Test Play Setup


  • Customizer

    Hey All, I’m currently attempting to mock up a test play for this game; here are some pictures of my setup: http://s1253.beta.photobucket.com/user/olskoolsouljah/library/AA 1914 Test Play Setup .

    I’ve used a modified version of Flashman’s excellent map (I made some of the colors less intense to spare my printer, http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29636.105) and Global 1940 pieces.

    The map is slightly larger than the actual map, 40" on an edge instead of 36" (note the tape measure in the picture, set to 36").

    My initial impressions:

    Whoa, this better come with a s#1t-ton of chips. I quickly ran out of red chips (90% of the zones have 6 infantry), so I ended up cannibalizing my old Revised and using gold chips from my “Officers” house rule to represent 10 units (there are a few tt’s with 12+ infantry).

    This map is much bigger than I expected…I guess I expected something similar to the “Diplomacy” map, but it’s really much larger. I can also see that the diagonal setup was a wise choice.

    Hopefully continental Europe is a bit bigger in the actual game… The Western Front especially was a bit crowded, and I expect it will be even more so with French, British, and German units all in the same tt.



  • Nicely done!!



  • Kudos to you, sir! That is awesome!



  • That looks pretty darn epic if I do say so myself



  • Haha! Very cool. The western front does look screwed. There is no way you can fit chipped British, Germany, and French units in those spaces. They look too small and your map was even a little bigger! As I’ve stated on other boards there needed to be a blow up box for the WF. Something like this from Triple A’s The Great War. Without it it’s just a jumbled mess of troops you can’t maneuver or even put into the same space together. I defiantly plan on making one for a A&A 1914 variant.

    WF.jpg



  • I don’t quite understand the reasoning to include Africa,

    which as far as I know had no battles to speak of

    involving a thousand men on either side.

    Can anyone correct that understanding?

    Is that right?

    To me it seems a wasted opportunity.



  • Nice but it does seem the WF will be at tight fit.The choice of Africa beyond the Mediterrian coast regions
    does seem a bit odd.The German colonial forces (mostly natives) put up an interesting resistence
    & actually outlasted the Kaiser.It was all very small scale stuff & having to make the WF too small
    to handle all the units that will be there doesn’t seem like a good idea.

    I have a Board Game where Africa & the German Asia colonies are represented by side Boards,
    which would made more sense.But again we’ll see when the actual map surfaces.



  • My only guess is more of Africa is shown so that there is the greater possibility of Britian finding itself on the losing side against the German forces there and is forced to divert some attention away from the Ottomans for a turn or two. I think the Western front will be fine, I’m not sure you’ll want these massive multi-coalition forces in one territory, I assume the French will hold the line as long as they can until the British are able to take over Belgium and the Americans are able to take over insert province here. We shall have to wait and see of course.


  • Customizer

    What I’m assuming (and hoping) is that Flashman’s used a generic map for Europe, and the one in the game will be a bit exaggerated. If you look at this picture: http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/aa14-setup-rendering.jpg vs. my setup, you’ll see that that looks like the case. Look specifically at Lorraine, you can see it’s quite a bit bigger in the board render.


  • Customizer

    If I remember, the map started life from a scan of the original A&A Europe board. Fitting the diamond frame around this I then moved north America down, and roughed in the outline of Africa.

    Perhaps central Europe is enlarged on the official board, but at the expense of the outer areas which are somewhat distorted, for example Finland. Then again we think the edge of the map is missing on that photo; for example I’ve assumed that you can sail from SZs 22 to 23, and there would be no point in Archangel as a Naval Base if you can’t actually sail round Norway.

    I prefer my own projection, but only if the map can be at least as big as Ossel has made it.


  • Customizer

    Result of my latest doodling.

    More room for movement in the Med.

    For Kufra see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senussi_Campaign

    Axis&Allies1914FullMapLarryFlash.PNG


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    We have rules for this in advanced game:

    Optional Rules:
    Special Events:
    A few historical events will come into play during the game.

    1. Senussi Rebellion – Takes place on turn 4 during the Ottoman turn from the Senussi region in Egypt.  The rebellion includes 1 infantry, 2 cavalry, and 1 artillery, which is controlled by the Turkish player.  The Turkish player may use the troops during any of their turns by moving them into Egypt.

    Senussi replace one infantry or cavalry per turn (up to a maximum of 4 pieces) on map in the Senussi-controlled lands during the placement phase.  However, they will receive a bonus infantry or cavalry for control of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and French Morocco (to a maximum of nine pieces).  In this case, a single replacement piece can be placed in each of the controlled lands (in addition to whatever the Turk might place there).  If the total number of pieces is above the allowed total, the Senussi do not lose a piece, they just do not get any reinforcements.

    If Egypt is held by the Central Powers, then the Senussi may attack outside of their region and into an adjacent territory.  During combat in Egypt, the Senussi can retreat from battle by retreating back to their region.  This region may be attacked only after the recapture of Egypt.

    If at any time all Senussi pieces are eliminated then the Rebellion ends immediately.

    Unlike the restrictions on the Ottomans, Senussi may attack Italian troops before they are formally at war with the Ottoman Empire.


  • Customizer

    Mmm, it’s unlikely the Turks can get a unit there to activate them, so another “trigger” is needed.

    Perhaps a note from the Sultan declaring Jihad…


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Notes are found in the rulebook, which trigger the games play mechanics.


  • Customizer

    Just some more impressions after playing a couple of turns:

    Wow, I think some of the true value in this game is having to think through strategy for scenarios that have never been encountered in an (official) A&A game before. I mean, when has a player ever had to consider the best way for Turkey to invade Austria? The Balkans are a strategic conundrum that I never really thought about, being personally very West-Front-centric, and you’ll find that deciding what to do there as Austria, the Ottomans, Italy, and Russia is going to take some thought.

    There seems to be a bit more weight to decisions on where to move your units, both because there is only one movement phase and because you know that units will most likely be tied up in a tt for more than one game round, and so must be supported in order to succeed. Larry has captured that aspect of the war very well with the mechanics.

    There’s a whole aspect of the strategy where at times you’re not invading to win, you’re just invading to tie up your enemy’s income in “contested” status. Not sure if this is a viable long-term strategy.

    With the way the land war is shaping up, if the sea war becomes critical I can see that hemorrhaging much-needed IPC’s from a power’s budget.



  • Indeed the Balkans played one of the more critical roles in the war, people just never hear about it. But yes, this game looks like it will have some really great moments in it. Can the Russians afford to support a British invasion of the Middle East? Do the Austrians have the power to go all in on the Italians while holding of the Russians? Can the German naby sink the British navy? Tune in next week to find out.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    You know… after months of posts I think it’s safe to say that “Idioits Triggered the war” more than anything else.


  • Customizer

    @Gargantua:

    You know… after months of posts I think it’s safe to say that “Idioits Triggered the war” more than anything else.

    That’s really the tragic thing about the war, and the reason I think it gets a little less attention than the Sequel; in WWII it was a clear struggle against evil, in WWI it was just men killing each other because their respective nations signed a piece of paper.


  • Customizer

    WWII was a struggle between two different brands of evil, at least on the eastern front. Some would say the capitalist west was not much better.



  • @Flashman:

    WWII was a struggle between two different brands of evil, at least on the eastern front. Some would say the capitalist west was not much better.

    Hear, hear! There’s great naivety in calling one side evil and the other (the victor) good. All nations at war try to make the war seem legit by calling the opponents evil.


  • Customizer

    @Flashman:

    WWII was a struggle between two different brands of evil, at least on the eastern front. Some would say the capitalist west was not much better.

    Granted, and the Russia vs. Germany example is especially valid. I suppose you could even call out America’s internment of Japanese as a brand of evil. I just find it hard to say the Nazi’s (gas chambers, ovens, genocide in general) and the Brits or the French are on the same level of “evil.”

    I’m just saying that WWII was a little more clear cut (I mean, they had skulls on their caps! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU  :lol:), whereas in WWI both sides tried to demonize the other, but in the end the motivations of the war were abstract politically (honoring treaties vs. trying to cleanse the world of non-Aryan scum).



  • @LinkandMarioman:

    @Flashman:

    WWII was a struggle between two different brands of evil, at least on the eastern front. Some would say the capitalist west was not much better.

    Hear, hear! There’s great naivety in calling one side evil and the other (the victor) good. All nations at war try to make the war seem legit by calling the opponents evil.

    Um.  Yes, the USA had Japanese internment camps, but for the most part did abide by the Geneva convention as far we know (as well as the other Western Allies), and fought a way where they were attacked first.  The alliance with Russia was more of a ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend.’

    The Axis on the other hand were the aggressors, tortured & killed a large population all over the world.  I suppose you could say that the firebombings and nuclear bombings were evil, but paled in comparison the the numbers of civilians the Axis put in the ground.

    Not sure how anyone could say it was anything but a ‘just’ war and ‘good’ vs. ‘evil.’  Granted, not all Germans, Italians, and Japanese were evil, but enough were to start a world war.

    Agreed that WWI isn’t the same type of war- Alliances spiraled out of control.


  • Customizer

    The Allies murdered more people in German death camps after the war than the Germans had killed there during it. The western Allies collaborated by sending “undesirables” back to Russian occupied zones knowing they were going to certain death. They chose not to know what happened at Katyn and elsewhere behind the Russian lines.

    The biggest example of ethnic cleansing in the 20th century happened after WWII as a result of Churchill and Stalin redrawing the map of Europe and disposing of anyone who didn’t fit the picture, mainly Germans and Poles. Look at the map of Germany and Poland now compared to 1939. The differences represent entire populations being liquidated.

    The only mitigation is that, probably, had the Axis won the picture would have been even more radically changed with corresponding human wastage.


  • Customizer

    @Flashman:

    The Allies murdered more people in German death camps after the war than the Germans had killed there during it. The western Allies collaborated by sending “undesirables” back to Russian occupied zones knowing they were going to certain death. They chose not to know what happened at Katyn and elsewhere behind the Russian lines.

    The biggest example of ethnic cleansing in the 20th century happened after WWII as a result of Churchill and Stalin redrawing the map of Europe and disposing of anyone who didn’t fit the picture, mainly Germans and Poles. Look at the map of Germany and Poland now compared to 1939. The differences represent entire populations being liquidated.

    The only mitigation is that, probably, had the Axis won the picture would have been even more radically changed with corresponding human wastage.

    :?
    Proof?


  • Customizer


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

58
Online

13.5k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts