Anything new, Coach?
Posts made by xxstefanx
-
RE: Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread
Are you allowed to build if your capitol is contested?
-
RE: Tweaking fleets to historical ratios
Correct!
Just got away with my own game in which the whole SZ on the British North-East Coast is named “Firth of Forth” including Scapa FLow.
Sorry for confusion! -
RE: Tweaking fleets to historical ratios
Too many DNs makes shore bombardment FAR too strong!
I agree with Flashman for UK:
3 DNs Home Fleet, 1 in the Med;
all other nations accordingly!Without detailed check IL’s numbers seem fine!
(I would distribute submarines differently though) -
RE: Tweaking fleets to historical ratios
Okay, here is something I don’t get. You divided total battleships by 10 to get roughly what should be in the game setup, yet you divided the total cruisers by 15. Why the different numbers for the two types of ship?
It would be more logic to divide by 4 or multiples of that. So 8, 16, 32 would be more appopiate numbers.
UK:
Full Cruiser Squadron = 4 Ships
Full Destroyer Flottilla = 8 ShipsDIfferent number are correct as more powerful ships are accompanied by larger numbers of lesser types.
Say 4 DNs, 8 CR, 16 DS -
RE: Tweaking fleets to historical ratios
If you want to expand the history lesson you can also discuss LOCATION!
Example UK:
-> The Indian fleet did not possess any DNs!
-> UK sent a big pre-DN-fleet in the Meditteranean for Gallipoli, the main Grand Fleet was stationed in Scapa Flow.So - of course - no Indian DN!
One DN piece (representing the Pre-DNs) in the Med en route to Alexandria, 2 or 3 DNs depending on how many you want to give them in the Firth of Forth. -
RE: What is your bid?
For conversion take 2 Pre-Dreadnoughts as 1 Dreadnought!
Battlecruisers as a seperate unit or as Dreadnoughts (if you want to skip them for now!)
Cruisers in a 1-2-3 ratio.
@Uncrustable
USA should only get 1 DR.
IT does not reflect actual strength if all that divides G and USA would be 1 Ds!Subs should get a far lower ratio as they were virtually unmatched for the first 2 years of the war. In fact there were almost no means to fight them.
For example: UK used over 200 destroyers in the Med, North Sea and Atlantic to hunt them and all that this enormous “fleet” managed in 2 years was sinking 3(!) subs (the other German sub losses were caused by mines or accident!). ASW like Hydrophones and Depthcharges were introduced 1916, convoy escort even 1917.Give Germany 2 or 3.
Give Uk 2 or 3 (but only 1 high seas sub!)
Give France 1 or 2 (if 2 one coastal) -
RE: What is your bid?
Ottomans got one BC (Goeben) and on LC (Breslau) from Germany and that tipped the balance in the Black Sea slightly in their favour!
@KimRYoung
The overwhelming majority of UK Submarines were obsolete, unfit for high seas operations. Did you ever see pictures of their older models? They could hardly sail a mile away from the shore! :-DAgain, do not simply count units!
For this game historical accuracy surely was not in the focus!
So at this point I think changing the French Dreadnought to a cruiser and remove one transport should be enough for now to play some games and see how things go!Apropos historical accuracy: My next big post in my C&E thread will handle that and make some remarks to the setup!
-
RE: HBG WW1 Set
As there will be a new specifically designed French set for WWI simply make it perfect! :-D
This way there will be no need for improvisation! -
RE: What is your bid?
One must not forget the Battlecruisers!
Though nominated “Cruisers” they could hardly be seen as one! In fact, they were fast Battleships:
Slightly less armour, but superior speed. They could outrun all dreadnoughts so that they were used in separate scouting squadrons with massive firepower!
(see Doggerbank or Jutland for instance)In terms of a game they are supposed to be a new WWI specific unit type with the following stats:
A=4, D=4, M=3, Hits 1,5, Cost same as dreadnoughtOf course this would only be for a next BIG global WWI game with diplomacy, technology, cavalry, etc.!!
(I assume A&A 1914 is a success already!) -
RE: What is your bid?
For those interested in the correct figures of the combatants here are the 2 essential reading recommendations:
Military strength, battle orders, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-War-Databook-Combatants/dp/1854107666/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365933457&sr=8-1&keywords=World+War+I+databookEconomic strength:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-World-War-I/dp/0521107253/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365933639&sr=1-1&keywords=economics+of+World+War+I -
RE: What is your bid?
Some stats on naval power in 1914:
Total tonnage of naval strength:
British: 2.2 Million
Germany: 1.0 Million
France: 0.7 Million
Russia: 0.3 Million
Austria-Hungary: 0.2 MillionBritish military doctrine at the time was to be able to field a navy that was greater than any two other powers combined. (This is partly why the German naval build-up, although still far less than the British naval power, was so threatening.) A&A is a game, you have to balance it and make it interesting, but the lack of British naval power, especially relative to the other powers, is a little bit off.
Simply counting tonnage does not suffice to reflect naval power of the nations.
1. It was the time of Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers! These mostly defined naval power!
-> Figures in August 1914:
Dreadnoughts: UK: 22, Germany: 15, USA 10, France 8, Austria-Hungary 6, Italy 3, Russia NONE (again: NONE!!!)
Battlecruisers: UK 9, Germany 5 (all others none)2. Many ships were too old already thus being regarded as “unfit for high seas duty!”
-> This is especially true for Russia and Turkey, but also for France and UK (almost all their submarines were old “garbage” and could only be used as costal submarines!).Naval power UK:G in the North Sea was about 3:2.
Behind those 2 powers: Long time nothing! Then USA! -
RE: HBG WW1 Set
Thx for clarifying!
This definately adds even more flavour to the coming set! :-) -
RE: HBG WW1 Set
Can anybody please answer to my post directly and specifically say:
The HBG Light Blue set in reality looks like in the link under “Light Blue” in my previous post and not the one under the bold sentence?
That would easily clear the issue!
Thx in advance! -
RE: HBG's Amerika Game ON KICKSTARTER NOW - FUNDED!
@Imperious:
Watch the thickness of the legs. They ( the Japanese Para and this German) look kinda chubby in the legs.
Well observed, IL!
Thinner legs/boots and the sculpt would be perfect! -
RE: HBG WW1 Set
I am a little confused now!
Am I correct that there are actually 2 blue colours from HBG?
First OOB Blue:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Battle-Pieces–Allies-Supplement-set-French-Blue_p_1382.htmlSo this would be one of the 9 colours for playing with 1914 OOB pieces.
AND
Light Blue:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Battle-Pieces--Allies-Supplement-set-Light-Blue_p_1132.htmlThis should be the 2nd of the 9 colours for complete replacement for more historical feel!
Can someone who bought the set can confirm that the set indeed looks like pictured in the link above and NOT relatively turquoise like in this picture:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Battle-Pieces–WW2-Neutrals-Basic-Set-Light-Blue_p_717.htmlIt would be really nice to have this clarified!
-
RE: HBG WW1 Set
Is it a glitch that the second picture looks darker and relatively turquoise?
Is it really a clear LIGHT BLUE as in the first picture?I mean the WWI French are supposed to be Horizon Blue!
So if you do not want to aim matching it perfectly - regarding costs for an additional, but only slightly different colour maybe - the light blue in the first picture would do fine enough! -
RE: Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread
USA
1. AM i allowed to move US ships into a SZ containing Allied ships?
2. If the CPs attack those SZ will the US ships defend with the Allied ships?
3. Does this trigger US war entry? -
RE: HBG WW1 Set
The Light Blue colour of this HBG set is (almost) perfect for the French WWI set! Very, very close to the Horizon Blue of the French Army:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Battle-Pieces–Allies-Supplement-set-Light-Blue_p_1132.htmlThe Light Blue of the HBG Neutrals set on the other hand looks far too turquoise:
http://www.historicalboardgaming.com/HBG-Battle-Pieces--WW2-Neutrals-Basic-Set-Light-Blue_p_717.htmlPlease make sure you get the colour right!
-
RE: Yet another 1914 game report
Brief thoughts �
The RR rules being what they are, we�ve decided to not play with them for the time being. Having said that, while they certainly are open to abuse by the Allies, I think they on balance favor the CP.From the threads I have been reading, the only CP wins seem to be when the Russian Revolution was in play. Without it, Russia just seems to be a complete disaster. They have the ability to either turtle in Moscow with 60-70 units, or run around hitting stacks.
Or if they know the inevitable is likely they can even take their massive stack of units and head south and obliterate the Ottoman army without repercussions.
It seems odd that even though the rule is “optional”, it’s almost a necessity for the CPs to even stand a chance.
It is not odd, but logical that the RR rule must be in play.
In fact it cannot work for both variants to be balanced! Impossible!
On another note a WWI game without RR (rules) isn’t a WWi game for me!