In essence, this is what the game is all about. Allies have to balance the advantages of mutual defence against the need for large one-nation forces in attack.
Concept of movement from contested territories
RE: The restrictions of movement. In general I think the rules are great - it is a big part of the strategy to use a small force to tie up a large force - BUT, it seems just wrong that 1 INF unit could can tie up a force of 10, 20, … units!!!
SO, have question on design, if anyone knows, was there any thought to allow units in excess of 3, 4, 5 times the strength of the enemy to NOT be restricted in their movement away from a contested territory. ie. 1 INF unit would only restrict 5 enemy units in their movement, any others above and beyond are free to push through and continue the attack.
No, there wasn’t. A single unit controlling an area has been a feature of A&A games from the beginning.
Yes, that is true. But, contested areas are unique to 1914. Though, even overruns in WW2 games must be free of units.
This suggests surrender rules as an alternative:
If, at the end of combat, one side’s forces outnumber the enemy say 4:1 or greater they are considered to have taken control of the region and the surviving enemy units are taken prisoner.
When a nation is eliminated/collapsed it must release all POWs held which are sent to the original owner as per purchased units, assuming that nation is still active.
Should probably include land units only.
Yes, it eliminates the idea of a single courageous unit digging in to hold on against overwhelming odds, but this was a war of numbers and greater numbers eventually told even against entrenched positions. Is it realistic for a single Italian unit to hold up the entire Austro-Hungarian army in Venice? This is how Hitler and Stalin expected soldiers to behave in 1941-5, but is not authentic for 14-18.
Personally I like the whole contested concept in 1914 as making this a&a game so different to the ww2 ones. Vive la difference!