Larry Harris 1914 Tournament Rules ( "potential rules" using his language)


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

    I need these potential Tournament rules play tested by as many of you as possible. The more games played and reported on the stronger the test results will be. I’m sure everyone is interested in your off-the-cuff opinions on this or that aspect of this system but frankly. I’m NOT. I am, however, very interested in game reports. 😉

    Potential 1914 Tournament Rules
    Based on required time limits and other practical considerations, these rules are to be used when playing a face to face tournament game. This document makes no attempt to replace the games rule book. There are some important changes to the way this special tournament game is played, however. The movement system has been enhanced to speed up relocation of the units on the map. The victory conditions have been changed so that a measurable and quicker victory can be achieved. Some setup, naval mine fields, naval retreats and unrestricted submarine warfare have all been changed to some degree to better correspond and mesh with the changed movements and victory conditions. You can learn what these changes are by reading this document.

    Setup Changes:
    Setup the game according to the OOB setup instructions, then make the following modifications:

    Remove the following units from the OOB setup
    British infantry in Rhodesia and British East Africa,
    French infantry in French West Africa
    French battleship and transport SZ15
    German infantry in Togoland and Kamerun
    Italian infantry in Somaliland

    Add the following units to the setup:
    Russia- 3 infantry in Sevastopol, 3 infantry to Livonia
    France- Cruiser SZ15
    Britain- Cruiser SZ 9

    New Rules:
    Let’s begin by defining a new term: homeland territories. A power’s homeland territories include its capital, as well as any regional territories that it may have. They do not, however, include colonies. This term will be important as we discuss the changes to the victory conditions.

    HOW TO WIN THE GAME
    Now there are two ways to win this game.
    1. Capture two enemy capitals
    For the Central Powers, one of the captured capitals must be Paris. For the Allies, one must be Berlin.
    If this sounds familiar, its because the main objective of the game has not changed. What has changed is that each power is now more fragile and economically more vulnerable to the ebb and flow of the war. With the capture of each homeland territory a power becomes closer and closer to an economic collapse which can result in a power finding itself unable to field an army, float a navy, or defend its capital. Once a power’s economy collapses, further losses may cause a political collapse, which will result in the immediate surrender of the power, even if it still controls its capital.
    Checking for economic and political collapse is done at the beginning of each power’s turn. A collapse occurs when the total IPC value of a power’s homeland territories that are either captured or being contested by one or more enemy powers equals or exceeds its collapse threshold (see chart below). The effects of a collapse are resolved immediately. An economic collapse can be recovered from and its effects reversed, but the effects of a political collapse are permanent. A political collapse can occur without being preceded by an economic collapse.

    Economic/Political Collapse Thresholds
    Austria-Hungary 13/16
    Russian Empire 13/15
    Germany 16/18
    France 8/10
    British Empire 5/7
    Ottoman Empire 7/9
    Italy 7/9

    If a power suffers an economic collapse, it is unable to purchase/mobilize units or collect income until it recovers. It does, however, retain any IPCs it may have in its treasury.

    If a power suffers a political collapse, it is required to immediately surrender and leave the game. It no longer has a turn, and all of its land, air, and sea units are removed from the board. Control of any territories that it was contesting is established, if necessary, using the rules for moving all units on one side out of a contested territory (see Land Units, page 15 of the rulebook). It also loses control of any territories that it controls, including its homeland territories. If units belonging to other powers on the same side are in these territories, control will likewise be established using the rules for moving all units on one side out of a contested territory; otherwise these territories will be uncontrolled (place any national control marker on it face down to denote this status) until another power moves into them. If a territory originally controlled by the surrendered power is captured by one if its former allies, the capturing power takes control of it. The surrendered power’s IPC treasury will be claimed by the first enemy power to gain control of its capital.

    Let’s follow and study the example of France. If at any time this power begins its turn with homeland territories worth a total of 8 IPCs or more either captured or being contested by one or more enemy powers, it will suffer an economic collapse. It will not be able to purchase/mobilize new units, nor collect any income. This situation will continue until France begins a subsequent turn with the total value of homeland territories held or contested by enemy powers below 8, in which case it will once again be able to purchase units and collect income. However, if it begins its turn with this value at 10 or more, France will suffer a political collapse and be required to surrender and leave the game.

    2. Economic Victory
    If at the end of the games time limit neither side has captured two enemy capitals, then the alliance with the most points, derived from captured enemy homeland territories, will be the winner.

    An Example… 6 hours are coming to an end. All the players are informed that they are to end their game at the end of the next US turn. At the end of the final round, each power adds up the number of victory points they have. These points are the sum totals of the IPC values of the enemy homeland territories they have control of.

    Austria-Hungary controls Venice. It also controls Romania and Serbia, but Romania and Serbia are not homeland territories so they are not counted. Austria-Hungary has gained 2 points for Venice (Venice generates 2 IPCs).

    Germany is contesting Lorraine (2 points) and Belarus (2 points). It controls Poland (3 points), and Ukraine (3 points). Moscow (6 points) was also captured. Note that if the Central Powers’ had also captured Paris they would have achieved the two capital objective and would have won the game at that point. There would be no need to add up victory points.

    The Ottoman Empire has captured Egypt and Sevastopol. Only the 3 points for Sevastopol are counted, as Egypt is not a homeland territory. At this point all the Central Powers combined points are added up. That represents 21 points.

    Other than the British Empires capture of Trans-Jordan and Mesopotamia (both together totaling 4 points), the Allies cannot demonstrate any other points.

    The Central Powers therefore win the game with the final score Central Powers 21, Allies 4.

    MOVEMENT
    All land, air, and sea units can usually move two territories or sea zones. In some situations they can move more than 2 spaces and in other cases they can move but one space.

    Land Unit Movement
    Land units that begin their turn in friendly territories can generally move up to two territories, but they may move only one space when entering a hostile or neutral territory. Also, they must end their movement if they either enter a contested territory or enter any friendly minor aligned power’s territory for the first time. Such land units can also be moved by transport, in which case they may either be transported to any territory within range or remain at sea.

    Land units that begin their turn in contested territories can only be moved to an adjacent territory. That territory must have at the beginning of the turn either been controlled by the moving power or contained units belonging to that power. Such land units can also be moved by transport, in which case they may either be transported to a territory within range that meets those same requirements or remain at sea.

    Sea Unit Movement
    All sea units that begin their turn in a sea zone that has a friendly naval base have their movement range extended by one sea zone. A friendly naval base is one that is in a territory that is either controlled by you or a friendly power or is contested and was originally controlled by you or a friendly power.

    Naval Mine Fields
    Sea units must end their movement when they enter a sea zone containing an active enemy minefield after they begin to move (not counting the sea zone they started in).

    Here is a quick bullet point list of possible movements other than 2 spaces that the units can make.
    � Land units can only move one territory when entering a hostile or neutral territory.
    � Land units must end their movement when entering a contested territory.
    � Land units must end their movement when entering any friendly minor aligned power’s territory for the first time.
    � Land units can only move one territory when leaving a contested territory.
    � Sea units can move 3 sea zones (cruisers can move 4) if they begin their turn in a sea zone that has a friendly naval base.
    � Sea units must stop when entering a mined sea zone.

    NAVAL RETREATS
    Replacing the option of breaking off an attack, the attacker (never the defender) may choose to retreat from sea combat. Move all attacking sea units in the embattled sea zone to a single adjacent friendly sea zone from or through which at least one of the original attacking sea units moved this turn. This sea zone must have been friendly at the start of the turn. All remaining attacking units (excluding submerged subs) must retreat together to the same sea zone, regardless of where they came from. Transports may not offload units after retreating.

    UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE
    The number of IPCs deducted from the British Empire’s or United States’ income by German submarine attacks is determined by rolling one die for each attacking submarine and totaling the results of the rolls showing a “3” or less. Any rolls of “4” or higher are ignored.

    Official 1914 Errata/Rules Clarifications Adjusted For The Tournament Rules

    Original territories are the territories a major power begins the game with. They are the territories that have only that powers emblem on them.
    If a minor power aligned to your power is mobilized by a friendly power, you take control of the territory.
    If the colony of a minor power aligned to your power is moved into for the first time or captured by a friendly power, that power takes control of the territory.
    If a minor power aligned to your power is captured by a friendly power, the capturing power takes control of the territory. Only originally controlled territories can be liberated.
    As the United States is neutral before it’s at war, it has no friends or enemies; therefore it may not move units into territories controlled by other Allied powers. It also may not load units onto transports before it’s at war.
    United States units may not be used to represent the mobilized forces of minor neutral territories before it’s at war.
    You can repair a battleship if it is in a sea zone that shares a naval base that is either controlled by you or a friendly power or is contested and was originally controlled by you or a friendly power.
    If the territory that shares a naval base with a mined sea zone is contested, only ships that belong to enemies of the original controlling power have to roll for mines.
    If you are loading units onto and/or offloading units from a transport after entering a mined sea zone, the mines are rolled for before the transport loads and/or offloads.
    If you are planning an amphibious assault or reinforcement, but some of your ships hit mines while attempting to deliver the units, you may call off the landing.
    If you are moving units into a territory both by land and amphibiously, one infantry unit must move in by land, unless you already have one there.
    When a defending multinational force gains air supremacy, all defending artillery are promoted.
    If you take control of enemy capital on that enemy’s turn due to his attacking you in that territory and losing, any units he purchased are returned to his storage box, and you collect the refunded IPCs.
    You have to mobilize all of the units that you purchase in the same turn.
    You can’t mobilize sea units from a territory that was controlled by an enemy power at any point during your turn.
    If you purchase a ship but realize during the Mobilize New Units phase that you have no eligible naval base to mobilize it with, it is returned to your storage tray, and the IPCs are refunded to you.
    The British Empire cannot mobilize units in India if it is enemy-controlled.



  • Are the current Russian Revolution rules being replaced by the new Economic/Political collapse rules?

    We’ll try out the EPC rules our next game.



  • "If a power suffers a political collapse, it is required to immediately surrender and leave the game. It no longer has a turn, and all of its land, air, and sea units are removed from the board."

    LMAO

    good one!


  • Official Answers

    @MistuhJay:

    Are the current Russian Revolution rules being replaced by the new Economic/Political collapse rules?

    The Russian Revolution optional rule is not used.


  • Official Answers

    Here is a link to the original thread at HGD for those who want to keep up with further tweaks/developments.  It would be appreciated if any comments and results would be posted there rather than here so that it’s easier for us to keep up with them.



  • I like these new rules on the surface. More of a realistic feel. I really hope in the future these games are playtested more before they are released so we don’t have to continually go through this. Krieg I have got a group of about 10 guys who I play with I am voluteering our services for the next one. The more people that playtest the better as far as I’m concerned. Will play with these rules.


  • Official Answers

    @GoSanchez6:

    I really hope in the future these games are playtested more before they are released so we don’t have to continually go through this.

    No one has to “go through” anything.  These rules are intended not as a fix, but to adapt a long-playing game to a shorter tournament format.  This is necessary because the nature of this particular game doesn’t lend itself to the usual mechanisms that are used in tournaments to resolve a winner at the end of the time limit.  Larry is simply asking the on-line community to help in testing them out, as we don’t have a lot of time.  Any such assistance is, of course, deeply appreciated.



  • These rules make turn into mainstream usage - i.e. for all games, not just tournament games, especially if it gives the CPs a chance to win.

    I would like to know the rationale for deleting units from the starting setup though.



  • Krieghund

    Are you actually saying there was enough playtesting in 1914?

    I’d really like to know your opinion on this.

    Especially after we all indeed, we all “had to go through” the contentious months long

    Alpha version 1,  Alpha version 2, Alpha version 3; no wait this is the real Alpha set of rules process of redoing the rules for AA 1940.

    Or are you also suggesting that there was sufficient playtesting for 1940? When obviously there was not.

    Come on Krieg, don’t defend the indefensible especially not having enough pieces in 1914!

    You guys really did not run out of pieces nor experience the tiny areas on the Wetsern Front?

    Did not one of you suggest to ditch Africa in favor of a more expansive Europe?

    Just how extensive is your playtesting when the problems like 1940 and 1914 are readily apparent upon release.

    I’d sure like to know and I’m sure others would too.


  • Customizer

    This is probably imposed on Larry and his chums by WOTC; the culture of secrecy precludes a wider testing group due to paranoid fears of copying.

    I’m sure eveyone here would be very happy to help test the game before initial release, but that isn’t how it works.

    Nevertheless I still find it hard to believe nobody thought the German/Austrian movement to the front would be a problem; I could see this before playing the game at all. Perhaps the test group all being well known to each other means they sometimes overlook flaws obvious to fresh eyes.



  • awfull rules: as in the real war, all fighting takes place in allied controlled territory (except in middle-east and africa…)


  • Customizer

    So the Central Powers are punished for being successful; they have to fight much further away from their supply centres than the Allies, a handicap that modern transport had neutralised from the American Civil War onwards.

    At least we no longer have the absurdity of being able to build units in captured complexes, but this actually exaggerates the transport problem, so the two issues needed to be addressed together.



  • Hey Krieg the last thing I am doing is taking any kind of shot at you or Larry. This game has meant a lot to me and the many people I have introduced to. My 4 favorite things (family,sports teams(Jets,Blues,Notre dame),fishing and Axis and Allies). I only wish to open the game like I did with say AA europe the first version and be captivated by the pieces and board and how they work with the great set of rules that Larry and you built. I am not unlike you or Larry in the fact that I want these games to be the best they can be so that I am playing them and passing them on to my son in the years to come. My friends and I wore out the board on the original and played the first expansions a lot. I want these latest versions to be like that. I offered to help playtest in the future with my group not to insult you but to help.(Also thought it would be pretty cool). I plan on using these tournament rules as the permanent rules for the game. Thanks for your efforts to this game and this community.


  • Official Answers

    @Shakespeare:

    Krieghund

    Are you actually saying there was enough playtesting in 1914?

    I’d really like to know your opinion on this.

    Unfortunate, since I’m not going to offer it.

    @Shakespeare:

    Especially after we all indeed, we all “had to go through” the contentious months long

    Alpha version 1,  Alpha version 2, Alpha version 3; no wait this is the real Alpha set of rules process of redoing the rules for AA 1940.

    Really?  I seem to remember your personal contribution consisting of little more than complaining and rabble-rousing.

    @Shakespeare:

    Come on Krieg, don’t defend the indefensible especially not having enough pieces in 1914!

    I have never commented on this issue, so don’t put words in my mouth.


  • Official Answers

    @GoSanchez6:

    Hey Krieg the last thing I am doing is taking any kind of shot at you or Larry. This game has meant a lot to me and the many people I have introduced to. My 4 favorite things (family,sports teams(Jets,Blues,Notre dame),fishing and Axis and Allies). I only wish to open the game like I did with say AA europe the first version and be captivated by the pieces and board and how they work with the great set of rules that Larry and you built. I am not unlike you or Larry in the fact that I want these games to be the best they can be so that I am playing them and passing them on to my son in the years to come. My friends and I wore out the board on the original and played the first expansions a lot. I want these latest versions to be like that. I offered to help playtest in the future with my group not to insult you but to help.(Also thought it would be pretty cool). I plan on using these tournament rules as the permanent rules for the game. Thanks for your efforts to this game and this community.

    Thanks for this.  I didn’t mean to imply that I was taking offense, but was simply pointing out that this isn’t an “alpha” version of the game, so it shouldn’t be viewed in that light.



  • Hey Krieg, always keep in mind that people critiquing A&A means that they love A&A. If they didn’t they wouldn’t play it and they wouldn’t care.


  • Official Answers

    I always do.  Criticism is always welcome; berating, not so much.



  • @Krieghund:

    I always do.  Criticism is always welcome; berating, not so much.

    +1

    The following question will not be used as a follow-up critique: I’m just wondering, cause I’m curious by nature, how the game gets play-tested. You guys have a small or big team; do you play a game or two a day; does that cause headaches (literally. if i play 10 hours i have a guaranteed headache; how long is the creation/ play-testing time frame;  how fun or tedious is it; what the correction process is; how do you start play testing initially (what map do you use, units, etc.) etc…



  • Kreig

    I complained about the various Alpha’s becz I thought the whole Alpha process was a joke.
    You and Larry “fixed” 1940 with a sledgehammer rather than some simple elegant adjustments.

    You still did not address the questions I asked about the 1914 playtesting about the number of units and about Africa.

    And why not address the question I had about wether or not you believe there was enough playtesting for 1914?

    I mean come on and try to be accountable. You like the the “Official Answers” aspect of your association with Axis Allies, 
    But you don’t want to accept responsibility.

    Your answers seem to indicate you have much in common with the IRS and The AG’s office and the State Dept.
    Where no one knows nothing, like Sgt Shultz; and no one has any accountability.



  • Well, maybe I’m alone in liking the Alpha process for 1940…  It allowed extensive playtesting by A&A lovers everywhere to come up with a fairly balanced 2nd edition.  My only gripe is there’s no ‘upgrade’ or ‘expansion’ pack to buy for those that had the 1st edition instead of buying all new games.


  • 2016

    @Shakespeare:

    Kreig

    I complained about the various Alpha’s becz I thought the whole Alpha process was a joke.
    You and Larry “fixed” 1940 with a sledgehammer rather than some simple elegant adjustments.

    You still did not address the questions I asked about the 1914 playtesting about the number of units and about Africa.

    And why not address the question I had about wether or not you believe there was enough playtesting for 1914?

    I mean come on and try to be accountable. You like the the “Official Answers” aspect of your association with Axis Allies, 
    But you don’t want to accept responsibility.

    Your answers seem to indicate you have much in common with the IRS and The AG’s office and the State Dept.
    Where no one knows nothing, like Sgt Shultz; and no one has any accountability.

    This is not the complain to Krieg about 1940/1914 playtesting thread, its the potential 1914 Tournament Rules thread… lol…
    I don’t see the problem with the multiple Alphas anyway. The way I see it, there are now multiple set ups and rules to play by, even if some may be considered “unbalanced.” I found it pretty fun to run into a new set up and rules to play with my group.

    Anyway, I should have a game at the end of this month. I’ll post a report on HGD afterward.
    I’m pretty excited about the collapse rules, but I think the check for collapse phase going first in a player’s turn is harsh. I think it should happen at the end of their turn, so they at least have a chance to prevent it from happening… But, oh well. I guess I’ll have to see how my group can try to avoid collapse, even with it being the first phase of a player’s turn.


  • Official Answers

    @ch0senfktard:

    This is not the complain to Krieg about 1940/1914 playtesting thread, its the potential 1914 Tournament Rules thread… lol…

    Good point.  This thread has strayed far off topic.

    Atease, if you’d like to post your question in a new thread, I’ll answer as best I can without violating confidentiality agreements.



  • “I’m pretty excited about the collapse rules, but I think the check for collapse phase going first in a player’s turn is harsh. I think it should happen at the end of their turn, so they at least have a chance to prevent it from happening… But, oh well. I guess I’ll have to see how my group can try to avoid collapse, even with it being the first phase of a player’s turn.”

    Hmm.  That might end up being a problem, especially for smaller nations like Italy or the Ottomans.  I wonder if it’s possible, with a deliberate strategy and coordinated ganging up, to cause a collapse of one of these powers before they even get their first turn?  It might require extreme sacrifices on other fronts, but it might be worth it to eliminate a power completely (or at least cripple their economy).


  • Customizer

    This is why I originally suggested calculating collapses should involve the number of casualties suffered - it should be about war weariness as much as economic capacity.


  • 2016

    @almashir:

    I wonder if it’s possible, with a deliberate strategy and coordinated ganging up, to cause a collapse of one of these powers before they even get their first turn?

    Italy is pretty safe turn 1.
    Ottomen… well… Lets see:
    Guaranteed to be atleast contested-
    Russia can invade Mesopotamia - 3IPCs
    Britain can invade TransJordan via Egypt - 1 IPC

    The other 3 territories that can be invaded by sea have 6 Infantry and 1-2 artillery.
    Also, to cause at least an economical collapse, the one French transport and/or British transport in the med will have to invade Ankara and/or Constantinople. With only two units each, there is no way they’ll survive the mines, artillery preemptive strikes and then the usual battle. So they’re pretty safe.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2
  • 17
  • 4
  • 3
  • 18
I Will Never Grow Up Games

26
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts