@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Bombadill10:

I have read much of this thread, but not all of it I will admit this right away.�  I have a question then everyone can get back to the Historical point in which the US should enter into the game.

I have always wondered what incentive the US player has for NOT entering the war.�  From an “in game” perspective the US stands to gain much from being declared war upon and entering into conflict with an Axis Power.�  They can assist the Allies with their ecomony (which blossoms when at war) and the US player finally gets to join in the fun, rather than being a spectator.

SO…. If your the US, why wouldn’t you be chomping at the bit to get into the action?�  Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war?�  I know it seems ridiculous, sure laugh, but what if the US never entered the war.�  Just a thought I figured I would throw at the collective for an opinion.�Â

I understand that this would require an almost rebuild of many aspects of the game, but I was curoius if anyone had thought, heard, or condidered in the past.

I think it has a chance at being pretty cool. It can also be quite historical if the German player is VERY conservative with how he or she uses his or her submarines. Would it be a little hard to balance and require a lot of other changes? Sure. But one factor that helps the balance is that if Germany does not provoke the US, they are also most likely not strangling Britain. So a US-less war would have a stronger UK.

It would be a cool balance challenge to make a more historical game.

Yea I thought so too.  Intresting game with a stronger UK and no US.  Thanks for the input.

I have often felt that WotC has lacked a strong plan for the Axis & Allies brand. There’s SO much more that they could do to market (at low cost too). Consider the way they’ve invested D&D Encounter and the Game Finder webpage. A similar investment in the A&A brand could do wonders for insuring a healthy A&A market for the future.

The pathetic official webpage is a dismal representation of any business plan that they have at WotC/Hasbro for developing the brand.

@Flashman:

Germany did a lot of trade with adjacent neutrals, especially the Netherlands and Sweden, so maybe Germany gets a certain ammount of IPCs from these without having to invade.Â

That will be interesting. It seems like a Norway-Denmark NO-type rule would be good, except supposedly the game was said not to be complex enough for NO’s. Maybe to avoid confusion one of the German seaside territories will have a larger than expected income. I’m not sure if the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare phase will be for more than just Germany, but if it were, then the allies could take out the “convoy” between Scandinavia and Germany.

Hey Flashman, you are well informed and have good ideas BUT I can assure you that these thoughts will lead to complex rules which Larry would like to prevent especially for this initial release which is supposed to bring some numbers in!

I am curious how he avoids some of your described problems but we will see.

In an advanced game/collector’s editon whatsoever things might be different!

The thing is $65 bucks, just order on preorder. That price is not bad.

Major Johnnie Gresham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOz-u0GbGyY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=43PyX21dZsY

@DarthShizNit:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Yavid:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Yavid:

There is no way to balance the game and have Italy be able to swing.

Sure there is. You just need to have the side it ends up on be determined by an investment of IPC, and whoever loses gets their IPC “invested” back.

Conceptually this would be along the lines of making promises to Italy and then if they don’t have Italy on their side, they don’t have to fulfill the promises.

Another way to do it would be to tie Italy’s entry as CP to preposterous, unlikely success against France, which would also be tied to an even earlier US entry.

Obviously it’s not easy, but to say their is “no way” is exaggerating just a bit too much.

How about no way to make the game historical and balance with an Italy that swings.

If we assume that thereis no way that Italy would have joined the CP, then I would agree with you.

Which is what we do looking at the political scene in Italy in 1915.

Funny that that game starts in 1914 then.

I don’t know why Larry doesn’t do an expansion pack for A&A. Better Tech chart, Tech Units, set-up changes for each year, NA for each nation there’s so much they could do with 1 expansion it’s insane.

@WILD:

@Old:

@Imperious:

Larry said no GAS.

When this hits our table there will be Gas Rules. :evil:

OD

Old Dwarf, does your group eat to many coney’s in Jersey?

Jersey Gas Rule:
Lift a cheek and say gas attack, and the enemy loose 3 inf LOL

I put the word “Rules” to try to head off the obvious comments :-D
but it is a small game room however Beer belches are more the norm.

OD

What happens to POWs in the event of a country dropping out of the war? An article in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk provides for the exchange of prisoners between the former enemies:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/brestlitovsk.htm

This led to a large number of German prisoners returning home, and inevitably many were redirected into the military depots to be recycled for the front.

In general, then, how to represent in more depth the consequences battles?

Descriptions of such usually describe figures in terms of number of casualties (killed, wounded and taken prisoner), and the number of guns captured (often running into hundreds in large battles, since retreating gunners would leave intact hardware behind).

To what extent were captured artillery put to use? There are examples, the main problem being the production of compatible ammunition, since different pieces used differing calibers of shell.

What percentage of “destroyed” infantry can be regarded as being taken prisoner?

What percentage can be regarded as wounded? (I’m thinking wounded infantry can be sent back to their depots to be recycled.)

Some suggested ways of reflecting the greater mobility of war in 1918:

Tank bonus - it seems the morale effect of tanks was much greater than their actual combat ability. Yes, they could break through enemy lines, but mechanical unreliability meant that they could rarely exploit the advantage; rather, accompanying infantry felt more confident with tanks leading their advance. So, rather than tanks being that much more powerful in attack, how about something like:

For each tank involved in an attacking army, one accompanying basic infantry attacks at 2. This can apply on each successive round of combat if the tank/infantry ratio is maintained.  The bonus does not apply in defence. This seems to me more appropriate than the inf/art bonus from A&A; artillery did not move forward with the troops in this way.

I’m more than ever convinced of the validity of some kind of supply rule, particularly in regard to artillery. Very often armies could advance only at the rate at which they could keep their artillery supplied with shell.
I also feel that different kinds of shell are significant: armour piercing against tanks, gas shell versus infantry. But perhaps more significant than either of these is smoke shell, which was increasingly used to simulate the benefits to the attack of fog; effectively cancelling out the advantage of entrenched defences.

This game has something similar:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/42020/the-war-of-the-empires-1914-1918

One thing here is that some cards can bring neutrals into the war. Problem is some countries would only ever join one side, it depends on if you have a separate deck for each side.

So, evidently, does this:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/647906/a-solo-learning-campaign-game-with-photos

Well, Africa was the site of several campaigns throughout the war, and those territories were important in the overall “clash of empires”-vibe that really defined the beginning of WWI.  From what I have read, only the Western Front bogged down into extensive trench warfare, and that area is where it shall be a matter of yards.  The Eastern Front and Africa will be more mobile, I would imagine.  Otherwise, as you stated, Shakespeare, that really would be utterly impractical unless Larry stays true to his tendency for really wildly skewed map projections.