Larry Harris 1914 Tournament Rules ( "potential rules" using his language)
I have to be honest I’m not a big fan of the political/economic collapse rule. I play with little army men so I can kill other little army men. If you want to play something else why not go to your sister’s room and play Monopoly with her and her friends. She has some nice friends and Monopoly is a fine game I’m sure it will be fun.
So on the second turn Jim’s out of the game because he has suffered political collapse due to an Ottoman first strategy employed by the allies. He’s still got lots of little army men to play with but instead he has to remove them and leave the game. Who here thinks that Jim is going to volunteer to serve us all drinks and appies and be the banker for the rest of the night? More likely he is going to play Monopoly in the other room.
Admiral T last edited by
I played with these rules last week and I thought it was a lot of fun. I especially liked the political and economic collapse mechanics. Much more interesting than the traditional rules for knocking out a power, and WAY better than those Russian Revolution rules…
The Central Powers won. Italy was taken out basically right away. Russia collapsed not long after that. There was a lot of back and forth in the middle east as Germany came to the Ottomans aid as soon as Russia fell. The game ended with France collapsing on turn 12.
Despite an exciting game, I think we played incorrectly… We found the movement rules a little vague, so we made a decision early on to play so that land units could move two spaces and only had to stop if they entered a contested territory or a territory controlled by another power. I think this really accelerated the Italian collapse and saved Ottomans, ultimately leading to a fairly decisive CP victory.
My question is, can armies only move one space if they are moving into an enemy territory? Therefore, would it be an illegal move for an Austrian army in Vienna (along with armies from Tyrolia and Trieste) to attack Venice on turn 1?
Yes, that’s correct. Land units may move only one space when moving into an enemy or neutral territory.
Admiral T last edited by
Thanks for the clarification Krieghund.
Does the same go for a contested territory?
I’m looking forward to trying these rules out again.
No. You can move 2 into a contested territory. You must end your movement in a contested territory. You can only move one space out of a contested territory.
My main problem with the economic victory idea is that its only ever likely to benefit the CPS. Most games will be fought primarily on Allied/neutral tt; if the Allies are driving into German/Austrian tt the game is already over.
I prefer a “Victory Curve” defining how much tt the CPs have to gain on a particular turn to achieve victory.
Or political collapses factoring criteria such as number of casualties suffered.
A Former User last edited by
I got about a turn and a half into a game using these rules and decided they were NOT for me. It seems to be way too much of a CP advantage - let alone it just so radically changes the game. To me a big part of 1914 is Russian Revolution and how much Germany goes after Russia, and then if succeeds, how long it takes to get back to save the homeland from France and UK in the west.
AND could someone explain the purpose of the Naval Retreat rule since combat is optional in a SZ.
Magro last edited by
I find these new tournament rules interesting.
Worth trying for sure!
Victory conditions OOB does not work.
I’d suggest holding two enemy capitals at the same time and keep Paris/Berlin as a knock out major victory otherwise the game end turn X, agreed in advance, by then CP must hold enough or the Entente wins a minor victory.
It should be a target to reach for CP minor or major victory turn 3+ (or even turn 1+?). The target includes minor/major Entente victory (0-40 major Entente, 41-60 minor Entente, 90-110 minor CP, 120+ major CP victory as an example). Before the game both sides agree on a maximum number of full turns. If the CP did not win at the end of that turn they have lost the game and the Entente wins a minor victory.
The rules for moving twice on land (not blitzing but in friendly areas) and also 3 movement points for all ships from seabases (and planes in friendly areas only?) whould be used to keep the game faster.
Probably just IPC’s = points +/- some easy things like a player nation in your alliance was conqured +/- 10 each even if later liberated, having a land unit contesting or adjacent to enemy capital +/-5 per capital including India and South Africa, having starting areas outside Africa but including South Africa occupied by the enemy +/-3 per nation. I know the hard part is setting good limits…
I agree that the best solution is a “victory curve” by which the CPs must hold X at the end of turn Y to be deemed winners. As long as US entry is automatic the Allies will always win in the long run. The conceit is that if the CPs have gained enough ground the Allies will sue for peace rather than ruining themselves in a long war.
Is you base this entirely on capitals then it’s too easy for the Allies to just pile units into those areas to hold out until the Yanks turn up in sufficient numbers. For me, number of units lost should be just as important as territory in determining the point at which a nation throws in the towel.
Are we still making rule changes or can I release my play book? I like axis and allies games favoring Germany strongly to win as I believe the world would be a better place had they done so in either world war, Japan moreso in WW2, imagine a glorious Japan owning all of Asia and the Pacific, the world Peace. Only in a&a could I live with glorious axis domination.
Thank you for making global 1940 so glorious for Japan. Thank you for making transports not defend itself in every new 1940-1942 release. Thank you for making 1914 have 3 solid strategies for a central power victory. The old days of classic and revised make me cringe as things weren’t so great for the axis.
Thanks you Larry Harris for your continued support of Germany and Japan. It is good to imagine a glorious world. /Endsarcasm
No but really why are the allies incredibly weak since the release of global? I should throw in anniversary edition as well because that board 9-12 allies bid. I mean it is easy to test your game for balance. Play one game where you all in italy, one all in Russia one all in France then try games where you expand income maybe middle East play game maybe naval game . Do all that then you get a good sense of where you are at.
Right now people say the allies are strong. If I prefer to play central powers or the axis in every board, I am going to ride the QQ need more central powers stuff train instead of idk making another stickied playbook guide. when you are done making changes the axis players will get together and put our winning strategies out there. Why would we subject ourselves to nerfs?
Unstickied and closed today as the topic has been replaced and updated by: