own as even POSSIBLY viable is what is really childish.
What does the board look like for this game coming out? How many territories? What exactly are the victory conditions? What are the unit statistics? What is the income of each country? How are units produced? Are there convoy rules? If so, how do they work? What does each unit cost? How many territories are on the Western Front? Are there any special rules for Italy/Ottomans? How important is Serbia?
How can you say what can POSSIBLY work and not work if you don’t know all of these answers? I shudder to assess the quality of your “experience” with the other game where, if you acted during that one as you do now, you probably were trying to boss the other players into doing what you wanted during testing so your ideas of “balance” would be “proven.” In fact, the way you are acting now, I wouldn’t be surprised if this testing group was just you playing with yourself.
You say that the revolution must not happen before turn 10. Prove how this game that is coming out will be busted if it is allowed to happen in turn 9. Or 8. Or 6. Otherwise, you have no ground to stand on in saying that only your dogmatic assertion will work.
Different powers enter the war at different times from game to game of Global. The reason that that is not imbalanced is because the balancing took into account these variable entries. Yet somehow it is impossible for a WWI game to take into account variable entries, especially when we know that this game will be much smaller and therefore easier to comprehend what changes do to balance? Asinine.
PS It’s hilariously ironic and hypocritical of you to tell me to “stop arguing and just contribute”:
@Imperious:
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.
So someone wants to contribute their idea of having Japan, China, and the Bolsheviks, but you say that that should not be in the game. Somehow you will come up with some lame excuse about how you saying that people’s ideas should not be in the game in NOT arrgumentative, but that my saying that ideas like the variable entry idea are possible and can be good for the game is argumentative.
@Imperious:
Would Britain have gone to war if Germany had avoided Belgium? Not certain.
What if Germany had not even attacked France?
At the very least, offer a number of scenarios leaving the possibility of unhistorical results.
American entry was based on so many factors that it is ridiculous to make it mandatory on turn X. Instead, each side should be able to influence it in various ways. It will always be likely, but if you make it and its date certain where’s the game?
The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.
Before I even enter the thread, you are arguing with people that are trying to contribute their ideas. You attack me for “coming after you” when I have merely been providing rebuttals to posts you have made criticizing and declaring “bad for the game” others’ ideas (ideas which I happen to think can take the franchise to a new level of creativity). I like the idea of triggered entry, and I was supporting those who proposed some version of it. I will continue to do so as long as you say that is automatically bad for any WWI game and saying that your idea is the only good one. You should probably start your own axis and allies website where you can delete the ideas of anyone who doesn’t like your ideas better than their own. Then all the posts would be your ideas or people saying that they like them. You would be so happy, I’d imagine.
I am contributing by saying that your ideas are not the only possible ones, and that it’s unreasonable that you dismiss people’s ideas from a game that we know little about as imposssible. You don’t know everything about Axis and Allies. No one does. Get over it and realize that other people can have good ideas too.
How do you know that they don’t already have a system that allows variable entry and works?
Regardless of whether the actual Revolution system in the game that comes out looks like yours, mine, anyone else’s or no one else’s, the fact that you continue to say that a variable entry system is impossible will continue to be absurd.
Another evasive answer. Of course if the Revolution happens too early to be balanced then it happened to early to be balanced, but that is NOT the same as saying that if the Revolution happens before turn X (IN A GAME YOU HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN) then it cannot be balanced.
I’m not talking about or care about your ideas and stop talking about mine.
I will reprhase the question.
Is EVERY potential World War I game (not talking about the one you already made, talking about all possible games) automatically balance-doomed if the Russian Revolution and the US entry are allowed to happen before the turns that represent the start of those events in reality (whichever turns correspond to early-mid 1917)?
IN cases where this is possible, the economics and the setup are not historical. Ours is based on data regarding the economic capabilities on all belligerents. The CP are constantly facing increasing pressure to win, they can’t wait it out and they have limited strikes they can make to win. Other games that allow this will not be realistic or give the CP too many units to compensate for early entry.
Stop trying to force your game’s rules on everyone else by declaring anyone else idea’s impossible. It’s one thing to say yours are better (opinion), it quite another to do what you are doing by saying that everything that other people put out is impossible and could never work in a game for which we have hardly any specific detail (ignorant fallacy). The inability to consider ideas other than your own as even POSSIBLY viable is what is really childish.
Then stop responding to me. You started this. I have my opinion and experience and stop arguing against it. You can do whatever you want. Spend $80K and make your own game. ok?
What does the board look like for this game coming out? How many territories? What exactly are the victory conditions? What are the unit statistics? What is the income of each country? How are units produced? Are there convoy rules? If so, how do they work? What does each unit cost? How many territories are on the Western Front? Are there any special rules for Italy/Ottomans? How important is Serbia?
You will find out in due time, but i have reposted sections of the rules. If i told you anything you would start new arguments so why bother.
How can you say what can POSSIBLY work and not work if you don’t know all of these answers? I shudder to assess the quality of your “experience” with the other game where, if you acted during that one as you do now, you probably were trying to boss the other players into doing what you wanted during testing so your ideas of “balance” would be “proven.” In fact, the way you are acting now, I wouldn’t be surprised if this testing group was just you playing with yourself.
OH boy. Nice
You say that the revolution must not happen before turn 10. Prove how this game that is coming out will be busted if it is allowed to happen in turn 9. Or 8. Or 6. Otherwise, you have no ground to stand on in saying that only your dogmatic assertion will work.
When you buy it you can start off with the US forces already in Brittany on turn one. You can even buy a giant stuffed animal and knock down the pieces. Do whatever you like I dont care.
Different powers enter the war at different times from game to game of Global. The reason that that is not imbalanced is because the balancing took into account these variable entries. Yet somehow it is impossible for a WWI game to take into account variable entries, especially when we know that this game will be much smaller and therefore easier to comprehend what changes do to balance? Asinine.
Different powers enter the war at different times from game to game of Global. When they enter is entirely dependent on whether the axis feel it is too their advantage. The reason that that is balanced is because the balancing took into account these fixed entries. Yet somehow it is impossible for a WWI game to take into account fixed entries, especially when we know that this game will be much smaller and therefore easier to comprehend what changes do to balance? Aspirin.
PS It’s hilariously ironic and hypocritical of you to tell me to “stop arguing and just contribute”:
Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.So someone wants to contribute their idea of having Japan, China, and the Bolsheviks, but you say that that should not be in the game. Somehow you will come up with some lame excuse about how you saying that people’s ideas should not be in the game in NOT arrgumentative, but that my saying that ideas like the variable entry idea are possible and can be good for the game is argumentative.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 05:28:24 pm
Quote
Would Britain have gone to war if Germany had avoided Belgium? Not certain.What if Germany had not even attacked France?
At the very least, offer a number of scenarios leaving the possibility of unhistorical results.
American entry was based on so many factors that it is ridiculous to make it mandatory on turn X. Instead, each side should be able to influence it in various ways. It will always be likely, but if you make it and its date certain where’s the game?
The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.
Before I even enter the thread, you are arguing with people that are trying to contribute their ideas. You attack me for “coming after you” when I have merely been providing rebuttals to posts you have made criticizing and declaring “bad for the game” others’ ideas (ideas which I happen to think can take the franchise to a new level of creativity). I like the idea of triggered entry, and I was supporting those who proposed some version of it. I will continue to do so as long as you say that is automatically bad for any WWI game and saying that your idea is the only good one. You should probably start your own axis and allies website where you can delete the ideas of anyone who doesn’t like your ideas better than their own. Then all the posts would be your ideas or people saying that they like them. You would be so happy, I’d imagine.
I am contributing by saying that your ideas are not the only possible ones, and that it’s unreasonable that you dismiss people’s ideas from a game that we know little about as imposssible. You don’t know everything about Axis and Allies. No one does. Get over it and realize that other people can have good ideas too.
How do you know that they don’t already have a system that allows variable entry and works?
Regardless of whether the actual Revolution system in the game that comes out looks like yours, mine, anyone else’s or no one else’s, the fact that you continue to say that a variable entry system is impossible will continue to be absurd.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
@Imperious:
Is EVERY potential World War I game (not talking about the one you already made, talking about all possible games) automatically balance-doomed if the Russian Revolution and the US entry are allowed to happen before the turns that represent the start of those events in reality (whichever turns correspond to early-mid 1917)?
IN cases where this is possible, the economics and the setup are not historical. Ours is based on data regarding the economic capabilities on all belligerents. The CP are constantly facing increasing pressure to win, they can’t wait it out and they have limited strikes they can make to win. Other games that allow this will not be realistic or give the CP too many units to compensate for early entry.
Naturally your statement about how it couldn’t be historical is backed up with 0 actual evidence. If the CP does a lot better against the Russians in the game than they did in the war, it makes more sense that the revolution happen earlier in the game than it did in the war, since most anyone citing causes of the revolution would list Russia’s war problems as a major cause of the Revolution. What is ahistorical is to insist that had the war gone much worse than in did for Russia, that the revolution would still have happened as late as it did no matter what. Your ability to assess what is historical is completely skewed by your admission that you believe that things cannot have happened any way other than how they happened.
But the main point here is that it’s clear that you now admit (of course not outright, you ego can’t take that) that it is quite possible to have (regardless of how far out of your way you go to pretend that Global is not a game with variable entry that is possible to balance) a World War I game where we need not put on arbitrary restrictions of entrance that ignore historical cause and effect. Before you talked about tweaking entry to the advantage of the CP. If there is fixed entry, the exploits can be even worse. If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times, regardless of what is happening in the game (which is blatantly ahistorical since in the war the powers would have had no such knowledge), not only will it distort the historical situation, but players can exploit for example, simply waiting out the Revolution that, if the game were really historical, they would not be able to count on (or at least count on happening right on a schedule that began in 1914)
It’s not rocket science. The sooner the Russian Revolution is triggered by russian failure/CP success, the more the CP will have needed to commit to the East, which is less they will have committed to the West, which puts the French and British in a proportionally stronger position. This is not really at all fundamentally different from most any other A&A game. In Global if Germany commits 100% to Barbarossa, it can get to a point where the western allies are too strong on Germany’s western front.
Just because it’s an idea that is different from yours doesn’t mean you should use any methods possible to shoot it down. It’s almost as if you feel that the community owes you everything and that you should get your way 100% because you had a signature saying you wanted WWI game and there is no way that a WWI game would have been made without your heroism (but that couldn’t be the case for such a wonderfully humble person as yourself. Of course not.).
@Imperious:
Methinks he doth protest too much.
Ah I see. It’s clear I pointed out your hypocrisy but instead of admitting it like an adult you try some sort of deflection by saying something about me talking too much or whatever, ignoring the actual (correct) points.
There was mention of other nations entering into the war and being controlled by the various major powers. Do you think that will work like the Pro-Axis, Pro-Allied, and True Neutral rules from G40? Larry stated it would be less complicated than 1942, so what would be a truly less complicated way of depicting that?
All this talk of what is historical and what is not is giving me an itching desire to actually play in the least historical way permissible by the rules. I’m sure the issues will be ironed out– the game isn’t even released yet, so we can all adopt a wait-and-see attitude. I am really wondering how Larry has decided to handle the balance, and it will be instructive to see it and play it. Anyways, I was hesitant to even post here because I felt someone would automatically assume I was trying to get in on this whole heated debate (which I am not).
Naturally your statement about how it couldn’t be historical is backed up with 0 actual evidence. If the CP does a lot better against the Russians in the game than they did in the war, it makes more sense that the revolution happen earlier in the game than it did in the war, since most anyone citing causes of the revolution would list Russia’s war problems as a major cause of the Revolution. What is ahistorical is to insist that had the war gone much worse than in did for Russia, that the revolution would still have happened as late as it did no matter what. Your ability to assess what is historical is completely skewed by your admission that you believe that things cannot have happened any way other than how they happened.
You can argue to your hearts content. I am only explaining what our playtest group found that worked and didn’t work. If the CP do better, the game is over before the Russians collapse. You don’t need a system that hastens this because then the allies would suffer and have no chance to recover. The stop arguing with me, i don’t care.
But the main point here is that it’s clear that you now admit (of course not outright, you ego can’t take that) that it is quite possible to have (regardless of how far out of your way you go to pretend that Global is not a game with variable entry that is possible to balance) a World War I game where we need not put on arbitrary restrictions of entrance that ignore historical cause and effect. Before you talked about tweaking entry to the advantage of the CP. If there is fixed entry, the exploits can be even worse. If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times, regardless of what is happening in the game (which is blatantly ahistorical since in the war the powers would have had no such knowledge), not only will it distort the historical situation, but players can exploit for example, simply waiting out the Revolution that, if the game were really historical, they would not be able to count on (or at least count on happening right on a schedule that began in 1914)
You are good at comedy. Perhaps a world tour might be in order? Our system allows Russian collapse on an unknown turn, but not before turn 10…so this " If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times" is nonsense. The core beauty of our game is preparing for and against technological developments as they appear in the game, entire strategies are carved out of using gas for example for the first time and making it’s effect known. It’s not much different from global when Germany has to prepare for Russia and clean up the board on turns 1-2.
It’s not rocket science. The sooner the Russian Revolution is triggered by russian failure/CP success, the more the CP will have needed to commit to the East, which is less they will have committed to the West, which puts the French and British in a proportionally stronger position. This is not really at all fundamentally different from most any other A&A game. In Global if Germany commits 100% to Barbarossa, it can get to a point where the western allies are too strong on Germany’s western front.
In our games, an early Russian collapse busts the game for the CP. WE wanted both sides to have equal chances, with the Entente victories coming in the latter turns, and the CP coming in the early turns ( for the most part)
Just because it’s an idea that is different from yours doesn’t mean you should use any methods possible to shoot it down. It’s almost as if you feel that the community owes you everything and that you should get your way 100% because you had a signature saying you wanted WWI game and there is no way that a WWI game would have been made without your heroism (but that couldn’t be the case for such a wonderfully humble person as yourself. Of course not.).
But this is what you have done all along here. I think you are a spoiled child. You should not be so defensive and probably stay away from the internet would be your best bet. I wish you luck.
Ah I see. It’s clear I pointed out your hypocrisy but instead of admitting it like an adult you try some sort of deflection by saying something about me talking too much or whatever, ignoring the actual (correct) points.
What is clear is you have no clue what that means. It applies to you.
