Rate AA1914



  • I’ve seen many reviews through various threads, and was curious what the group’s opinion of the game was.

    I feel that since they’ve worked through some of the peskier rules in the FAQ thread (Revolution, retreating, etc.), the game is extremely enjoyable.

    What are everybody’s thoughts?



  • I wish there was another category to vote on.
    I think some of the new rules are very original in theory but just don’t work in practice.
    I think a lot more play testing was need before the game was released.

    Almost all of the single nation “advantages” are broken or worthless.
    1-RR as seen by having to be reworked within days of release.
    2-German subs raid on UK or US money is just not worth doing.
    3-US not being involved into round 4, was okay but the lack of rules on what exactly the US could do for the first three rounds was/isn’t clear in the rulebook.

    My other complaint was the rulebook was a hot mess.  In many parts you had to read two different sections on two different pages to actually get the entire rule.  I have never had this problem with the other AA rulebooks and was saddened by how this one was written.



  • I think it’s very good!

    The new methods of combat- air superiority, contested territories, coastal artillery- are brilliant. On their own they are enough to make this one of the best A&A games to date.
    The map is flawed, but if I really want to look at maps I’ll read The First World War again. I don’t mind the lack of sculpts either. The problems I have with the game are USW, Russian Revolution, and the slowness of Central reinforcement. They can all be fixed with simple houseruling, which I do mind a bit, but it doesn’t break the game. Overall, I’d give this game an 8.75 out of 10.



  • The optional rules for the Russian Revolution as currently written are a non starter to use. Most everything else Krieg has cleaned up very well in his FAQ along with his rule change proposal on moving units out of contested areas.

    It is going to need lots of playing for us to see how balanced it is for the long term with the various strategies. If you recall how Global 1940 became a big mess with 3 re-writes and changes before the final Second Edition was completed, I would say we are only in the very early stages of determining if there are any major flaws, and what minor flaws can be fixed with FAQ’s and errata.

    Kim



  • The RR actually saved the CPs in my last game- the CPs stopped sending reinforcements easy on turn 3 and they barely hung on to force revolution-  if they did not force it then Russia would have beaten them back.  (Russia had almost as many units in Moscow than all the CP units in the rest of Russia).


  • 2019 Sponsor 2018 2017 2016 '12

    I voted 7-8 (Above average, but not perfect, good once the rules are adjusted) but don’t necessarily agree with the full statement that follows the score.

    I feel it is definately above average, but not “perfect” … but the rules don’t really require any adjusting.  People are far too quick to declare a game broken.  We’ll be playing again this weekend but so far things seem to work quite well, straight out of the box (not even taking into account FAQ’s and erattas).

    Could it be BETTER?  Certainly.  Is it a rules thing?  Not necessarily.



  • I voted 9-10 based on how much fun it has been to play the game.  It’s really the first totally new A&A game since the original was released in 1984.  All permutations on the 1984 game have tweaked the general concept, but the way you play the game is generally the same.  This game, however, is completely different due to the 1 round only combat model and the fact that it’s just a different war, with different alliances, etc.

    My only issues with the game are minor, but I will note them again in passing:

    1. Poland should not have a coastline (map issue).  I think it’s fairly easy to make a house rule that will change that for game play purposes, not that it’s ever come up in any of the games I’ve played.

    2. I do think maybe tanks should be available in Turn 3, and it may make sense to reduce their cost to 5.

    3. It may make sense to reduce cruisers to 8.

    Other than that, now that rules have been changed and clarified, the game is fantastic.



  • It may make sense to reduce cruisers to 8.

    Could you please explain why? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    Kim



  • @KimRYoung:

    It may make sense to reduce cruisers to 8.

    Could you please explain why? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    Kim

    I think because Cruisers are seldom purchased?  Why not put 3 IPCs more into a Battleship?  I don’t know I’ve seen a few of them built.


  • Customizer

    I’ve come round to the view that tanks are just right, based on actually playing with them.

    I would even consider buying them if they didn’t have any combat value as such, simply as a shield for my attacking inf and art.  In my game they didn’t score many hits (assuming artillery support can be given to infantry), but allowed me to make big attacks without suffering casualties.

    If they cost any less I’d probably buy all-tank armies with a couple of inf to allow attacks.



  • @BJCard:

    @KimRYoung:

    It may make sense to reduce cruisers to 8.

    Could you please explain why? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    Kim

    I think because Cruisers are seldom purchased?  Why not put 3 IPCs more into a Battleship?  I don’t know I’ve seen a few of them built.

    Cruisers are fine at 9
    However it is battleships that are too cheap (increase to 14)
    –battleships cost the same as 2 subs average the same hits per 6 die rolls but take 2 hits to destroy (after one hit still shooting at 4) repair for free and can shore bombard…and subs, unlike previous a&a, cannot submerge to avoid hits. They can submerge but most will die inthe opening round before they get a chance
    And maybe give cruisers back shore bombardment



  • Subs can pass through hostile sea zones without having to stop.  Cruisers do get an extra move.  Shore bombardment doesn’t even happen that much since you can’t bombard a contested territory.



  • Or make battleship fight at 2 or 3 when damaged. Makes sense.



  • However it is battleships that are too cheap (increase to 14)

    I can’t see any reason for this at all. Battleships are fine and in fact should be the primary ship purchased in this era anyway. We found that while battleships got more buys, every power still built some subs and cruisers too. Fleets looked very WWI because of this.

    There was a rush to judgment on the value of tanks right from the start, but now that games have been played, you are seeing the consensus taht tanks are a real bargin!

    Kim


  • '14

    I would say an 8.5 for this version. I really like the simplified combat mechanics and the costing seems reasonable. I’m not so big, however, on how weak Russia (it should have weaknesses but should have a much larger infantry presence on the board.) is in the game and some of the means through which the revolution is triggered (i.e. territorial acquisition of Russia vs. its internal political breakdown, though they are related for sure). I do like the expasion of the game geographically into the Middle East and Africa, and not simply a focus on Western Front slogfests.

    If the game provides anything, it is a good platform for house rules. The trick is to not get carried away with tactical elements like poision gas, etc., and try to keep them on a strategic level (British blockade of Germany is a good example).

    Overall, I enjoyed what I played so far.



  • If we made Russia any tougher, then the CP cause is even more hopeless than it already is.


  • '14

    @BJCard:

    If we made Russia any tougher, then the CP cause is even more hopeless than it already is.

    As it is, I hardly find Russia a tough country (unless you are the Russian player–then God help you), and I like playing the CPs. Call me cRaZy? Why, yes, please do.

    I’m working on some house rules for myself to make the Eastern Front a bit more interesting. I am agreed, however–if Russia is made stronger in any setting like that, the CPs must also have a countervailing presence. Unfortunately, I have been too busy to sit down and really try them out. My sense of history professionalism requires me to read beforehand. But subs on rails is not long in coming (???) …



  • @americancyco:

    I wish there was another category to vote on.
    I think some of the new rules are very original in theory but just don’t work in practice.
    I think a lot more play testing was need before the game was released.

    Almost all of the single nation “advantages” are broken or worthless.
    1-RR as seen by having to be reworked within days of release.
    2-German subs raid on UK or US money is just not worth doing.
    3-US not being involved into round 4, was okay but the lack of rules on what exactly the US could do for the first three rounds was/isn’t clear in the rulebook.

    My other complaint was the rulebook was a hot mess.  In many parts you had to read two different sections on two different pages to actually get the entire rule.  I have never had this problem with the other AA rulebooks and was saddened by how this one was written.

    I entirely agree with this comment. However, there are some nice innovative elements in A&A1914.



  • @Flashman:

    I’ve come round to the view that tanks are just right, based on actually playing with them.

    I would even consider buying them if they didn’t have any combat value as such, simply as a shield for my attacking inf and art.  In my game they didn’t score many hits (assuming artillery support can be given to infantry), but allowed me to make big attacks without suffering casualties.

    If they cost any less I’d probably buy all-tank armies with a couple of inf to allow attacks.

    Agreed!



  • I voted 7-8. Like the game and the way it works. Shortage of pieces is a issue to me. For the money you spend on these games it shouldn’t be an issue. With a few minor tweaks this could be one of the top games Larry has created.



  • Yeah, but every A&A game is short of pieces- if you have multiple versions you can combine some of them.



  • What about people who don’t want to mix and match?

    Or

    People who just saw this game at a local store and said ww1 this is my favourite war. Then realize this game does not have enough pieces for them.

    Saying you have pieces from other ones shouldn’t be an excuse for the developers. They should have double the German infantry from the set up and double for UK. I understand it cuts costs slightly but comeon.  In Risk I never run out of pieces.



  • I have ALL the Axis and Allies game BJ it makes no difference to me. I am sorry it wouldn’t cost them hardly any money to include a few more pieces. The game retails at a 100 bucks. There is no way this game is worth that. Everyone that keeps saying use other pieces from other games just gives Wizards of the Cheap an out to keep doing what they’re doing. I also believe these games need to be playtested more. It seems every new game that comes out has tons of issues with it. Playtesting could work out these issues. Instead what do you think we’ll  get. WW1 1914 Second edition. Bank on it.



  • Well, I’m not saying the game shouldn’t have come with more pieces, but I am saying that it is par for the course with these games.

    I haven’t been too short of pieces in this one though- a couple more Infantry for Germany and Britain would have sufficed.  Oh, and about 25-50% more chips…



  • Thats all I am saying BJ it wouldn’t have taken a lot.
    6 fighters
    6 tanks
    3 more infantry per power
    20 more chips for each side.
    Bingo games perfect.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 24
  • 26
  • 5
  • 3
  • 11
  • 36
  • 3
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

42
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts