1914 Rules Rework



  • Today, I am announcing that we will be fixing the 1914 rules from what they were.

    I love this game as much as the next guy, dont get me wrong. But, In my favorite game, there are things that do need to be fixed.

    Here is what I have so far:

    Map changes:

    SZ 17 divided to make 2 SZ’s, SZ 17 and SZ 31 Respectively
    SZ 16 divided to make 2 SZ’s, SZ 16 and SZ 32 Respectively

    Prussian Coast Extends over Poland

    Production Zones:

    There will be 3 new production zones added to the board and they work just like India
    They are:

    Munich - 12 Units
    Budapest - 18 Units
    Canada - 12 Units

    Adjusted Neutral rules

    ex. The Nordic Neutrality Pact

    All 3 Nordic Countries(Denmark, Norway, Sweden), at the outbreak of war, signed a neutrality pact. If a power attacks any of the 3 Nordic countries, all 3 will flip against the power that attacked them. They will flip to the UK if invaded by the Central Powers, and the Germans invaded by the Allied Powers.

    Colonial Troops:
    Every turn, at the end of your turn, as long as you have at least 3 territories in Africa, you can place an Infantry unit in one of your originally controlled colonies as long as you own it

    Setup changes:

    German Cruiser added to SZ 26
    UK fighter added to London
    French 3 Infantry and 1 Artillery to Marseilles
    US Transport - SZ 1
    US Fighter - USA

    Italian Neutrality - Round One
    UK Neutrality - Round One(Unless Germany Attacks Belgium)

    US Isolationism:

    US Navy Ships cannot leave SZ 1
    Unrestricted Submarine Warfare brings the US into war one round earlier.

    Unit Changes:

    Cruisers have anti-sub capabilities after round 1
    Mines that hit transports, can now drop what they are carrying to absorb a hit.

    Any suggestions from anyone else?



  • My group played this version three times.  The last time we tried to improve the pacing of the game by allowing rail movement.  It didn’t really fix the core problem with pacing (IMO), which is a function of having 8 turns per round, but did allow reinforcing troops to actually get to the front (instead of taking multiple years to get across their own land, which didn’t really make sense to me).

    Strategic Movement:  Non-combat troop movement through any contiguous territories owned by you (not allies).  SM cannot be used by troops in contested zones (regular 1-zone movement would apply) nor can troops be moved into contested zones using SM.  For historical logistic purposes, SM is banned in Africa, Arabia, Persia and Afghanistan, which places had no modern transport networks.


  • 2019 2018

    For railroads and all that stuff, just play tournament rules. I have found all of the problems i had with the game had been fixed with the tournament rules. The only thing i would add is attrition. Like a way of counting how many units you lost and if you lose a certain number, your homeland threshold value would go down or something like that. And convoys and blockading need to be fixed. Thats about it.



  • I’m a fan of tournament movement rules; I think they resolve a lot of the issues in the original game.  The only additional change I would make is that you can only double move into territories you contest.  I’ve found that to be fairly balanced.  I’ve run several scenarios without that adjustment, even with a decent-sized bid going to the CP and the games are still noticeably unbalanced in favor of the Allies.

    I do like Hunter Jones’ idea of splitting SZ 17 and 16 into two different sea zones.  This update would make the Mediterranean Sea a bit more dynamic.

    I’m indifferent with regard to the Prussian coast adjustment and the Nordic Neutrality Pact.

    With regard to the new production zones, I see this benefiting Germany somewhat, but not so much with the other two.  I’m not a fan of France and England getting more units (given existing balance issues).  I might be okay with a slight adjustment in starting units (for example, England getting that extra fighter) with Germany getting to produce directly out of Munich.

    I’ll have to think about the German cruiser in SZ 26 and the Colonial Troops idea some more.  I’m intrigued.

    I like the idea of England Neutrality turn 1 if Belgium isn’t invaded, though it might also be appropriate to reduce their Turn 1 production if neutral.  Same with Italy.  Austria not attacking Venice on the first turn actually puts Austria at a huge strategic disadvantage.  There needs to be a good payoff for the CP.  If docking Italian production significantly isn’t to one’s liking, another possible method would be to apply the following rule set: 1) Italy is neutral Turn 1, 2) Austria cannot attack Italy and, 3) While neutral, Italy cannot move forces into Venice.



  • @JonathanMeyer:

    I’m a fan of tournament movement rules; I think they resolve a lot of the issues in the original game.  The only additional change I would make is that you can only double move into territories you contest.  I’ve found that to be fairly balanced.  I’ve run several scenarios without that adjustment, even with a decent-sized bid going to the CP and the games are still noticeably unbalanced in favor of the Allies.

    I do like Hunter Jones’ idea of splitting SZ 17 and 16 into two different sea zones.  This update would make the Mediterranean Sea a bit more dynamic.

    I’m indifferent with regard to the Prussian coast adjustment and the Nordic Neutrality Pact.

    With regard to the new production zones, I see this benefiting Germany somewhat, but not so much with the other two.  I’m not a fan of France and England getting more units (given existing balance issues).  I might be okay with a slight adjustment in starting units (for example, England getting that extra fighter) with Germany getting to produce directly out of Munich.

    I’ll have to think about the German cruiser in SZ 26 and the Colonial Troops idea some more.  I’m intrigued.

    I like the idea of England Neutrality turn 1 if Belgium isn’t invaded, though it might also be appropriate to reduce their Turn 1 production if neutral.  Same with Italy.  Austria not attacking Venice on the first turn actually puts Austria at a huge strategic disadvantage.  There needs to be a good payoff for the CP.  If docking Italian production significantly isn’t to one’s liking, another possible method would be to apply the following rule set: 1) Italy is neutral Turn 1, 2) Austria cannot attack Italy and, 3) While neutral, Italy cannot move forces into Venice.

    Thanks for the feedback!

    Ive made an adjustment to the German Fleet in the startimg setup.

    SZ 11 - 1 SUB, 1 TRANSPORT, 1 CRUISER

    SZ 13 - 1 SUB

    SZ 17 - 1 SUB

    New SZ boarders are as follows:

    SZ 16 Divided by a line that goes from the corner by Sardina to the coast of Spain passing just under the Balearic Islands. (Top retains SZ 16, Bottom becomes SZ 32).

    SZ 17 Divided from the boarder of Greece and Albania, runs through Sicily, and the corner of the new SZ 32.

    A new setup will be tinkered with to balance it out.


  • Customizer

    In addition to correcting the Poland/Prussia border note that the Greece/Bulgaria border should be different with Bulgaria having an Aegean coastline.

    Divide “Karelia” tt with a new “St Petersburg” tt in the South with only a Baltic coastline. Karelia retains the Arctic port.

    Switzerland worth 3 and a bigger army.

    I give every power a starting fighter in the capital with G & F having an extra fighter in Munich and Lorraine respectively. In addition, fighters built on subsequent turns increase hit roll +1. Starting fighters have no combat value, those built on round one fight at “1” and so forth up to max 4. Just mark each fighter’s strength on the wings. Maximum 2 rounds for air combat, still the higher number of surviving aircraft that decides air superiority. Only the excess may strafe.

    SZ 18 enlarged to encompass whole Albanian coast.

    Belgian Congo loses coastline and become a “jungle” tt; units attacking it have -1 modifier and cannot apply artillery bonus.

    To give CPs more of a chance:

    1. Lorraine extended south to border Marseilles; Paris moved to where “Burgundy” is now.

    2. Rome extended to have a SZ 18 coastline.

    3. Maximum 4 units built in India per turn.

    Would anyone ever build units in Canada?

    I’m not convinced about UK starting neutral. France only mobilised under the certainty that Britain would join it; Belgium was merely a pretext for Britain to go to war.

    Finally, to make the game playable, replace the combat units with colour coded chips, all but the “topping” infantry piece.



  • New sea zones for the Med.

    1914_SZ31_SZ32.jpg



  • Neutral rule changes:

    Neutral Countries:

    Change IPC values;  SWE 3, NOR 3, GRE 3, DEN 1, SWI 4*

    Rule for invaded Neutrals (2 types)…
    Common Rules
    a)  They mobilize a home guard - all infantry - strictly neutral and for defense only.
    b)  At start of each turn, any violated neutral that is not under control, adds 1 neutral infantry.
    Type 1 - STRICT Neutrals
    c)  They do not get to move or attack and defend against all invading powers, regardless of side.  Regular combat and contested rules apply.  If it happens that both sides occupy the neutral, any attacks must declare if they are attacking the neutral.  If so, the neutral only takes hits that are in excess of any hits that eliminated all units from the other side.
    Type 2 -  BELLIGERENT Neutrals
    c)  They do not get to move or attack and defend ONLY against the original invading side.  Regular combat and contested rules apply only to the invading side.  If it happens that both sides occupy the neutral, any defending by the other side with include the neutral units.  Losses are 1 for 1 between the other side and the neutral, other side takes first loss.
    d)  Immediately at anytime the other side is only side in the violated neutral, the neutral units disband and control goes to the occupying power.
    e)  Once violated, the neutral is always hostile to the original invading side.

    Strict neutrals are SPAIN, AFGHANISTAN, and SWITZERLAND*.
    Belligerent neutrals are SWEDEN, HOLLAND, DENMARK, NORWAY, PERSIA, and ETHIOPIA.
    GREECE is a Strict neutral until the Russian Revolution occurs (the Armistice need not be accepted).  Once that happens, it becomes a Belligerent, and acts so, even if already violated.

    *Or make SWI impassable.


  • Customizer

    These would be my Med changes:

    SzsGjpg.jpg



  • Those are both good ideas, We will have to play test it to see how it works.

    You guys went ham when I was gone, LOL

    All these Ideas look good.



  • Corrected Finland and Prussia/Poland borders.

    ru.jpg



  • @Carolina:

    Corrected Finland and Prussia/Poland borders.

    Perfect, Good Job Carolina.

    These look good. Up vote this to agree with the map changes.


  • Customizer

    St Petersburg tt

    Kronstadtjpg.jpg



  • If St. P. territory to be created, need to adjust Fin and Kar to 1 IPC values.  Also, setup would move KAR inf and 1 LIV art to St. P.  Also adjusting St. P territory to have both naval bases.

    Added Moscow and St. P IPC value 4.  Plus, new build indicators, and Red Flag emblem for Communist Russia capital.

    ru_stp.jpg



  • St. Petersburg…

    I like it. My only question, is this gonna be the Russian Capitol or is Moscow gonna keep the capitol status?



  • To somewhat follow history, St. P should be capital.  So, would suggest the following…

    1. St. P and Moscow both changed to IPC value of 4.
    2. Russian Revolution rule remains same - ie. still Moscow based.
    3. If Russian Revolution occurs (do this before Armistice offered)…
        a)  Moscow becomes the capital for any future turns.
        b)  Any money in the treasury will be used to build in Moscow.
        c)  Moscow is now the new capital and can collect income.
      4)  Once the above completed, then Russia can decide to accept or decline armistice.


  • Nice. That works. Any objections?

    Or should we make Moscow like Bombay, until the revolution fires. Then the roles switch?



  • Change previous artwork to show new IPC values and Communist Russian capital emblem.


  • Customizer

    Mmm, my intention behind splitting Karelia was to prevent re-enforcing St P. from the White Sea, so I intended Karelia (i.e. Archangel) to have the port. Forgot to change the values.

    Its an idea to give every European power double capitals and production centres viz:

    St Petersburg & Moscow
    Berlin & Munich
    Vienna & Budapest
    Constantinople & Ankara
    Paris & Bordeaux* (this with Paris moved to the “Burgundy” tt)
    Roma & Milan
    London & Ottawa?

    *Bordeaux was temporary French capital in the Franco-Prussian conflict and both World Wars.

    I use WWII Russian infantry and control markers for “Red” communist units; they effectively become a fourth Central Powers nation but can only operate within original Russian tt.



  • All of these are great, I would like to point ot that the UK has Bombay already.



  • I like Flashman’s comment on Bordeaux, may wish to consider the rule to allow France to move the capital.

    To somewhat follow history, when Paris was threatened, the French government moved the capital to Bordeaux.   This rule to provide for that action…

    1. If Burgundy or Picardy is under enemy control, at the START of the France’s turn, the player can choose to move the capital  to Bordeaux.

    2. Bordeaux must be in France’s control.
        Paris must be in control or contested.

    3. Once changed, the change becomes permanent for the remainder of the game.

    fr.jpg



  • the changed setup for marseille seems like a big thread for the ottomans, an amphibious attack on constantinople with these 3 inf and 1 art (together with the strong french med navy) followed by an british reinforcement could end mehmeds holy war in round 1.



  • @Chacmool:

    I disagree with the changed setup for marseille. The french could make an amphibious attack on constantinople with these troops (and their big med navy) and the brits could finish the Turks before they even had one turn.

    That would be suicide for the Allies. They would lose a lot of units in the process, and the Ottomans will just be able to take it back.

    Also, we are splitting the SZ’s in the Med.



  • According to the official FAQ for 1914, the designers choose Moscow as the capital of Russia because it would be a more central location, even though it wasn’t historically accurate.To solve this issue, I feel that Russia’s capital should be Petrograd (St Petersburg) and it should have a second production center in Tatarstan (the city of Kazan) representing troops coming from Siberia and the far east, like how the British have Bombay in India. This way Russia has production centers in the north and the south.



  • I kinda like that idea. Ill start a poll.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 31
  • 5
  • 43
  • 15
  • 2
  • 468
  • 1
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

43
Online

14.6k
Users

35.2k
Topics

1.4m
Posts