• Well, I worded my last post poorly so it was moved to the house rules thread- when it isn’t a house rule.

    Everyone is talking about how hard it is to take Paris with slow supply lines as the CPs-  with move 2 planes I am arguing that it is very difficult to get air supremacy if the western allies are buying planes.  A French plane can be at the front in 1 turn whereas a German one it takes 2 turns.  You cannot even get the starting German plane to the western front!

    Does anyone buy planes?  Is Air supremacy even worth the trouble when you can lose planes in an air battle so quickly (compared to land units)?  Why would Germany buy them if France and England (USA turn 4 and later) can out buy them in planes?


  • I think one plane for each CP is good against Russia, other than that, it’s hard to say if they are worth buying.


  • it seems that the turn 1 german plane can only go to holland, or russian front (i like holland).  If germany can keep sending a constant chain of forces to the western front, then the distance from capital to front lines should not be much of an issue.  For the first few turns, france is alone against germany, and germany would be spending almost all of its income on it.  And with the massive starting army germany has, I really don’t see this being a serious issue about berlin being so far away from things.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    I am on T8 of my first game and have bought 1 Fighter a turn for Germany(2 on G1).
    France has kept up, UK has not bothered much, except 1 for India helped.
    As my buys have been half Inf/half Art, I thought it was necessary to have the Fighter.
    They seem to have a short life!
    Austria has bought 2 or 3 and the Turks bought one, but forgot to train the pilots.


  • I guess I need to play more games but it seems like planes (at 6 IPCs) die rather quickly whereas 2 Infantry may last longer.


  • Our group seems to buy quite a few ftrs on both sides (maybe too many?). Your right that the French/English can easily keep pace, and get ahead of your German ftrs on the western front. It’s easy for both UK & France to get ftrs to say Belgium or Picardy in one turn if that’s where the front line is. It is a game of cat & mouse to see if you can get or keep an advantage, or get a second power in there that also has some air (Austria?). You can always count on your dice to go in 3 ftrs against 4 ftrs (2’s can really go either way in a dog fight, and I’ve seen the underdog win). Some times you have to bite the bullet w/one power to gain advantage with a second power (risky). You can lead w/Austria and 2 frts to try and knock 1-2 allied ftrs out, so you can dominate w/Germany. Austria wouldn’t even need many units at the front, just some inf because you’re really only counting on them for the dog fight (just a suggestion, that I’m thinking about using the next time). The turn order would allow for the CP to go back to back in the west (only Russia goes between them). Of course it’s also good if you can get a good size Austrian force to slam into their wall, but I know that Austria faces a 3 way front so IDK.

    In the few games we have played the CP seem to be at a disadvantage in just about any direction they choose to attack in as time goes by. On the western front the closer they get, the more multi-def units you face (western allies are very close together, and the navy dominance is something else). The CP power that starts the 1-2 punch is probably going to be sacrificed (so you better do some damage). I think you need to pull out all the tricks in your bag, because the CP window seems to close pretty fast in our short experience. WE have yet to see the CP able to go toe to toe and have much success the further they get away from home though.

    It is strange because it’s generally the allies that have a longer learning curve, but this is a completely different game system and the CP needs to figure out ways to manipulate it. Don’t feel like you’re alone, because our group is scratching our heads too.


  • WILD BILL,
      Thanks for the post.  Your comments pretty much mirror my thoughts at this point.  Did not think about Austria helping Germany with a 1-2 punch.  Austria seems to have its own problems getting to Rome at the moment.  I guess Switzerland is more important than I thought.


  • Yeah the game we are playing right now (very early) the Austrians are fighting at least two fronts.

    The CP plan was to take out Rome first (thinking they are the weakest), but to also threaten Russia. Austria smashed Venice, and the Germans came through the Swiss in pretty much in full force. The Italians used the Libyans to activate the Albanians, and pulled everything else to Tuscany to dig in defensively. This halted the Austrian advance (about even, but Italy is playing def). As this was going on I sent everything the French had to Burgundy F1, and now the French and Portuguese (transported to Med) are holding Piedmont with the biggest force of the 4 powers, and a couple ftrs. If the CP try to breakthrough the Italian line, the French will crush whats left of them and that front will be about done (so not sure, but I think they will probably back peddle, or try to regroup against a determined France).

    There are about a doz German units in Belgium facing the same amount of units in Picardy, so that front is also stagnant, and the CP don’t have many reinforcements coming.

    The Eastern front is pretty interesting though. The Austrians have over 30 units, the Germans 25, and the Turks even have over 20 units funneling up through the south (UK got stuck in Afghanistan of all places and is now behind in her duties?). Russia didn’t fight for Poland, so has about 60 units at its disposal (w/probable air support) to strike or def as she feels fit (all could bulk up on Ukraine?). The Russians could probably take a triple hit, because of the peace mail the CP would have to do, and most of the limited CP air power went towards Italy. Russia becomes a powerhouse in this game, and is very difficult to take down because she normally out numbers the attackers big time in 1 on 1 battles when defending if she is patient. If the CP can’t take out Russia, or force a Revolution by say the 5th turn (doubtful) the French and Italians will be stomping their way into either Vienna (closer from Italy/Swiss), maybe Berlin. The Germans are absolutely no threat to Paris at this time, and the UK/US will be coming over in force very soon.


  • Air Supremacy is very good, some people in my group even say it is too good for it’s cost and I actually agree with them.  Now this is not sour grapes or anything we all agree it is good but for the cost of $6 we always buy a few planes and send them in to make sure we have air supremacy for all the advantages it grants.


  • Air Superiority saved Russia in my game and pretty much took out Austria-Hungary as a fighting force on the Eastern Front

  • Customizer

    Thing is, if you let the enemy gain air supremacy by building just one fighter you feel such a fool when he rolls all those 4s with artillery. So you buy one too. And then he buys another, and you think you might need one on the other front, and so it goes on…


  • Air supremacy (i.e. investing in fighters) is certainly worthwhile: not only does it give you a possibility to strafe the enemy with your remaining fighters, more importnatly each fighter ALSO gives a bonus to each matching artillery! This will make them into very potent units!

  • Customizer

    No, only only one fighter is needed to give artillery support - you don’t get extra support with extra fighters.


  • @Koningstiger:

    Air supremacy (i.e. investing in fighters) is certainly worthwhile: not only does it give you a possibility to strafe the enemy with your remaining fighters, more importnatly each fighter ALSO gives a bonus to each matching artillery! This will make them into very potent units!

    Hmm, I’ve just read that ALL  defending artillery units are promoted (i.e. hit on a 4 or less) in case their side has air supermacy. That makes it even more desirable, obviously! (p. 14 FAQ)


  • It definitely can change the nature of the game.

    One big battle I had in the Western Front was a German attack on joint British/French Belgium.

    4 German fighters vs. 3 french/1 British

    1 German fighter survived giving the 16 German artillery attack @4!

    Needless to say, the Germans won that round!


  • @BJCard:

    It definitely can change the nature of the game.

    One big battle I had in the Western Front was a German attack on joint British/French Belgium.

    4 German fighters vs. 3 french/1 British

    1 German fighter survived giving the 16 German artillery attack @4!

    Needless to say, the Germans won that round!

    Yes, that’s what I’m a bit afraid of too: in WW2 it was undoubtedly true that air superiority could and did make all the difference (Battle for France, NNormandy, Battle of the Bulge, Barbarossa etc. etc.). However, I’m not convinced the same was true for WW1. Certainly, having air supermacy was importatant as it allowed for much better reconnaisance, but would this make all this much of a difference??? Perhaps each matching artillery should have an increased attack value, but then it probably wouldn’t be worthwhile to invest in fighters anymore…


  • Well, in that battle- air supremacy changed the outcome a little-

    16 Artillery hit @ 3 => average 8 hits
    16 Artillery hit @ 4 => average 10-11 hits.


  • I have wondered since the first glimps of the rules why the air supremacy and naval battles are played to the death but not the land battles.

    It would obviously decrease the importance of fighters, but you still couldnt allow your opponents air force to attack with no defending fighters.

    However it would mean that your carefully built airforce isnt smashed in seconds, and could allow you, even if only for a turn or two, to deny an enemy with an overpowering air force from achieving air superiority.

    But even for the naval battles, why not with the current land battles ‘contested territory’ rule operate a similar one at sea? Deny people amphibious assaults unless they can break through the defence.

    Thoughts?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Because ships and planes didn’t hide behind trenches, and Larry wanted to simulate the static condition of land warfare?

  • Customizer

    Because of amphibious assaults.

    You can’t have boat loads of infantry waiting around in sea zones for the end of a naval battle that might last for months.

    I still think ships should be allowed to retreat from combat, however.

    Allowing planes to retreat after a round of aerial combat is another idea, but what happens to planes that withdraw and then have nowhere to land because their side has been wiped out on the ground?

    You could allow them to retreat to a friendly tt, but that in effect gives them an extra movement point, and it seems to go against the game mechanics.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

95
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts