These are estimates…
USA - 23
France - around 40. France had taken Portugal and a bunch of territories in Africa.
u.k. - around 38 or so, from all the ottoman territories it took.
Italy - weak. Around 6 or 8.
Austria - no territories gained and none lost, so around 25?
Germany - powerhouse…around 60 from all the Russian territory, and now Italian territory and very close to Rome.
ottoman empire - around 6 a round.
we must not play right or just have different playing styles but the CP for us usually win, i played a game where my ally germany built transports on the first turn and took Norway, and sweden. I was Austria and fuming so i said screw it and went full bore into italy and russia by the time he finished his norwegian expedition i had no infantry or artillery left. The entire German army was intact we eventually won because of that extra production and i had driven the italians and russians far enough back he was able to wipe the french off the board. Now whenever he does something stupid i say yeah like take norway, it gives us a good chuckle but we usually have a winner by turn 7 or 8 and it is about 60/40 Allies vs central.
I envisioned calvary working like this.
Attack at a 2
Move at a 2
Defend at a 3 (If on a territory containing defending infantry)
Defend at a 2 otherwise.
Cavalry played a minor role during the entire war. (Lawrence of Arabia for example)
Cavalry would have one other feature. They alone would be able to leave a contested zone and attack an empty adjacent enemy controlled territory.
By turn 4 they would no longer allowed to be built.
I do agree the game is great as is.
OK after playing the game a few times I have to say this is my least favorite AA game to date.
I agree with many others it is near impossible for the Central Powers to win, the first game we played I won but we where still new to the game.
The Russian Revolution oob was just broken, now it has been fixed but I still hate the idea that if the Russian Revolution is triggered the CP lose one of the victories cities need to win the game. As if it’s not hard enough for the Central Powers.
The debate over contested territories and moving out of, is just silly. The first game we played this rule wrong, but the idea that you cannot leave a contested battle into a territory that you already have units in is beyond stupid. The idea I couldn’t leave a contested zone into an allies is bad, but not being able to move into territory with my own army unless I own the territory. Shows a easy way out when writing the rules in my opinion.
Cruisers are next to useless in this game. The extra movement of 1 does not make it worth buying them, with battleships being so cheap.
Obviously many rules where overlooked when first released such as
US neutral rules and what they can or cannot do (many of these things are not in the OOB rules as written)
US transports before they are at war.
I also notice when many of these things where questioned the official response came back with what seemed like a bit of attitude at people pointing out these errors and that truly turned me off. It is not the players fault the rules are unclear or just out right do not say something cannot be done. There is no reason to blame the players for pointing out these faults in the rules.
I don’t agree with Shakespeare’s point but I definitely agree that these games are leaving a lot to be desired. Not just from a rules perspective but from a piece perspective. Battle board is tiny. No money and lack of German infantry and chips for both sides. I have played with the new tournament rules however and do love them. If you have the game Shakespeare give them a shot I really like them. I think you will too.