Like I said, I’m not a great fan of them in WWII games, but I feel that NOs may be more appropriate here.
If the game is true to history, it will be largely dominated by defence. Players may need a little bit more of an incentive to make attacks rather than just sitting in their trenches waiting for the enemy to throw his infantry on their machine guns.
My Allied NOs have some overlap in interests, encouraging the Allied players to work together. For example Russia could hardly secure the Dardanelles without western help, but may have to agree to launch suicidal attacks into Germany in return; the UK may be willing to commit having a large army in France in return for French help driving the Germans out of Africa.
Sacred Ground entices France into attacking Germany in the west while the Germans drive north to secure Belgium. Players are encouraged to divert resources to helping their allies to keep them in the game.
I just have the feeling that the game might be too static without these little prods.
I just have the feeling that the game might be too static without these little prods.
I hear that. Too many A&A games IMO end up being infantry stacks trading territories. I am getting a little sick of that, and I don’t feel it’s very WWII (that’s why I think mech inf were a great attempt at getting away from the stacks). It almost seems like the WWI game should be the slow one, and it would be pretty funny and ironic if the infantry stack/trade goes away in this one.
Bit of a rejig in the name of balance: have given the CPs 4 NOs each, the Allies still have 3 each; the U.S. NOs only activate if/when Russia drops out.
France
Never Forget: France controls the “Rhineland” tt (i.e. Alsace-Lorraine/Western Germany).
Entente Cordiale: At least five UK land units are in a French mainland tt.
Britain
Grand Fleet: There are no CP surface ships north of France/Canada or West of Denmark.
Vital Artery: The Allies control the Suez Canal zone & all adjacent tts & szs.
Britain & France (benefit shared)
Out of Afrika: The CPs control no tts in Africa.
A line in the sand: France occupies Damascus, Britain occupies Baghdad.
Russia
Dardanelles Convoy: The Allies control a solid block of szs from the UK to Crimea/Ukraine via Constantinople. This includes control of the Constantinople tt itself.
The Russian Steamroller: Russia controls East Prussia (German) & Galicia (Austrian) - with Warsaw = “Greater Poland”.
Caucasus Army: Russia controls the “Armenia/Erzerum/Trebizond” tt in Turkey = “Greater Armenia”. Turkey must not occupy Persia.
Italy
Italia Irredenta: Italy controls the Adriatic coast from Venice to Albania (this might exclude Vienna if its tt has a coastline).
Supreme War Council: The UK, France & US combined have at least 5 land units on Italian mainland soil.
Regia Marina: There are no CP warships in the szs bordering Italian tts in Europe and Libya.
USA
AEF: American forces of at least 5 units make one or more land attacks on a European tt.
Battleship Division Nine: At least 2 US battleships/dreadnoughts must be in a sz bordering UK home tt.
Associated Power: All 3 west European Allied powers are still undefeated and in the war.
Germany
High Seas Fleet: The German navy occupies every sz in the North Sea (& Baltic?). Can include subs if there are no enemy surface units present.
A Scrap of Paper: Germany controls Belgium.
Drang Nach Osten: Germany controls at least 3 Russian starting tts OR Warsaw, White Russia, Baltic States.
Mittelafrika: Germany controls a block of tt in central Africa connecting Kamerun, GSWA & GEA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelafrika
Austria
Balkan League: The CPs control all tts in the Balkans, i.e. Europe south of Austria-Russia, including Constantinople.
Adriatic Fleet: Austria has at least one surface ship in the Adriatic.
Lebensraum: Austria controls at least 3 Russian starting tts OR Ukraine, Bessarabia, Crimea.
Sacred Piave: Austria controls the tt of north east Italy/Veneto.
Turkey
The Caliphate: Turkey controls all tt in Anatolia and Arabia.
Berlin-Baghdad Railway: The CP controls a continuous block of tt from Berlin to Baghdad including Constantinople as a land bridge.
Army of Islam: Turkey controls Russian “Caucasus” tt and Persia, possibly also “Turkestan” tt.
Return of the Khedive: Turkey restores the Khedive to the rule of Egypt by capturing Cairo.
http://wikiworldwarone.wikispaces.com/Austro-Hungarian+War+Aims+%26+Domestic+Politics+in+World+War+I
Slightly modified the above list; a couple of joint British/French NOs.
Also considering what happens if Italy joins the CPs:
Italy: delete Irredenta & SWC;
add “Adowa Avenged”: Italy controls Abyssinia
& “Nizza et Savoia”: Italy controls southern and/or eastern France
Austria: delete Piave
http://harmonia.meccahosting.com/~a0007389/page0/page4/files/War Aims.pdf
I just have the feeling that the game might be too static without these little prods.
I hear that. Too many A&A games IMO end up being infantry stacks trading territories. I am getting a little sick of that, and I don’t feel it’s very WWII (that’s why I think mech inf were a great attempt at getting away from the stacks). It almost seems like the WWI game should be the slow one, and it would be pretty funny and ironic if the infantry stack/trade goes away in this one.
The massive infantry stacks could be eliminated in 1 of three ways:
1. Introduce the concept of stacking limits.
2. Place limits on the quantity of units that each nation can have deployed on the map at any one time.
3. Supply lines. If a quick armored thrust could pocket your huge stack of slow moving infantry, you would think twice about massing them all together.
Another factor is the 3 vs 1 lineup on the western front; that is France, Britain and later America each having a turn in succession between German turns. To be fair there’d have to be a way for Germany to reinforce its stack between turns.
Another factor is the 3 vs 1 lineup on the western front; that is France, Britain and later America each having a turn in succession between German turns. To be fair there’d have to be a way for Germany to reinforce its stack between turns.
Perhaps Germany could play separate turns for the eastern and western fronts, allowing them to transfer reinforcements from one front to the other during NCM.
Another factor is the 3 vs 1 lineup on the western front; that is France, Britain and later America each having a turn in succession between German turns. To be fair there’d have to be a way for Germany to reinforce its stack between turns.
Perhaps I am not understanding the stacking limit (only played D-Day once and that was years ago); would it be the case that the allies COMBINED are limited? If that were the case, I don’t think Germany would need a special rule.
Sadly I think, from what he’s been saying on HGD, that Larry is very reluctant to change anything about A&A other than battle board mechanics. His refusal to seriously consider rail movement will severely handicap the Central Powers, who’ll be unable to shift forces from front to front as they did in the war.
The Allies are much less affected as they rely largely on sea transport for troop movement.
His solution will probably be to simply give Germany more infantry to hold the areas. The best solution would be that all the western Allies play at the same time, but again this is too radical for Larry.
but again this is too radical for Larry.
And that is why we use house rules. :-)
I’m starting to look forward to the ideas that come once the game is out.
Flashman, you are not the only one that dislikes NOs. I would prefer them being optional or not part of A&A games. They are super clumsy to keep track of and, from our experiences, detract from the enjoyment instead of adding. Now, if each nation had one NO that would be great.
Yea, one NO or two at the most. Not six each.
Its to do with limited war aims; in WWII version the aim is nothing less than occupying the enemy’s home tt. In WWI, where this is much less likely, its a case of more and smaller objectives, hence NOs like the 2 African examples. I’m concerned that otherwise player will just sit tight and let the enemy burn himself out.
One of the nice things about NO’s is that they can make the game about something other than building up a big enough infantry stack to take a capital. They give incentive to have more fighting more places.
On the other hand, perhaps National Objectives and Victory Conditions could be one and the same thing?
That is, if we take my example of 12 per side, if at any time one side fulfills X* number of NOs, then they win the game.
*Players deciding on the number needed for victory.
Perhaps this steers things a little too much towards historical battle fronts, but you can still decide to leave a couple out if, say, the VC is ten NOs.
Even so, its got to be better than the old “capture 2 enemy capitals” rule that made some old versions of Axis and Allies so predictable.
Yea but when the Capitals of France, England, Austro-Hungary, Germany, Ottomans, Italy, and probably Russia are occupied…they surrender.
France surrendered when Germany too Sedan in 1870, they definitely surrender if Paris falls. Actually they surrender as soon as they get shipment of white flags to be honest.
They in some cases surrender earlier where the rules could cover.
Not one of those capitals was captured in WWI despite over four years of mass slaughter.
If it happens on a regular basis in the game then isn’t the game broken as a depiction of WWI conditions?
Also, my experience of A&A is that if the rule is used whereby a country surrenders or loses all money/production when the capital falls, then the entire game becomes all about capturing the capitals. That is not WWI.
Not one of those capitals was captured in WWI despite over four years of mass slaughter.
Thats correct but if they did, the nation would fall. It just happened that they fell before.
Right, because in this war a nation would collapse internally before the enemy was likely to get near to the capital.
Hence my suggestions for alternative victory conditions.
Well not for France. The goal was Paris and the French would collapse only if it falls.
Some nations have to have the capital fall, others probable loss of substantial income.
