Timescales aren’t constant, never are.
Correct, mrC. they never are, its a game, not a simulation.
The turns, movements and units are all very abstract, and its impossible to stick them to any kind of timescale. If you try, you will find that a fast WWII carrier use longer time to cross the Atlantic than a sailing vessel from 1500, and that tanks and trucks from WWII use longer time to drive to Moscow than Napoleons men used to walk there on their feets. A turn represent 6 months in time, but only a days walk in distance, and a unit represent anything from a rifle coy to an armoured corps. Its just abstract, for the fun purpose.
If this game should have any link to the real war, it would need to be designed like World in Flames, the hex and counter game.
-Yoy could say that a turn represent 3 months, and the units you purchase represent what was possible to draft or produce in that time.
-In a winter turn, the land units could only move like one space, and only have one round of combat.
So if units, turns and movement get fixed numbers, then you could make a rational timeline. But not as it is
Also, it took about 2 years to build a capital ship. Numbers of dreadnoughts for a nation in this period are described as “X plus Y building”, meaning the number in service and those in production.
Nevertheless I think it is possible to introduce a systematic timeline, mine uses 1 round = 3 months. This gives you seasonal effects and a sense of advancing years.
Really, its the insistence on America going to war early that throws this game’s timing out of joint.
And whatever the timescale, tanks and infantry moved at the same rate because they were all moved by train.
.
Really, its the insistence on America going to war early that throws this game’s timing out of joint.
Yes you are correct, but you know why US need to be in the game early, its to sell copies to American players. Now would you buy a Franco-Prussian 1871 wargame with no British presence ? No I didnt think so
And whatever the timescale, tanks and infantry moved at the same rate because they were all moved by train.
No matter how much I agree with you, and you are in fact correct, if trains are implementet in this game, then the whole battle mechanic need to be reorganized. Currently tanks and mech moves 2 spaces to reflect their better mobility in the battlefield. With trains, either the cost of tanks/mechs must go down, or the combat value must go up. Or else they are useless.
I think the best way, if all units are non-combat moved by train, the best way to reflect the new mobility warfare that tanks and mech offer, is to let surviving tanks and mechs do an extra combat move into next territory. Or in the case of this new 1914 game with only one round of combat, let tanks roll dice for a second round of combat.
What kind of a war is it that we weren’t involved in?
Just a silly little Euro-squabble.
Actually, looking through my collection I have lots of war games for conflicts we weren’t involved in.
Like The American Civil War. Although that does have red units for hypothetical British intervention.
And Shogun, I’m pretty sure we weren’t in that one.
And, erm, oh, lots of stuff.
Are you assuming that tanks can move 2 spaces in the 1914 game? Men could walk faster than these things could move on flat roads.
I was never in favour of “mech infantry” units for exactly this reason, though as you say they can be allowed to accompany tanks in a 2nd combat move, which I’ve always preferred to the traditional “blitzing”. And yes, the cost/stats of tanks have to be readjusted to reflect rail movement. But anything’s better than Japan buying huge tank armies to move through China and Siberia to attack Moscow with no infantry support (because they can’t keep up).
And whatever the timescale, tanks and infantry moved at the same rate because they were all moved by train.
No matter how much I agree with you, and you are in fact correct, if trains are implementet in this game, then the whole battle mechanic need to be reorganized. Currently tanks and mech moves 2 spaces to reflect their better mobility in the battlefield. With trains, either the cost of tanks/mechs must go down, or the combat value must go up. Or else they are useless.
I think the best way, if all units are non-combat moved by train, the best way to reflect the new mobility warfare that tanks and mech offer, is to let surviving tanks and mechs do an extra combat move into next territory. Or in the case of this new 1914 game with only one round of combat, let tanks roll dice for a second round of combat.
Axis and Allies 1871 sounds epic
Really, its the insistence on America going to war early that throws this game’s timing out of joint.
I’d be really curious to find out how many rounds your average A&A player plays per game. I have a feeling us on A&A.org/forums are heavy users who find turn four “early”, but it could be that turn four is pretty “late” for your average board gamer who’s paying money for the box.
It could be out-of-joint timing for history’s sake, but just in time for buyers who don’t have the luxury of pausing a play by forum game online. Just a thought.
Yrs.,
R.
The US doesn’t make much money in this, and likely won’t make much more than what they start with (will be reinforcing allied lands most likely). Turn 4 they can attack, but it will be more like turn 6 (maybe turn 5 if its an amphibious assault) before they are in combat. How long do you want to wait?
Africa and America should not be in this game, it was an European conflict, it should come with a big Europe map only
Africa and America should not be in this game, it was an European conflict, it should come with a big Europe map only
After looking at that map, it would have been fun to play if it ever went into production. Not sure there are enough territories on the Western Front though.
The western front got plenty of territories, it was pretty much a dug-in stalemate anyway. As they said, it was not enough territory in the West, and not enough soldiers in the East.
I could just see moving into and out of “Northern France” all game…
