Mandatory Attacks


  • Customizer

    LH has already revealed that Austria is mandated to attack Serbia on A1. Not only is this unhistorical, but it is actually a bad move for Austria, as it commits them to fighting on a southern flank they might well have chosen to avoid. What he didn’t say was how many units are required to move in, though as it will unavoidably activate Serbia the Austrian player will probably choose to send enough units to finish the job.

    So I wondered if mandatory attacks are featured elsewhere? The reports seem to assume that everyone will simply choose to make attacks, but what if its more economical to sit tight and wait for the enemy to fling his men on your barbed wire?

    Perhaps every player should be required (if able) to make at least one attack per turn involving no fewer than 5 units, or at least suffer some penalty on the grounds that the nation is paying for an army that isn’t being used.



  • I think it’s fine for the opening mandatory attack. Makes it interesting to me. I doubt there are other mandatory attacks.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    @Flashman:

    LH has already revealed that Austria is mandated to attack Serbia on A1. Not only is this unhistorical, but it is actually a bad move for Austria, as it commits them to fighting on a southern flank they might well have chosen to avoid. What he didn’t say was how many units are required to move in, though as it will unavoidably activate Serbia the Austrian player will probably choose to send enough units to finish the job.

    So I wondered if mandatory attacks are featured elsewhere? The reports seem to assume that everyone will simply choose to make attacks, but what if its more economical to sit tight and wait for the enemy to fling his men on your barbed wire?

    Perhaps every player should be required (if able) to make at least one attack per turn involving no fewer than 5 units, or at least suffer some penalty on the grounds that the nation is paying for an army that isn’t being used.

    I’m not sure where you get the idea that Austria invading Serbia is “Unhistorical”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Campaign_(World_War_I)

    The Serbian Campaign of the First World War was fought from late July 1914, when Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia at the outset of World War I, until the war’s conclusion in November 1918. The front ranged from the Danube to southern Macedonia and back north again, involving forces from almost all of the combatants of the war.

    The Serbian Army declined severely towards the end of the war, falling from about 420,000[2] at its peak to about 100,000 at the moment of liberation. The Kingdom of Serbia lost 1,100,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses), which represented over 27% of its overall population and 60% of its male population.[5][6] According to the Yugoslav government in 1924: Serbia lost 265,164 soldiers, or 25% of all mobilized people. By comparison, France lost 16.8%, Germany 15.4%, Russia 11.5%, and Italy 10.3%.

    Serbia’s defeat of the Austro-Hungarian invasion in 1914 counts among the major upset victories of the modern era.[7]

    I’m pretty sure 1.1 MILLION Serbians, and likely some Austrians will disagree with you.


  • '16

    Flashman isn’t saying that an Austrian invasion of Serbia is unhistorical, he’s saying that an all out invasion of Serbia before all other hostilities began is unhistorical.


  • Customizer

    Precisely.

    Austria did not INVADE Serbia until August 12th, more than a week after the Germans crossed the Belgian frontier. Since the game does not feature the ability to bombard an adjacent tt (except perhaps from a SZ) the shelling of Belgrade cannot be represented.

    Technically, then, the turn order should be:

    1. Germany (invasion of Belgium, August 4th)
    2. France (activated by German attack)
    3. Austria (invasion of Serbia August 12th)
    4. Russia (invasion of Prussia, Aug 17)

    Where to put the UK?

    The BEF started arriving in France August 9th, first action was at Mons (Belgium) August 23rd.

    So Britain could be legitimately placed 5th, or between France and Austria.

    The three latecomers should be in order of entry. Turkey can reasonably join on round one, but Italy should be r2 and USA r7 at the earliest.

    Given the advantages of defence, I think a player should be penalized for making no major attacks if he is capable of doing so.

    Many major battles were fought to divert enemy strength away from other fronts, so a player who doesn’t do some damage to the enemy on a turn is really letting the side down.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Aren’t all turns supposed to be “theoretically” in sync?a

    The fact is, in the first week or so of the war, Austria mobilized it’s forces, and invaded Serbia.

    Yeah Belgium was invaded first, BUT doesn’t that happen G1 anyways?

    And FOR ALL WE KNOW the setup reflects a conquered Belgium.


  • Customizer

    You mean a conquered Belgium that is still independent. Very Larry Harris.

    Actually, the Diplomacy/simultaneous turns system is something that might just work with this game. Certainly worth thinking about.



  • We could always swipe the Mandated Offensive Tables from Paths of Glory:

    At the start of a round of play, one player from each alliance rolls one die:

    Allied Mandated Offensives:

    1-2 France
      3 UK
    4-5 Italy (Ignored if Italy has not yet entered the war)
      6 Russia (Ignored after the Russian Revolution)

    Central Powers Mandated Offensives:

    1 Austria-Hungary
      2 Austria-Hungary against Italy (Ignored if Italy has not yet entered the war)
      3 Ottoman Empire
      4 Germany
    5-6 None



  • @Flashman:

    Actually, the Diplomacy/simultaneous turns system is something that might just work with this game. Certainly worth thinking about.� Â

    I love Diplomacy and support your claim, but I dont think it will be commonly enjoyed to write an essay before each turn. Do remember that in Diplomacy you only move one unit, so you only have to write “Army Picardi > Ruhr” but in A&A you need to write “8 inf, 3 art, 2 tanks, 1 fighter in Picardy > Ruhr” and what if ships can move 2 spaces ? So you move your fleet from sz 3>4>5 and the enemy move from sz 7>4>1 so what do they do when they meet simultanesly in sz 4 ? Roll a search roll ? Not to mention the complicated orders befor amphibious assaults, " 1 inf, 1 tank London > tranny sz 2, > sz 3 > sz 4 > Norway" and write this same order for every tranny and the escorting warships too, could be too much for the average player. More easy with turn based movement, just pick up a tank and place it in next territory, no writing.



  • Wow Flash, you never sees to amaze  :?

    Now the turn order is F’d up

    Could you put together a Letterman top 10 list of things wrong with A & A 1914 so we can keep it straight. Please please fill in the blanks, and we already know what the #1 is

    #10
    #9
    #8
    #7
    #6
    #5
    #4
    #3
    #2
    #1 No choo-choo’s

    Please take this for what it is  😄  and a couple months after the game does come out I would like to get a glimpse of some of your house rules to change things up


  • Customizer

    Only 10?

    I will try to whittle it down to this absurdly low figure.

    But I’ll have to make some assumptions based partly on my dislikes from previous A&A games. Several of the things I disliked are not in this version, notably building factories and units in captured tts. Some progress has been made.

    Razor, I agree that “A&A Diplomacy” would be a minority game, not a new production but a development by players of the official product.

    However, while previous A&A versions were not conducive to the idea, I think with this game it might just be possible, given only 1 space land movement. Naval movement could still work, perhaps everyone attempts their 1st move simultaneously, then all 2nd moves that are still possible. When rival units clash the battle is considered to take place at the border. Keep the one round of combat; if there is no outright winner, both armies stay where they are. Probably too complicated to allow contested tts.



  • Looking at Larrys map I suggest Germany is mandated to attack East Prussia…

    Its still hard to believe that the russians were the defenders at Tannenberg  :roll:


  • Customizer

    First of all the following list of wrong things does not mean I think this will be a bad game, far from it. Most of the criticisims are consistent with my opinions on every other A&A game.
    I believe this version will be the best yet, and I like most of the new stuff so far.

    Very tough cutting these down to ten, but here goes:

    10. Collecting money at the end of a turn.
    Not as bad now that contested tts has come along; we’re not going to see 4 different players collecting cash for Moscow in this version, but its still rather silly.

    9. Only one type of aircraft.
    Would like to have had medium range reconnaissance planes, and most of all long range bombers. But I can live without them. for now.

    8. No Naval refueling.
    Every ship including subs should have to refuel at a friendly or neutral coastal zone each and every turn.

    7. Berlin is closer to Moscow than it is to Paris.
    So obviously manipulated for gameplay reasons. Looks wrong, feels wrong. Delete the Lorraine tt and give Germany fewer starting units in the west. Restore East Prussia to Germany. Make Petrograd Russian capital.

    6. Turksih tank factories.
    I can just about accept Turkey equipping infantry divisions, but they did not have the technology to produce heavy weapons. These should be imported from its allies and then converted to Turksih units as per the Goeben.

    5. Fixed Timeline of events.
    Important events happening according to a historical schedule, rather than as a consequence of player actions. Abritrarily setting American entry on turn 4 practically dictates German strategy, which should be the cause of American entry, not a consequence of it.

    4. All infantry units “built” in the capital.
    Infantry should be placed anywhere in home tts contiguous with the capital, as long as the build is even, with colonial placement optional.
    There also needs to be a means of feeding in ANZAC units.

    3. The map is too small.
    I would quite happily pay more for a game with a useable map. Look at how crowded the western front area is with just starting units; what happens when there are pieces from 3 or 4 different players in small tts?

    2. Capture the capital victory conditions.
    Completely anachronistic and unhistorical. Should be a system based on morale and revolutions.

    1. No strategic rail movement.
    You’ve all read my book on the subject. Now go back and read it again. The Berlin-Baghdad railway existed for a reason.

    Some issues I’m reserving judgement on pending full official rules.
    Notably:
    Tanks - still not convinced that a tank is ever a better buy than 2 infantry.



  • I would love to buy your gameversion Flashman !


  • TripleA '12

    Nice list, Flashman. Some good points there.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 4
  • 18
  • 3
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

47
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts