Oh shoot, sorry, you’re right, I read it wrong.
Bombay Strategy - that leads to victory for the CPs
-
@DoManMacgee Yes, only the Out Of Box rules, including the Russian Revolution.
-
@Ragnell804 @DoManMacgee, Sounds good. I will try to work out multiplayer then I will contact you guys.
-
How exciting!! If these games are on the forum I’ll keep a close eye on them.
-
@King_Of_Tanks Would rather do 2 1v1 games than multiplayer just so I can get through it faster. If you don’t want to juggle games I can wait until after you’ve played against @Ragnell804
EDIT: Goofed on tagging the other guy you’re playing against. Still prefer 1v1 over multiplayer though, sorry.
-
I would prefer a 1v1 vice multiplayer.
-
I was going to DM you but figure I would make this public.
Everyone in this thread has played many, many games of 1914 as have I. I personally can say I have seen and implemented a version of what you’re talking about as the CP and fought against a version of this strategy as the Entente - but it was not and won’t be your version of it.
For what it’s worth, I applaud your intestinal fortitude for coming here and positing your strategy. I’m happy to see that the reactions from the 1914 crew has been so supportive. This is not so for other corners of this forum for other versions of axis and allies - and that is to their loss.
Whatever happens in your game(s) - weather you crush the Entente or are crushed by them - I strongly recommend playing at least three or four games against whoever will take you on. Fine tune and adjust your strategy between games. I’ve learned far more in games where I lost than those where I win. Make an adjustment here or there and go again. What I’m saying (hoping) is that you don’t pack it up after an initial loss or declare the strategy a game winner on the first win. The only way this game stays fresh and interesting is for those who think differently to play out ideas in the spirit you’ve shown here. Best of luck in your games! I may be available in about a month if you’d like to play.
-
@The_Good_Captain @King_Of_Tanks Well said, TGC. I am always glad to discuss the game with people who are willing to openly and amicably do so, and I appreciate everyone here who is both friendly and experienced. And I’ll echo the last post and say that I am glad this thread was brought up as well (I hope my initial skepticism wasn’t taken as cavalier dismissal; I am genuinely intrigued). I also will be open to a game later on, starting in mid-November.
-
@The_Good_Captain Thank you for your reply! I understand what you are saying and it can sometimes be very difficult to stick to a strategy after being crushed by the enemy (haha). I expect that other people have tried this strategy before, it’s just fun trying it myself with hope of finally winning as the Central Powers without having to play for days, or even weeks, just to achieve the edge over the opponent.
-
@King_Of_Tanks Hi, still looking for opponents? I’d happy to challenge your CP strategy as the Entente. I’d love to see some new strategies in this game.
-
@VictoryFirst I am currently playing against DoManMacgee and then I will be playing against Ragnell804, but then I can verse you, l’ll let you know when.
-
Great, sounds good to me.
-
I’ve only played 1914 No Mans Land (NML) online. It must be very different from the OOB version, as NML centers around G trying to take Paris by G5. If that succeeds, then Entente concedes. If G can’t take Paris early, then Paris becomes too strong and the focus switches to CP (Austria & Turkey) taking Serbia, Greece and Mecca and trying for Rome, and G trying to push UK out of central Africa. Baluchistan is the goal for UK to build an IC and Turks to capture it. Bombay is too far into India.
-
Yeah, very different. Play centers around the Central Powers first beating Russia as quickly with as few losses as possible (either by Revolution or capital capture), then turning their guns on Paris and, if necessary, Rome. The Bombay strategy offered above instead proposes the Central Powers capturing the one territory of India as the UK can build unlimited amounts of units out of it and crush the Ottomans that way. Africa is mostly negligible unless the Allies screw up and let the Ottomans in.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato NML emphasizes the Schlieffenn plan. G must smash Paris quickly, basically G5 or it won’t happen. A disciplined G player can mostly ignore every other theater of operation and get superiority if F and UK don’t also put everything into Paris defense.
Most G players don’t go all out for Paris, and so usually don’t attack because they don’t have the odds. Most F and UK players don’t go all out defense in first four rounds, giving G a chance.
So, game usually shifts to Turk breakout in Cairo and sometimes G breaking out against UK in Central Africa. UK and F have very large income from many tiny value colonies.
The quality of the players usually determines whether Entente wins or not. It’s hard for CP to make up the income gap. But good CP players can win taking Paris or even without taking Paris. -
@FMErwinRommel I think the game you’re describing is a TripleA fan-game that’s more in-line with core series rules. 1914 is an official release from ~2017 that, despite the A&A name, plays very differently from normal A&A in an attempt to simulate trench warfare.
-
Agreed.
Suggested Topics
