No. At that point all sorts of trains appear and shoot everything in sight.
Nope, I’m sure he plays by his own set of rules (which would include rail), and probably on his own map too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Awesome plan! Will have to see the board setup, but sounds like a good thing to try.
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.
Yea, I don’t know why this is the thread on 1914 getting the most attention now.
just because RAILROADS :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
War in the industrial age was all about railroads. Read some books.
Even IL has realised this and incorporated strategic movement into his game.
Perhaps I’m being picky because this is my no: 1 beef with A&A (all versions); I find it hard to believe in a game where killing is on the industrial scale, and movement is on the Napoleonic.
I will buy the game, and I will play OOB rules to begin. I like the new rules very much, but like many will experiment with some more. As for Germany, I still have the feeling that the Swiss Roll (Paris-Rome) strategy will become optimum for the CPs, mainly due to the huge movement time between Paris and Moscow.
Choo-Choo :-D
I have a feeling that this Game may become massively Home Ruled.Lets face it unless your a A&A
completeist freak(you know who you are :wink: )WWI is not the hottest ticket in town.
I think most of us interested in this Game are interested in & studied the Great War,thus we’ll tend
to add or subtract things we feel are more in tune to the era.
I’ve preordered my copy (2 actually) & will wait till the Rules come before I add or delete but I
already have list of things I want to see in the Game if they are not in included.
I’m loving everything I’m hearing about this 1914 game and can’t wait to buy it. Got a feeling it will quickly climb to the top of my board gaming pile (well, maybe just underneath Global 1940…)
I got to agree with Flash’s comment about movement in these games. Too slow. I always fealt you should be able to build railroads for 2 ipcs per territory. Connect them to whatever route you want them to go. I am kind of shocked there are no fortifications in this game. When you think of WW1 what do you think of? Trenches right. Otherwise known as(OK everybody) FORTIFICATIONS. Larry went with naval bases and air bases in global 40 you figure naval bases,fortifications and railroads in this WW1 game. I am very surprised these were not incorporated into this game.
Probably because they’d slow it down even more?
Combat is understandably weighted in favour of defence, at least until tanks arrive, so they must have decided that there was no need to add forts and entrenchments.
I got to agree with Flash’s comment about movement in these games. Too slow. I always fealt you should be able to build railroads for 2 ipcs per territory. Connect them to whatever route you want them to go. I am kind of shocked there are no fortifications in this game. When you think of WW1 what do you think of? Trenches right. Otherwise known as(OK everybody) FORTIFICATIONS. Larry went with naval bases and air bases in global 40 you figure naval bases,fortifications and railroads in this WW1 game. I am very surprised these were not incorporated into this game.
I’m with flashman on this…
You’re not going to see “Rifles” or “Machine Guns” added to this game. It’s assumed they are part of the regular combat process. Same with entrenchments of defense.
I am really surprised you 2 don’t agree with me on this one you both seem like you are typically craving more realism in these games. Surprised you don’t see it the same as I do on this one.
There are Naval Bases, and nobody is a more committed advocate of railways in A&A than me.
However, I’ve been seduced by the game mechanics into thinking that maybe more is less and that we only need a few basic unit types. The extra power of defenders deals with trenches/fortifications/barbed wire, with tanks (if they function correctly) breaking the stalemate in favour of attacking.
If we add forts, then maybe we’d need heavy artillery to shell them; and so on and so forth.
I’d still like to see a few more aircraft types, mind.
Consider the present model as the early war reconnaissance type, fighting at 1-1. Successive types add greater firepower until you end up with a 4-4 fighter. Mainly this is restricted within air-to-air combat, so it doesn’t seriously imbalance the ground war. However surviving aircraft still get a single roll at their level vs ground. Don’t know yet if aircraft participate in naval battles.
Would like to find a source for WWI fighter models of the correct scale.
Also vaguely thinking about a light tank (I assume the game will feature the UK M series heavy tanks) alternative; cheaper to build but without the hit cancel ability. Attack! has some tanks that might just do for that.
