Is Germany screwed?

[BJCard]

Flashman,
You are right… We will just have to live with many abstract things for games on such a strategic level.

[Spendo02]

@Flashman:

Its one thing to tamper with income levels to create balance, I’ve no objection to that.

But pretending that infantry walked, and tanks drove across the world towards battle fronts is warping us into a parallel universe.

You could always design your own game ;)

[WILD BILL]

Flash, I don’t disagree that rail could have been part of this game, and has been widely used since the 1800’s in many wars. I think that rail could be part of AA, and I would love to see that mechanic in a future AA game for any era (hopefully it will happen). As a side note IL will probably take full credit for the idea though, leaving you hanging in the wind LOL.

To work as a game mechanic rail would probably need to be printed on the map for the regions that had a good network, be able to be SBRed, and not just a general rule for NCM. It would probably benefit the bad guys more, so there would most likely need to be something to off set it for the allies. Maybe in the form of UK getting the ability to mobilize a limited number of units (inf) from the Commonwealth w/o ICs (or something).

In this 1914 game there is going to be a delicate scale of balance (like all AA games), and Germany will be the axis of that scale IMO. Germany will need to be careful not to overload one front, and ignore the other for to long, and will most likely be working the French front w/o much help. The way the game is set-up moving units at a faster rate (rail) would throw that balance off IMO. It’s about game mechanics and balancing it, and rail didn’t make it in this edition (get over it).

Historically Germany was thinking that they could drop France quickly enough to switch gears to the Russian front before they fully mobilized. Kinda like what happened in WWII (yeah Italy screwed them in both wars LOL). Yes rail was part of that plan traveling from one front to the other with-in a relatively short span (I get that), but if allowed to, it would give the CP to much of an advantage in this game because the way that this game engine works IMO.

When the game starts, as the CP you know that the above isn’t going to happen because of the game mechanics (one round of battle). The French front is going to get stuck in the mud, and be pretty stagnant. You will be required to keep a steady flow of units pouring into the trenches so that the French (with UK) don’t gain ground and ratchet up their income for more units. French units come into the game (Paris) much closer to the front in the beginning then Germany (Berlin) because the front is on French soil (as Flash pointed out). As the Germans you need to keep that line though, because you can’t afford for the French (w/help of UK) to gain ground and ratchet up their income (more units near the front).

You also know there is a Russian revolution rule (4th turn at the earliest) that is based on how hard you (Germany) and the rest of the CP push that front. The game mechanics force the Germans to have a good balance of units going in both directions (they won’t be able to overload one side or the other IMO). You (flash) say that the CP need a rail system to jump from one side to the other in a couple turns, I think it’s quite the opposite in this game (because of the other mechanics). You can’t allow the Germans to go full throttle against the Russians the first 4 turns to force them out of the game because your left over units will return to save Berlin quickly. You can’t allow the Germans to play mostly defense against the French/UK. Again as you have pointed out Berlin is a long way from the opening front, and it would take the French a while to get close to the German capital. In that case the Germans would be mobilizing near the front, and the French have the logistics problem (it is a double edge sword IMO).

I kinda like that this will be a slower paced game as far as movement. It gives a new depth that has been missing IMO, and I think you may share it. In most games you can buy slower units early, and mechanized units later and go all in w/o having a reserve force, or reinforcements coming up. This game doesn’t allow that, as you will have a constant flow of reserves flowing in (I like that).

I know a couple of things have bugged you in past games Flash.

1. Tanks/mech moving twice as fast as inf knowing they would all be NCM at the same pace because of rail. Problem solved, because now there is no difference in movement (watch what you wish for LOL). It does provide for a constant flow of reserves though, which is a little more realistic isn’t it?

2. Being able to take over enemy ICs and produce units in what would be perceived as using the enemies factories (factories that would have been burnt to the ground in most cases). This game doesn’t allow for you to use your enemies production centers (that I’m aware of anyway), so we have made some progress haven’t we?

As a side note Flash, you have been at the forefront of not having the ability to use enemy ICs, or build your own IC on enemy soil to mobilize your own units (I get that, it would be unlikely to happen because of scorched earth etc…)  You have also been trying to pioneer rail into the game for as long as I can remember. I know the thought process and theories behind both mechanics, but don’t they both basically do similar things.

An IC built on, or captured on enemy soil would allow you to mobilize fresh units near that front, but there is a slight delay before you can use it (next turn for captured could be longer if it is traded, two turns if you build one). Rail would allow you to quickly move your units built back in your own production centers to, or near the front (somewhere between 3-5 spaces I’m guessing). Theoretically the IC on enemy soil could be a gathering point for your units that are railed or flown in from your production centers, rather then an actual factory building them. I’m not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that theoretically they are similar as far as units getting to the action that’s all. I understand the logic behind both are different, and w/rail you would probably be able to disrupt enemy movement etc….

[oztea]

Technically new ICs are railheads or ports where units and supplies arrive from the home country (when they are built)
Problem is, why cant you move units you already have like this? Why can only new recruits be sent to the muster site?

Perhaps if ICs allowed units to be built at OR units to teleport to (as long as you hold a chain of territories to it)

When Germany captures Ukraine, why cant units they already have shuttle there? Why are only fresh troops shuttled there?

Should captured industry only be allowed to build infantry?

[Imperious Leader]

If you change the rules for movement you ruin the setup.

How bout just playing the game as is…… before trying to fix it?

The game has not been proven to be a good or poor design. Give it a chance right?

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

If rail movement is a must for you (general) playing this game, with a little work at setup adjustments you can get a decent game going.

But let’s remember that the absence of rail movement doesn’t screw Germany from a balance perspective unless the playtesting was done with rail movement helping Germany and then the movement was removed without any other adjustments.

The game would be cooler with it, but if Germany is screwed balance-wise, it’s not because of the absence of rail movement.

[Flashman]

I’ve played too many A&A WWII games that have been ruined for me by the same thing.

Admittedly, more so than this will be because of the crazy system of tanks moving twice as fast as infantry, even though according to Larry they do, in fact, both move by rail (in an abstract kind of way).

OK, I’ll try OOTB, but all the while I’ll be asking “why can’t your units move straight to the front? What the hell happened to the damned trains? You all realize Germany is screwed, don’t you?”

I’ll laugh in the faces of opponents who triumphantly march into Moscow, only to realize that they’ve stranded the bulk of their forces where they can never be of any use again.

Then I’ll be able to tell you all I told you so.

@Imperious:

If you change the rules for movement you ruin the setup.

How bout just playing the game as is…… before trying to fix it?

The game has not been proven to be a good or poor design. Give it a chance right?

[WILD BILL]

@Imperious:

If you change the rules for movement you ruin the setup.

How bout just playing the game as is…… before trying to fix it?

The game has not been proven to be a good or poor design. Give it a chance right?

Hmm, same quote, different response LOL. Don’t think you can judge a game in a bad light because all the things on your personal X-mas list didn’t make it.

I agree 100% w/IL and most would see it that way (strange I know right). I generally play OOB until we notice a repeating problem, or it is proven that something is skewed and needs some work (like through the Alpha process). It isn’t my intention to suggest radical changes or say something is broken 3 months before the game comes out LOL (3 months after would be more typical). I reserve any personal judgement, and I’m skeptical (as most are) even when others proclaim a problem, because sometimes such demands come from a certain play style, group setting, or in Flashes case just want more out of it. Fortunately the later can be dealt with through house rules, and maybe, just maybe after much testing and proven data at some point can find its way into the game as an optional rule (or in a reprint) ?

[BJCard]

Flashman,
What do you do in AA1940 when the bulk of your army is in Moscow?  Are you giving up because ‘germany is screwed’?

[Imperious Leader]

No. At that point all sorts of trains appear and shoot everything in sight.

[WILD BILL]

Nope, I’m sure he plays by his own set of rules (which would include rail), and probably on his own map too.

[Admiral_Thrawn]

If Germany has a transport or two in the Baltic you can transport 2-4 units from Poland, PetroGrad, Prussia right to Keil and to the western front quicker. That’s at least a partial solution to getting your Eastern troops back to the West with more speed.

[Flashman]

In Global, Berlin is 2 spaces from Paris, plus you have tanks, planes and mech inf. Moreover, assuming you take Paris you won’t have the Allies spawning a whole wad of new units right on the front line, nor is it so easy for the UK to establish a cross channel army.
Even without rail (and yes I try to insist on rail in every A&A game), Germany can be in Moscow before the western Allies can establish a large presence on the western land border, and still have time to move the bulk of the forces back west. WWI is a different ballgame.

The old “play it before you change it” argument is well and good, and I will certainly do so, but I remain unconvinced that Larry, Curly and Mo have fully appreciated the importance of rapid internal transport to the entire Central Powers war effort.

[Old Dwarf]

It’s wait & see of course but I find it hard to believe that some type of Stragetic Movement won’t be included.
It’s an effective way to show the importance of rail networks w/o having rails on the Game Board.

Can’t wait to see the full Rules on this Game.

[crobattalion]

Hi, one question for Flash.

Do you advocate rail movement but only for original territory,
or you could move units from Berlin wright to Serbia, or from Moscow to west front in NCM?

Because Germany had rails, A_U too but Serbia didn’t, Russia either.
Serbia had only Beograd-Ni�, for Russia i don’t know but if retreating they would destroy it.

So it would be historical to move from Berlin to west/east part of empire your troops.
But to move from Russia to west front nope. They should first come back to German or A-H original territory.

[Flashman]

That’s a good point: certain areas have much more rail network than others. We can assume that practically every border in Germany and Austria has a rail link, with the possible exception of the Carpathians.

Russia had its own network with a different gauge, but I work on the assumption that if Germany captures a tt in Russia they will convert the rails and in effect add it to their own network.

So, yes, theoretically if a country has friendly tts everywhere in between it can rail units from Lisbon to Vladivostok, or from Berlin to Baghdad.

My ideal map would have rails printed on it. The Russian network would have many fewer connections - if you take Moscow it virtually knocks it out.

[ossel]

I plan on implementing some house rules/tokens I use in Global 1940.

I have railroad tokens made, which players can purchase for 5 ipcs and place on the border of two friendly territories.
When crossing a railroad border, a unit can make an extra move, up to three moves.
This simple caveat removes the whole “superspeed tanks” effect, as it only gives tanks a one bonus move, while giving infantry two. It also limits the rail system, preventing a far-reaching empire from “warping” units across the map.
The cool thing about having tokens is that they can be targeted in bombing raids (or scorched earth tactics), just as they were in actuality.

Obviously for 1914, I would have some railroads as part of the initial setup, as many nations in Europe had extensive rail networks in place before the war started.

[LinkandMarioman]

The way I see it, Germany is most definitely – initially at least – not screwed. With a full-force invasion of Belgium from Ruhr and Alsace on the first turn (14 inf, 6 art), and the movement of all units from Hamburg and Munich to Alsace, Germany will have both French front-territories heavily fortified. On the next turn, these two armies can either join in one colossal battle for Loraine (with the fighter from Berlin) they will – with dice fair – indeed win. The forces initially in Kiel are first moved to Ruhr, and then to reinforce Belgium. This, then, mean that Germany might very possibly have taken and held both Belgium, Lorraine AND crushed the French army after the first two turns, without the British being able to intervene in any fatal way. By the way, merely holding the Eastern Front (after taking Poland of course) allows Germany to send all its units in Berlin – yes, ALL of them – to the Western theatre, enabling a over-powerful attack on Burgundy on the fourth turn. This is how I see it, anyways.
Also, by playing defensively with its navy, Germany can secure all original German tts from attack by sea. This is done by putting all German ships (and subs!) in the naval tt next to Kiel. Perhaps, buying an additional battleship might prove to be wise as well.

[TheVenocWarlord]

Awesome plan! Will have to see the board setup, but sounds like a good thing to try.

[Imperious Leader]

If any nation was screwed, the playtesters would have figured that out. Give somebody credit. Do you really think they messed up the setup again?

Does Larry keep making broken games? NO. I think they finally figured things out from past experience.

At least wait for some pictures, Djensen will be getting the advance copy really soon and post about it.