Already Looking Forward to 1914 2nd Edition

Spring 1942 and Pacific 40 came out in 2009, the second editions of both were released in 2012.
There will be a second Edition of AA1914 maybe in 2016… - seems to be enough time to create a perfect game!

Some thoughts about A&A14:
It came to me that we did not bought the lovely pieces and the funny map to play a balanced or finished game. Its more like paying 80 EUR/$ to become a member of a playtesting/developing team for the “real” A&A1914 (second edition). We have spent our money to develop a cool WW1 game together with the designer himself by giving feedback on HGD(feedback LH is willing to hear actually). It will be very exciting to follow the progress, though I can understand the complaining about the broken “first edition”.

I’m starting to get the impression most of this forum is just one long discussion between Imperious Leader and Flashman.

I am sorry if I give you the impression of being bossy or dogmatic Harry…

@Harry:

I’m starting to get the impression most of this forum is just one long discussion between Imperious Leader and Flashman.

Well, they do seem among the most prolific and willing to “mix it up,” that’s for sure, but hopefully without any serious rancor involved.  Since the game is inherently trying to straddle the fence between balance and historicity without becoming TOO too complicated, the debates here are nearly inevitable.  My teaching schedule doesn’t allow me to be able to keep up as regularly as I’d like with these threads, but I do enjoy going back and following them when I can.  I personally tend to side with Flash but I realize that this is only a personal preference, mostly, and also a result of how I typically use these games: as a tool to teach kids history tempered with a little logic/ strategy.  I’m thus much less concerned with such things as game balance, because I don’t really care who wins, but what everyone learns.  I also like them to think about “what-ifs” though, which is why I do like Flash’s basic rule that those who realistically COULD have produced something can in the game.  The rest of the argument strikes me as mostly a debate between those who love the game primarily as an HISTORICAL wargame and those who love it as a historical WARGAME.  Since we all love the game for our own reasons, the answer is to make the game flexible enough to be “all things to all people” without it becoming too expensive for anybody… admittedly another difficult balance.

The passion in the arguments is really a reflection of how much we all love the game and want it to be EVEN better.  With that in mind, I really hope the second edition fixes some of those bone-headed color choices: IL’s upcoming game looks like a big improvement to me in this respect as in many others.  Piece-wise, it looks like it might be fairly close to ideal for me!  Here’s hoping that IL’s game sells out in no time and that the HasBorg apparatus takes note of its success and uses some of its better ideas in their 2nd ed.!

Well Harry Larris is Flashman as well….so you might include a 3rd party proxy accounts in that.

Because you’ve never done that IL, especially not to vote your own posts up so you seem more popular, and especially not to post in support of your own arguments after your arguments are shot down by actual evidence. No, you would never have done that.  :roll:

Because you’ve never done that IL, especially not to vote your own posts up so you seem more popular, and especially not to post in support of your own arguments after your arguments are shot down by actual evidence. No, you would never have done that.  rolleyes

Another troll post! LOLOL I guess that’s what you do…follow me around and try to pick fights. I don’t argue with children, sorry.

You probably have spent too much time switching back and forth between “Imperious Leader” and “Lucas McCain” to notice that there is a “show new replies to your posts” button, which I check up on every now and then.

Your ignorance has reached new levels of hilarity. I posted in this thread 3 times before your first post in it and you accuse me of following you around!

Once again, the evidence and facts expose your incompetence.

You accuse someone of having a second account, but when someone points out you have done the same thing, all of a sudden it  is trolling?

It’s only trolling when somebody else does it, right?

L  O    L

No, its a sign of high intelligence.

@DrLarsen:

I’m starting to get the impression most of this forum is just one long discussion between Imperious Leader and Flashman.

I personally tend to side with Flash but I realize that this is only a personal preference.

Embarrassing!

On topic.

• The Russian capitol shoul NEVER EVER be Moscow again in a WWI game! EVER!
• USA should never EVER enter the war that early! FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAr too early!
• Italy should not be at war from the start but has to be influenced diplomatically towards war entry!

@xxstefanx:

Embarrassing!

On topic.

• The Russian capitol shoul NEVER EVER be Moscow again in a WWI game! EVER!
• USA should never EVER enter the war that early! FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAr too early!
• Italy should not be at war from the start but has to be influenced diplomatically towards war entry!

Even if they can’t be swung to join the CP, a system I would like (keep in mind I am not often a K.I.S.S. person) is something along the lines of

1. Set a Provocation Value at which Italy will enter the war. (30, perhaps)
2. At the end of each round, roll 1 die and add it to the total for Italy’s Provocation Value
3. The Allied powers (individually or sharing), can spend 1 IPC to add 1 to the total each turn, up to a total of 3 added each turn.
4. The Central powers (individually or sharing), can spend 2 IPC to subtract 1 from the total each turn, up to a total of 3 subtracted each turn.

If, at the end of any round, the total is 30 or greater, Italy enters the war on the Allied side.

Other possibilities include subtracting 6 from the total for each Allied capital, the first time the CP contests it, adding 6 in similar fashion for CP capitals, subtracting 10 when CP controls a capital, etc.

This could be adapted to allow a CP Italy, if desired (Join CP if total is -30 or less), although it would be really hard to accomplish since the CP would be fighting a roll.

I agree on a lot of you guys points but the issue of Belgium hasn’t been brought up. Belgium was never completely conquered in this conflict and should be given a larger standing army than they have. Also Bulgaria and Romania should be in that vain as well. I know it would be hard to carve Belgium up into 3 territories but I believe that is what should be done to mirror how it was real tough going for the Germans.

Good point, GoSanchez!

Belgium: 2 tts: Yser (not counquered throughout the whole war!); Rest of Belgium

Might as well make Luxembourg a tt.  :-o

But economically, Belgium, Holland & Switzerland are seriously under-strength; while Norway, Sweden & Albania are over-inflated.

Italy is much better just joining the Allies automatically on I2; it leaves Austria with a dilemma about attacking Italy A1 or leaving that front for later.

BUT, neutral Italy must not be able to collect income or build or move units, otherwise Austria will attack it A1 every time.

Hey guys I have looked through this rulebook at least 5 times and can’t find anywhere where it says Italy joins on round 2. I know Larry said this when he was previewing the game but I can’t find it. Care to help the old man out anyone?
Thanks
Dave

You probably have spent too much time switching back and forth between “Imperious Leader” and “Lucas McCain” to notice that there is a “show new replies to your posts” button, which I check up on every now and then.

Your ignorance has reached new levels of hilarity. I posted in this thread 3 times before your first post in it and you accuse me of following you around!

Once again, the evidence and facts expose your incompetence.

You accuse someone of having a second account, but when someone points out you have done the same thing, all of a sudden it  is trolling?

It’s only trolling when somebody else does it, right?

L  O    L

Hey kid, that troll isn’t working either. How bout stop trolling? What a failure.

@GoSanchez6:

Hey guys I have looked through this rulebook at least 5 times and can’t find anywhere where it says Italy joins on round 2. I know Larry said this when he was previewing the game but I can’t find it. Care to help the old man out anyone?
Thanks
Dave

It doesn’t. This thread is suggesting tweaks for a potential 2nd Edition.

Allowing Italy to join the Central Powers would mean redesigning the entire game for balance; but having Italy wait a turn before it joins the Allies is historical and gives Austria more options, including moving through SZ17 unimpeded by Italian ships and mines.

@Imperious:

Hey kid, that troll isn’t working either. How bout stop trolling? What a failure.

Your ability to ignore facts and evidence with a straight face is truly a sight to behold.

Look at the difference between how you and I post. You essentially call names, while I make statements and then back them up with logic, facts and evidence.

You claim I follow you around, and then I use the evidence that I had 3 posts in this thread before you had 1 to show how foolish that statement of yours is.

You claim that Flash is using an extra account.
I point out how you have employed a second account in a far more dubious manner.

Yet when I do it, I am a “troll.” Why is your accusation a perfectly legitimate thing to bring up, but mine is “trolling?”

Person A: “Person B has used a second account!”
Person C: “Person A, you have done the same thing!”
Person A: “That is trolling, person C”

What?

Why is yours not trolling when mine is? If Harry is Flash, it’s clear that the account is more for satirical purposes, which is not nearly as improper as using a second account to post in support of your posts and to vote your posts up.

Your ability to ignore facts and evidence with a straight face is truly a sight to behold.

Look at the difference between how you and I post. You essentially call names, while I make statements and then back them up with logic, facts and evidence.

You claim I follow you around, and then I use the evidence that I had 3 posts in this thread before you had 1 to show how foolish that statement of yours is.

You claim that Flash is using an extra account.
I point out how you have employed a second account in a far more dubious manner.

Yet when I do it, I am a “troll.” Why is your accusation a perfectly legitimate thing to bring up, but mine is “trolling?”

Person A: “Person B has used a second account!”
Person C: “Person A, you have done the same thing!”
Person A: “That is trolling, person C”

What?

Why is yours not trolling when mine is? If Harry is Flash, it’s clear that the account is more for satirical purposes, which is not nearly as improper as using a second account to post in support of your posts and to vote your posts up.

Did they take you away in a straight jacket? It sure sounds like a poor loser who has nothing but trolling to do here…LOL

Too cowardly and just too plain embarrassed and wrong to even try to actually address anything.

I’ll try one more time.

You accused flashman of employing an extra account.
I accused you of employing an extra account.

Why is mine trolling, but yours isn’t?