Keep them previews comin’! :lol:
Fireworks? I need to drop a nuke on Washington.
I’m just not having it.
Give the US a decent navy, including transports. But it can do NOTHING until it declares war. This should really have been marketed as a SEVEN player game, with player 7 controlling Russia and the USA. The two can be linked together in that Wilson and co were reluctant to go to war on the side of the absolute monarchy of the Tzar. When the Revolution occurs, it pushes the USA further towards intervention; though it should not be the only factor.
If America spent 1914-17 gearing up for war, expanding its war economy, and skulking off the coast of France with transports fully laded with tanks, artillery and planes, then I might just buy it. But it didn’t and I don’t.
No troops defending Belgian Congo? Since when? And (in Larry’s example turn) why didn’t Germany just walk into the place? Why didn’t a unit from SWA move into Angola to grab another free IPC?* It’s bizarre than Germany can do this, but Britain can’t. We still don’t know if Allies can walk into non-activated minor allied tt aligned to their partners, though no doubt the Americans can go wherever they please.
Those references to rules being “not explicit but implied” do not bode well for the extent of play testing and the competence of the manual writing.
I don’t want a reviewers opinion of what a rule is, I want to know what the rule is.
If America spent 1914-17 gearing up for war, expanding its war economy, and skulking off the coast of France with transports fully laded with tanks, artillery and planes, then I might just buy it. But it didn’t and I don’t.
If the CPs attacked Switzerland in the war then I might just buy it. But they didn’t and I don’t.
Hmmm…I don’t know how to feel about the U.S. rules. I thought the U.S. would basically not move, build, or play till the 4th turn. Isn’t her income low too? I guess she doesn’t have to spend any IPC on ground units to defend, but if Germany is doing well at sea a loss of transports or capitol ships will take awhile to replenish. France lower income then Austria-Hungary? Must be for balance. The control markers are excellent. Well done with that. I also don’t get why it doesn’t activate a minor power if you enter a non capital territory? You would think if you started taking over people’s colonies or what not it would lead to war. I really like how they gave Canada a lot of units(6inf, 2Art) to kinda represent all the troops they would bring to the war over the years since you can’t build there.
We’re talking about what America can do before it goes to war. You’ve heard of the Monroe doctrine? Let America do want it likes in the western hemisphere (invade Mexico, Haiti etc) but it should not be permitted across the Atlantic. For local wars, America did not need, and had no intention of acquiring, a large modern army.
The US military situation in April 1917 was exactly the same as in August 1914, because they were not planning for, and had no intention of entering, a major war. The idea that they would actual enter a war zone before declaring war is so insane that it warps us into a parallel universe, invented for the sole purpose of appeasing redneck in-breds who can’t wait for 4 turns for America to get involved.
If America spent 1914-17 gearing up for war, expanding its war economy, and skulking off the coast of France with transports fully laded with tanks, artillery and planes, then I might just buy it. But it didn’t and I don’t.
If the CPs attacked Switzerland in the war then I might just buy it. But they didn’t and I don’t.
I agree with you that the USA shouldn’t be sending troops/ships to Europe or Africa before they were at war, but this is a ahistorical board game based very loosely on a historical war (you’d agree with that).
So who’s to say that America’s leadership didn’t initiate a military buildup in 1914? If Teddy Roosevelt had won in 1912 we may have done so.
How is that very different than the Kaiser advocating for his version of Sealion in this board game?
This is maybe not a fair comparison, but we are changing strategies of historical actors in an ahistorical game.
I want a game that starts in the historical August 1914, not an alternative universe. What happens after that can deviate from history if the players make different military decisions from the politicians of the time, or have bad luck with the dice.
Teddy Roosevelt didn’t win in 1912, so that has no part to play. By all means have an American election in 1916, and if Hughes wins then war is declared immediately. But the very fact that Wilson won on an anti-war ticket demonstrates that America was not interested in war until 1917.
Of course if Germany attacks American interests earlier than it in fact did, then this should provoke an earlier US entry.
But altering history to the extent of completely reversing American foreign policy purely for game play purposes is going too far.
The effort of mobilizing for war put a HUGE strain on a country’s economy; the idea that America would do this without actually being at war, or intending to be at war, is absurd.
I agree with you that the USA shouldn’t be sending troops/ships to Europe or Africa before they were at war, but this is a ahistorical board game based very loosely on a historical war (you’d agree with that).
So who’s to say that America’s leadership didn’t initiate a military buildup in 1914? If Teddy Roosevelt had won in 1912 we may have done so.
How is that very different than the Kaiser advocating for his version of Sealion in this board game?
This is maybe not a fair comparison, but we are changing strategies of historical actors in an ahistorical game.
Lets start the chant together Flash, and keep our boys over here! Or in your case keep them over there I guess lol
HELL NO WE WON’T GO, HELL NO WE WON’T GO, HELL NO WE WON’T GO……
Well at least until the 4th tun LOL
I want a game that starts in the historical August 1914, not an alternative universe. What happens after that can deviate from history if the players make different military decisions from the politicians of the time, or have bad luck with the dice.
I thought that’s exactly what this was. The game already opens in 1914, so the actions of the players are ready to change history, including having a militarized US.
Wilson would have been lynched if he’d sent the boys over there before it’d even started over there.
As I’ve said all along, if you want America active at the start, then make the game Axis and Allies 1917.
Wilson would have been lynched if he’d sent the boys over there before it’d even started over there.
Since America isn’t one of the first countries to play, it does in fact actually start over there.
As far as Americans are concerned it doesn’t get started 'till THEY declare war.
As far as Americans are concerned it doesn’t get started 'till THEY declare war.
So given a hypothetical timeline where America is allowed to diverge from its historical outcome starting in 1914, why can’t they stock up an army, then declare war later? It’s good enough for the Europeans.
@Eggman:
As far as Americans are concerned it doesn’t get started 'till THEY declare war.
So given a hypothetical timeline where America is allowed to diverge from its historical outcome starting in 1914, why can’t they stock up an army, then declare war later? It’s good enough for the Europeans.
Ummm, that’s exactly it. They can stock up an army (20 IPCs per turn), DOW later, then move that army across the pond to fight!
This is a WAR game. Decisions should be about how to wage war, not completely diverge from the entire political philosophy of the country.
If America can do this, you may as well make the game a free-for-all with no political alliances, and everyone allowed to attack anyone they please.
I really think the Russia/America controlled by one player idea is a more elegant solution. How many groups have 8 players anyway?
Perhaps Larry, Curly and Mo decided that there needed to be a set American intervention to give the game an urgency - i.e. the CP have to win before the Yanks are over there in large numbers.
I will probably house rule that America gets a bigger starting navy & a bigger base income, but does not have a turn until drawn into the war by the actions of the European belligerents.
100% agree the US shouldn’t be able to move units onto European or African territories until:
At this point I guess I would be ok with no restrictions on where the US ships and transports could go, but even that should be looked at. I hope this was just missed in the rule book, or was omitted by mistake and will be corrected (it wouldn’t be the first time). We will know for sure when Larry walks us through the US turn.
@WILD:
100% agree the US shouldn’t be able to move units onto European or African territories until…
That’s a slightly different twist than the other suggestion of saying they can’t do anything at all, which feels a bit draconian.
It looks like somebody copied and pasted “6 infantry, 2 artillery” too many times.
It looks like somebody copied and pasted “6 infantry, 2 artillery” too many times.
Funny and true. That said, I can see myself getting sucked into this one despite some surface problems.
Yrs.,
R.
It looks like somebody copied and pasted “6 infantry, 2 artillery” too many times.
I was thinking the same thing, but this is what happens when you got only 3 land units and didn’t get WOTC to spend more money on rail guns, armored cars, and stormtroopers.
That’s why i maintain the 2nd printing WILL HAVE new sculpt types because WOTC NEVER MAKES GAMES THEY CAN’T REHASH FROM PREVIOUS INVESTMENTS. This game can’t be a “one off” product. It must be a chain in a new line of games.
