2nd Edition Wish List



  • Here’s my wish list for a possible 2nd edition of this game.  Feel free to reply with your own.

    1)  Eliminate Africa - What’s the point of hogging more than half the board?  Nothing interesting happens there.  The only part of Africa you need is Egypt, and only so that Britain and the Ottomans can fight in the Middle East and Dardanelles.  They did it perfectly with the original A&A: Europe board.

    1. Add East Prussia - The map of Europe needs to be expanded regardless, but Poland at least should not touch the Baltic Sea.  The Russians should want to attack East Prussia and Galicia on their first turn.  Instead they just pile up guys in Russia.

    2. One Round Naval Combat - I like what they did with land combat, so why not do the same in the sea?  It would only make sense that Ships wouldn’t just have at each other until one side is destroyed.  You could also eliminate mine fields, have planes increase the attack of your cruisers like they do artillery, and simplify the rulebook at the same time.

    3. Increase The Scope- Having one turn equal one year is ridiculous.  The US shouldn’t enter the war until about Turn 6.  Remove the unrestricted submarine warfare rule that allows the US to declare war and just make it Turn 6.  Then we might acutally have some USW.

    4. More German U-boats- At the height of the campaign, the Germans were sinking over 500,000 tons of Allied shipping with the U-boats.  They need to make subs cheaper and put more on the board for every country, especially Germany.  Russia, France, Italy, the Austro-Hungarians, and Britain should have at least one sub at the start of the game.  Right now no one ever buys them, so make them 4 bucks apiece.

    5. Eliminate Neutrals- They should just be impassable.  The only exception might be Belgium, since the Germans should want to go through there, but they could just make it a British space and call it a day.  The same with Romania (Russian) and Bulgaria (should be Austro-Hungarian).  What’s the point?

    6. Add More Austrians - One the Germans go through Belgium, the France player should be quaking in his boots.  It should all be about stopping the Germans from getting to Paris.  A one-two punch with the Austrians through Belgium should be the way to go.

    7. Make Most Of The Tournament Rules Permanent- The time limit and economic collapse has to go, but the railways (move two through friendly) and political collapse should stay.  The railways should be printed on the board to let you know you can move two spaces along those routes.  Simplify collapses and say each nation has a certain will to fight, and if this number of its territories are taken it bows out of the war.  Print that number on the board by its capital, or on its setup chart.  For Britain and Germany this number should be impossibly high, for the Austrians and Russians it should be low.  To make it fair, once a power is out of the war, its remaining territories can’t be taken anymore and are impassable.

    8. Unique Pieces- They’ve had unique pieces for every country in every A&A game since 1999.  What the hell what this all about?  They really mailed this one in.

    9. Navy Battle Board- Makes naval combat much simpler, in my opinion.  I shouldn’t have to pick up the rulebook every time we have a big navy fight to see what my ships hit at.

    In brief, I was expecting a WWI version of the original A&A: Europe and instead of the steak I got the salmon.  I hope Larry reads this.



  • Funny thing is, i actually wrote a full-set of rules regarding the following changes i wanted to see in 1914.

    Rail-road movement
    Convoys
    More dynamic neutrals
    A dynamic Italy/U.S.A
    Pacific theater/Japan/Australia
    Colonial mobilization
    Docked Navy and Canals


  • Customizer

    @robbie358:

    1)  Eliminate Africa

    Without more units e.g. Askaris it does seem pretty pointless. But more units, a German cruiser off Zanzibar and native infantry it could still be interesting.

    1. Add East Prussia

    Needs more tts in Eastern Europe period; Moscow should be further from Berlin than Moscow. Prussia/Poland & Bulgaria/Greece borders need correcting.

    1. One Round Naval Combat

    Agree. See my thread. Same for air combat.

    1. Increase The Scope

    Yes - bite the bullet and remove the US as a stand alone player power - the Russian player takes over America when Russia has a collapse. Until then US is neutral.

    1. More German U-boats

    And more powerful SW

    1. Eliminate Neutrals

    Can’t agree with this, but neutral rules need tightening up.

    1. Add More Austrians

    Austria is over strength if anything - add more Germans instead!

    1. Make Most Of The Tournament Rules Permanent

    New movement is needed. Rest is still under review… the Collapse “Thresholds” are too fiddly; need to be in reverse, i.e. the income a power need to retain to survive.

    1. Unique Pieces

    I really don’t care about this; it would just make a new edition more expensive. Does anyone really care if a Turkish artillery looks different from an Austrian piece?

    1. Navy Battle Board

    Not needed, especially with one round combat.

    In brief, I was expecting a WWI version of the original A&A: Europe and instead of the steak I got the salmon.  I hope Larry reads this.

    I very much doubt there’ll be another edition; my hunch is that this didn’t sell too well (too expensive?), and there’s little scope for expansions compared to WWII.

    Some of my additions:

    Morale level rather than loss of tt causing collapses, OR Victory cities

    Cavalry units

    Indian builds restricted

    Aircraft at 4 levels, with ability to SBR

    Turkey & Italy start neutral; neutral powers (including USA) do not have a turn - American income 30-35.

    Usable Production Chart/turn tracker

    Map changes too numerous to list, most important being:

    Prussia/Poland & Bulgaria/Greece corrected

    Burgundy erased

    Nejd desert (impassable) added

    TJ divided with Hejaz in the south

    Sevastopol divided with Caucasus in East

    Albania neutral 1 IPC

    SZ 8/9 border changed

    Yorkshire/Scotland border corrected; NB in Scotland not Wales

    SZ 18 expanded to include all Albanian coast

    Rome given Adriatic coastline

    Switzerland 4 IPCs



  • In addition to what you have already listed:

    *Add more sea zones to the Med, sz 17 is ridiculous.

    *Mines, I’m not against them, but the port sz’s should be much smaller where ships are deployed and get free mines IMO (more like a harbor w/mined entrance like sz 18 for Austria, not sz 17 1/2 of the Med for the allies). Not a fan of a mined sz halting enemy ships either (LHTR). I think if the mine didn’t hit you, you should be able to continue on (expand movement phase?). If you had smaller harbor type sz’s though you wouldn’t be stooped in what would be open waters or sea routes though. It might be cool to be able to buy and place mines in other sz’s adjacent to your orig territories (excluding sz w/enemy ports of course). Maybe they should roll a mine dice and a 1 is major damage (sink unless a 2-hit BB), but roll 2 and you have to remain in that sz (need minor repairs, or caught in sub net). Once a mine that was purchased is rolled for then it is removed or needs to be reactivated (home port mines are always active).

    *Straights
    Needs to be a way to at least control surface ships passing through Danish, and Gib straights. Some enemy subs managed to pass through them. Turk straight need to be closed by whom ever controls Constantinople (could split sz 20 into 20a, 20b but only the side that controls Constantinople counts them as one sz in movement).

    *Africa, wouldn’t eliminate it, but defiantly cut it down to expand Europe



  • I’m of the opinion that both mines and unrestricted submarine warfare should be a D12 ala Battle Of The Bulge.

    Mines only hit on a 1 when rolling a D12.

    For USW, having any Central Powers warship or sub adjacent to Britain or Ireland allows you to roll a D12 on both the UK and USA income phases.  You only get one die regardless of how many warships/subs you have.  No diplomatic effects.  That would make a USA Turn 6 declaration playable, since it nerfs their income.



  • Would love some NOs.

    Would like to see Axis navy encouraged.

    Tech? Maybe if they did it a la 50th Anniversary?

    Much improved USW.  I mean, Global did it perfectly.  And it was SUCH  a big deal for Germany in WW1.

    Impassable Switzerland.

    Bigger Western front. And fix the map so that the seam of the boards runs through the Med, and not Europe. Seriously, what the heck?



  • @Flashman:

    @robbie358:

    1)  Eliminate Africa

    Without more units e.g. Askaris it does seem pretty pointless. But more units, a German cruiser off Zanzibar and native infantry it could still be interesting.

    1. Add East Prussia

    Needs more tts in Eastern Europe period; Moscow should be further from Berlin than Moscow. Prussia/Poland & Bulgaria/Greece borders need correcting.

    1. One Round Naval Combat

    Agree. See my thread. Same for air combat.

    1. Increase The Scope

    Yes - bite the bullet and remove the US as a stand alone player power - the Russian player takes over America when Russia has a collapse. Until then US is neutral.

    1. More German U-boats

    And more powerful SW

    1. Eliminate Neutrals

    Can’t agree with this, but neutral rules need tightening up.

    1. Add More Austrians

    Austria is over strength if anything - add more Germans instead!

    1. Make Most Of The Tournament Rules Permanent

    New movement is needed. Rest is still under review… the Collapse “Thresholds” are too fiddly; need to be in reverse, i.e. the income a power need to retain to survive.

    1. Unique Pieces

    I really don’t care about this; it would just make a new edition more expensive. Does anyone really care if a Turkish artillery looks different from an Austrian piece?

    1. Navy Battle Board

    Not needed, especially with one round combat.

    In brief, I was expecting a WWI version of the original A&A: Europe and instead of the steak I got the salmon.  I hope Larry reads this.

    I very much doubt there’ll be another edition; my hunch is that this didn’t sell too well (too expensive?), and there’s little scope for expansions compared to WWII.

    Some of my additions:

    Morale level rather than loss of tt causing collapses, OR Victory cities

    Cavalry units

    Indian builds restricted

    Aircraft at 4 levels, with ability to SBR

    Turkey & Italy start neutral; neutral powers (including USA) do not have a turn - American income 30-35.

    Usable Production Chart/turn tracker

    Map changes too numerous to list, most important being:

    Prussia/Poland & Bulgaria/Greece corrected

    Burgundy erased

    Nejd desert (impassable) added

    TJ divided with Hejaz in the south

    Sevastopol divided with Caucasus in East

    Albania neutral 1 IPC

    SZ 8/9 border changed

    Yorkshire/Scotland border corrected; NB in Scotland not Wales

    SZ 18 expanded to include all Albanian coast

    Rome given Adriatic coastline

    Switzerland 4 IPCs

    Restricted india, more german u-boats and land units, much delayed US entry, what is being given to the allies to balance it out?


  • Customizer

    An enemy with a fighting chance…

    More Russian tts makes it harder to defeat;

    US troops able to move to Siberia to fight the Reds.

    Native troops in Africa should generally favour the Allies.

    On another note, what about allowing new units to be placed in any “homeland” tt, the maximum number in each being its IPC value?

    NB still needed for naval builds
    Capitals still unlimited, can place here if contested
    Non capital tts must be controlled (uncontested) by original owner to be utilized

    India would count as Homeland for these purposes, maybe South Africa & Canada (though why would the UK want to place new units in Canada?)

    Aligned neutrals might be included, but not true neutrals (I’m not having the USA build 4 tanks a turn in Spain!)

    Maybe even extend this to Africa, though this could go hard on Germany.

    Better if African units raised are restricted to Askaris:

    Native (African, possibly UK Arabian units) Infantry
    Cost 2
    Fights only at 1-2, cannot be promoted
    Must be accompanied by a “regular” infantry; i.e. cannot be left as last unit.

    The UK for example would not be able to “spawn” units in empty African tts, but could place one Askari per turn in such a tt if there is a regular UK infantry there. Restoring the German infantry deleted in the PTR (Togo, Kamerun) would restore some balance.

    Indian & Canadian builds would be regular units, as Indian, ANZAC & Canadian troops can be considered equivalent to European divisions.

    The extra unit in Egypt 1/1? might be considered to be ANZACS dropped off by boat.

    Couple more map considerations not mentioned above:

    Africa, Arabia & Persia should be one space movement only (no trains)

    Karelia should not have a naval base in the White Sea



  • First of all this game needs a bigger map!! (historical borders and sizes of tts would be a dream)

    Western front is otherwise not playable.

    Second is to give the CPS more power for a real chance to win the game in 4-6 Rounds…

    I like my home-map with a new Setup: (sorry its all in German i´ll translate it as soon as possible)

    Österreich-Ungarn: 21 IPCs

    Wien: 13 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Böhmen: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Tirol: 2 Infanterie,
    Triest: 2 Infanterie,
    Budapest: 13 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Galizien: 7 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Seezone 18: 1 Schlachtschiff, 1 Kreuzer, 1 Transporter

    Russisches Reich: 25 IPCs

    Finnland: 1 Infanterie  
    Karelien: 1 Infanterie
    Livland: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Polen: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Weißrussland: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Moskau: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Ukraine: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Tatarstan: 3 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Sewastopol: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Kasachstan: 1 Infanterie
    Seezone 12: 1 Schlachtschiff
    Seezone 21: 2 Kreuzer

    Deutsches Reich: 40 IPCs

    Berlin: 13 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie, 1 Flieger
    Kiel: 7 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Ruhr: 7 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Elsaß: 7 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    München: 11 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Hannover: 7 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Schlesien: 6 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Preußen: 6 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Togo: 1 Infanterie
    Kamerun: 1 Infanterie
    Deutsch-Ost Afrika: 1 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Deutsch-Südwest Afrika: 1 Infanterie,  
    Seezone 5: 2 U-Boote
    Seezone 7: 2 U-Boote
    Seezone 10: 1 Schlachtschiff, 2 Kreuzer
    Seezone 26: 1 Kreuzer

    Frankreich: 24 IPCs

    Bordeaux: 1 Infanterie
    Brest: 1 Infanterie
    Lothringen: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Paris: 11 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie, 1 Flieger
    Picardie: 7 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Tunesien: 1 Infanterie
    Algerien: 1 Infanterie
    Franz.-Marokko: Infanterie
    Franz.-Westafrika: 1 Infanterie
    Seezone 15: 1 Kreuzer, 1 Transporter
    Seezone 16: 1 Schlachtschiff, 2 Transporter

    Großbritannien: 30 IPCs

    Schottland: 1 Infanterie
    Kanada: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Indien: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Ägypten: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Sudan: 1 Infanterie
    Britisch-Ostafrika: 1 Infanterie
    Rhodesien: 1 Infanterie
    Südafrika: 1 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Seezone 2: 1 Kreuzer, 1 Transporter
    Seezone 9: 1 Schlachtschiff, 3 Kreuzer, 1 Transporter
    Seezone 19: 1 Kreuzer, 1 Transporter
    Seezone 24: 1 Kreuzer
    Seezone 29: 1 Schlachtschiff, 1 Kreuzer, 1 Transporter

    Osmanisches Reich: 16 IPCs

    Konstantinopel: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Smyrna: 6 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Ankara: 6 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Mesopotamien: 2 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Syrische Wüste: 1 Infanterie
    Trans-Jordanien: 2 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Seezone 20: 2 Kreuzer

    Italien: 14 IPCs

    Piemont: 3 Infanterie,
    Venedig: 7 Infanterie, 3 Artillerie
    Neapel: 1 Infanterie
    Toskana: 3 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Rom: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Libyen: 1 Infanterie, 1 Artillerie
    Somaliland: 1 Infanterie
    Seezone 17: 1 Schlachtschiff, 1 Kreuzer, 1 Transporter

    USA: 20IPCs

    Washington: 6 Infanterie, 2 Artillerie
    Seezone 1: 1 Schlachtschiff, 1 Kreuzer

    1914Balance.png


  • TripleA '12

    If they ever made a 2nd Edition of this game with some of the above changes I would definitely buy it as I still need this one. But the game just seems a bit of a mess to me at the moment. But if no further edition is forthcoming then I will just buy at (one day) and go with all the new rules on here.


  • Customizer

    I appreciate the original post. It was very concise and wrapped up much of what others have been suggesting all over this board.

    I have to say, however, that the responses to this post were disappointing. Allow me throw in my two cents on all posts regarding “fixing” or “balancing” AA1914. I’m not trying to be negative in this post, but I want to give an honest critique of some of the posts I see on here that call for drastic changes to this or that aspect of the game.

    First of all, when I open up a thread and it starts with a yards-long wall of text regarding adding cavalry/gas attacks/railroads/zeppelins/telegrams/supply lines/Mexico/etc./etc./etc., I can’t close the thread fast enough. I, like others, think that the game in its OOB state is not complete. I like tweaks to add realism here and there, but doing a massive overhaul of the rules so that it simulates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the war is inane. This is a high level strategy game. It is not a perfect war simulation. I’m in favor of the added tournament rules, because they add things like rail movement without having to draw little ladder lines all over the board.

    In the introduction of the rules, Larry says explicitly that he’s not trying to represent machine guns and gas attacks in the game, those things are low level aspects. Other things like cavalry and zeppelins had no measurable impact on the war, so it makes sense that these things are not represented.

    Just take a step back, people. The reality is that no one is going to want to play with house rules that require a law degree to master.

    Again, I agree with OP in that we need changes that are realistic to a reasonable degree (correct map, etc.), but we can’t hope for a perfect simulation.


  • Customizer

    Unique Pieces- They’ve had unique pieces for every country in every A&A game since 1999.  What the hell what this all about?  They really mailed this one in.

    Let me also comment on this point, and note that my anger here is directed at WOTC and Larry, whomever is responsible for this debacle.

    I am absolutely confounded as to how this game made it out of the gate in its current state. Every time I open up my Global 1940 games, I’m dumbfounded as to how these games are only $75, and they include many more pieces (quantity) and many different types of pieces (many of them new to G40) and much higher QUALITY pieces (look at the arty pieces in 1914 and 1940 and you’ll see what I mean).

    I mean, 1914 retails for 100 freaking dollars and not only does it not have unique sculpts, but it barely comes with enough pieces to play the freaking game!!

    And if they weren’t planning a second edition as some have suggested (which I tend to believe since it is the centenary and no announcements have been made) then they should have freaking put some freaking unique sculpts in the box for 100 freaking dollars.  :x



  • I first saw this game in Gettysburg last June and they wanted $99 for it… I bought it online on Ebay a couple of months later for $60… Personally I like the game but also agree it needs some tweeking


  • Customizer

    Cavalry had a measuarable impact in that all armies had lots of them, and they were expensive to maintain. Contrary to popular belief cavalry were not all disbanded or converted into infantry regiments, but remained an important element of most armies till the end, and indeed until and including WWII.

    It is still a matter of debate as to Germany’s decision to use all its cavalry on the Eastern front after 1915 cost them the war, as they failed to exploit the breakthroughs of Spring 1918 due to (according to some) a lack of cavalry.

    All of us who’ve contacted Wizards have received a generous supply of extra pieces; as I’ve said I’m not bothered about the lack of unique artillery or cruiser pieces.

    However the game is unbalanced with OOB rules, hence the debate about fixes and tweaks.


  • '14

    @ossel:

    I appreciate the original post. It was very concise and wrapped up much of what others have been suggesting all over this board.

    I have to say, however, that the responses to this post were disappointing. Allow me throw in my two cents on all posts regarding “fixing” or “balancing” AA1914. I’m not trying to be negative in this post, but I want to give an honest critique of some of the posts I see on here that call for drastic changes to this or that aspect of the game.

    First of all, when I open up a thread and it starts with a yards-long wall of text regarding adding cavalry/gas attacks/railroads/zeppelins/telegrams/supply lines/Mexico/etc./etc./etc., I can’t close the thread fast enough. I, like others, think that the game in its OOB state is not complete. I like tweaks to add realism here and there, but doing a massive overhaul of the rules so that it simulates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the war is inane. This is a high level strategy game. It is not a perfect war simulation. I’m in favor of the added tournament rules, because they add things like rail movement without having to draw little ladder lines all over the board.

    In the introduction of the rules, Larry says explicitly that he’s not trying to represent machine guns and gas attacks in the game, those things are low level aspects. Other things like cavalry and zeppelins had no measurable impact on the war, so it makes sense that these things are not represented.

    Just take a step back, people. The reality is that no one is going to want to play with house rules that require a law degree to master.

    Again, I agree with OP in that we need changes that are realistic to a reasonable degree (correct map, etc.), but we can’t hope for a perfect simulation.

    The brilliance of this post cannot be overstated! In a word, it’s all about “abstraction.” I love the mechanics of A&A1914, especially the combat. I thought it balanced, at a high level, the feel of this period. I love zepps (even lead ones), but you are correct, their impact was limited (using them as one example among many).


  • '14

    @Flashman:

    Cavalry had a measuarable impact in that all armies had lots of them, and they were expensive to maintain. Contrary to popular belief cavalry were not all disbanded or converted into infantry regiments, but remained an important element of most armies till the end, and indeed until and including WWII.

    It is still a matter of debate as to Germany’s decision to use all its cavalry on the Eastern front after 1915 cost them the war, as they failed to exploit the breakthroughs of Spring 1918 due to (according to some) a lack of cavalry.

    All of us who’ve contacted Wizards have received a generous supply of extra pieces; as I’ve said I’m not bothered about the lack of unique artillery or cruiser pieces.

    However the game is unbalanced with OOB rules, hence the debate about fixes and tweaks.

    I see where you are coming from cavalry, but it also has to do with the level of their deployment. Pretty much every country had attached cavalry to their infantry corps, but when you represent that with a piece in the game, you are talking representation at a divisional or, probably closer, corps level. Most cavalry divisions, were rougly about 6,000 men in number (depending on nation, give or take) with limited artillery support? So the amount of arses in the saddle is about a half to 2/3s less than boots on the ground at your average division size.  My point isn’t to parse numbers of this and that, but the level of deployment does matter. Arty in the game don’t bother me because they represent a large concentration of artillery as opposed to a set number. But this is something that was pivotal in the war.



  • @ossel:

    I appreciate the original post. It was very concise and wrapped up much of what others have been suggesting all over this board.

    I have to say, however, that the responses to this post were disappointing. Allow me throw in my two cents on all posts regarding “fixing” or “balancing” AA1914. I’m not trying to be negative in this post, but I want to give an honest critique of some of the posts I see on here that call for drastic changes to this or that aspect of the game.

    First of all, when I open up a thread and it starts with a yards-long wall of text regarding adding cavalry/gas attacks/railroads/zeppelins/telegrams/supply lines/Mexico/etc./etc./etc., I can’t close the thread fast enough. I, like others, think that the game in its OOB state is not complete. I like tweaks to add realism here and there, but doing a massive overhaul of the rules so that it simulates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the war is inane. This is a high level strategy game. It is not a perfect war simulation. I’m in favor of the added tournament rules, because they add things like rail movement without having to draw little ladder lines all over the board.

    In the introduction of the rules, Larry says explicitly that he’s not trying to represent machine guns and gas attacks in the game, those things are low level aspects. Other things like cavalry and zeppelins had no measurable impact on the war, so it makes sense that these things are not represented.

    Just take a step back, people. The reality is that no one is going to want to play with house rules that require a law degree to master.

    Again, I agree with OP in that we need changes that are realistic to a reasonable degree (correct map, etc.), but we can’t hope for a perfect simulation.

    Good to see someone else understands the way this game works. As such, I suggest you take a look at the OP of the “Balancing 1914” thread (the thread itself went off topic pretty quickly like you said happens, but the OP is well-written and lists some options that don’t aim to create “1914 Historical Edition” or whatever.

    And in general, instead of posting a wish list and hoping it will be implemented, take some initiative and start testing some of your suggested changes out to see if it helps make the game an actual contest.


  • Customizer

    Well said.


  • Customizer

    Reminder:

    The topic title is “wish list”.

    That includes pretty much anything anyone would like to see, so what’s the beef?


  • Customizer

    @Flashman:

    Reminder:

    The topic title is “wish list”.

    That includes pretty much anything anyone would like to see, so what’s the beef?

    Honestly Flash (can I call you Flash?), I don’t have much of a problem with your posts. For the most part, you just want to make the game slightly more realistic, although you can get carried away at times.

    I didn’t want to point anybody out, but mainly what I’m talking about is posts like this one: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33029.0

    I would need a Sherlock-style board with pins connected by string to decipher this. Nothing against the author, I too have gotten crazy with house rules that I later realized weren’t practical.

    On the other side of the spectrum, I don’t like posters who are opposed to house rules just for the sake of being opposed to house rules. Even if the game is balanced (which it is not), house rules can add flavor and interest. I’ve seen some on this particular forum discourage all forms of house rule talk (cough, IL, cough), and I think this is extreme.

    I’m simply promoting moderation when it comes to game tweaks. Keep in mind that if you want people to play them, house rules have to be fun and somewhat simple. And of course this is a wish list. But the thing that I liked about OP’s post was that I could see his changes actually becoming part of the game.



  • Remove Africa except eqypt Adds nothing to the game and the removal may make it easier to enlarge certain parts of Europe where the board is frankly to small.

    Make Italy completly neutral round1 with its seazone passable Have tried this as a house rule and it works wonders to balance the game.

    Germany may build in Munich Used this as a house rule together with the Italy rule and its nice.


  • Customizer

    What about Turkey neutral until its own turn?

    Could do with the protection from Russia and Britain before it gets started, particularly with the PTR giving Russia extra units in Sevastopol. This would be historical, as Turkey invaded Egypt and the Russian Caucasus after declaring war. Otherwise, it is likely to face the Russians in Mesopotamia and the Brits in T-J and have nothing to do but fall back to defend the capital.


  • Customizer

    Guess what? Map.

    Flashmap.PNG


  • Customizer

    Not particularly relevant, but I wanted to post it anyway.

    JBjpg.JPG


  • '14

    No beef, really. I just draw a distinction between what might foreseeably happen in a new, 2.0 version vs. what would occur with house rules/tweaking.

    Given the WotC delivery on generic sculpts, no cold, hard, IPCs, and the like, I doubt anything like cavalry would make an appearence. Changes in the rules, however, are a more likely thing. Africa, especially, needs some simple but specific rules (ie. restrictive movement, reduced unit attacks/defense, etc.)

    However, they would be something I would consider adding in a house-rule/variant derived from A&A 1914. But they would need to add something significant or unique to the game play. I know that’s been discussed in other threads, and personally, I’m split on the issue. I am more likely to add trains and fortresses to the mix (e.g. the latter did significantly affect the course of the war, such as in Liege or Przemsyl). It gives another focus for artillery/infantry, and siphons off troops from the otherwise attritional wars o’ stacks.

    Point being, I’m just drawing distinctions between “what might” and “would if”. And nothing personal was intended.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 4
  • 30
  • 6
  • 8
  • 7
  • 170
  • 60
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

47
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts