Austria was a little risky and only left 6 inf and 2 art in tyrolia to defend against italy well sending the 6 inf and 2 art in Trieste into serbia. MY first turn buy as Austria was 5 art and one plane. I left one inf in the capital for that. I as Austria was hopeing that the 6 inf and 2 art sent into serbia would be enough to take it out. I knew that the the Italian player was very conservative. so he would either turn 1 be attacking 6 inf and 2 art vs. the same force in tyrolia or walking into trieste with that force to be counterattacked by Vienna, serbia, and Tyrolia forces. This would buy me the time to get the serb force back to triests turn 2. Thus giveing me parity with the italians again. The problem was going to be I3 because Italy could then get the Rome group to venice. thus on turn 3 Germany and Austria went into Switzerland, flanking ITaly makeing Italy commit to attacking the swiss group I3 and away from Austrian land thus giveing Austria a couple more turns to pump troops into Russia. This game was some what of an outlier because CP got very good dice rolls in Africa and were still walking around it turn 6. Against an italy player that was aggressive this strat may not have worked. I think the CPs would have won this game because even though it may have been hard for Germany to take Paris with Austrias IPCs it was in a position to begin a move on Rome turn 6 and it had such a massive stack the italians probobly would have died next and then brit french U.S. would be in trouble.
Game Board Frustration
-
I’m not one to complain too much but after two complete games of 1914 I’ve found the layout of the board very aggravating. I don’t understand why the western European territories are so tiny while some like Spain, Arabia, Norway, Sweden, the Russian territories, etc. are so Huge! There were so many units crowded into western Europe that we had to remove them from the board and place them on labled pieces of paper. Don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the game but it just puzzles me why the board was designed like this.
Anyone else agree, or have a theory about the reason?
-
I think the Western European territories are small to represent how slow things moved on the Western front. The fighting in Russia speed across vast areas so the territories are larger. This makes sense for land troops, but the problem is when a fighter can travel twice as far in Russia as in France. The neutral territories are large for simplicity.
-
Also, the neutrals you mentioned what likely be involved so it was necessary to divide them up into smaller territories. I am planning on making a blown up version of the western front to alleviate the congestion.
-
Marshaling cards from A&A revised come in pretty handy in this game.
-
@Uncrustable:
Marshaling cards from A&A revised come in pretty handy in this game.
AGREED.
-
I don’t understand why the cut in the boards runs from north west to south east.
It should instead run through North Africa, the Med, and Ukraine.
The Belgian roundel never matches up right…… -
I don’t understand why the cut in the boards runs from north west to south east.
It should instead run through North Africa, the Med, and Ukraine.
The Belgian roundel never matches up right……Agreed, I don’t think the board should run right through the most important and crowded front of the war.
-
You nailed it. Belgium tends to be a primary staging point, yet sits atop a fissure. Le sigh.
I don’t understand why the cut in the boards runs from north west to south east.
It should instead run through North Africa, the Med, and Ukraine.
The Belgian roundel never matches up right…… -
Where the maps meet has always annoyed me about most A&A games.
This one is a good example, Oztea.
It just seems scruffy. -
If scandinavia was pressed smaller like the did with Africa it would have been possible to make central Europe larger.
I also agree about needless Russian tts in the east. -
If scandinavia was pressed smaller like the did with Africa it would have been possible to make central Europe larger.
I also agree about needless Russian tts in the east.Good point. As far as I’m concerned they also could have left out Africa altogether to allow more space for the areas where the war was really lost and won.
-
Only include Africa if you are going to give the CPs(Germany) a fighting chance of retaining their possessions.
Flashman’s proposal for one Inf a turn for Germany seems reasonable to me. -
Actually my proposal is for Askaris for any colonial power, maximum 2 per turn in different original colonies.
Each starting inf in Africa would get a couple to begin with as well, just to get things going.
-
If scandinavia was pressed smaller like the did with Africa it would have been possible to make central Europe larger.
I also agree about needless Russian tts in the east.I agree. If they scaled down the size of those and Spain, maybe even the size of SZ 17 and some of the various Russian territories, then there could be a little more breathing room in Europe.
-
I’ve suggested redividing the Med as follows:
-
I’ve suggested redividing the Med as follows:
I like that you have SZ20 divided which would allow the Ottomans to control sea movement through the straight.I’ve wondered why the game has Constantinople spanning across a single SZ which allows enemy ships to travel through. Hopefully it was a balance issue and not a mistake.
However, I like that the original map has Rome only adjacent to SZ17. It may be too easy for AH to take it on your map. Unless the allies take out their navy of course.
-
Notice I also gave Rome 6 IPCs. If Austria starts building transports Italy should have the sense to leave a strong garrison in Rome, or get its allies to join it in obliterating the Austrian fleet.
I actually think Rome is more defensible anyway with this arrangement, as Austria cannot grab Naples by land and deprive Italy of another 2 IPCs.
The other main objective is that the SZs bordering Africa have no mines, which should make naval combat more lively; the CP fleets can link up, or invade north Africa.
Albania is less open as a gateway into the Balkans for the Allies; Greece is more attractive now as it doesn’t border Constantinople.
-
The other main objective is that the SZs bordering Africa have no mines, which should make naval combat more lively; the CP fleets can link up, or invade north Africa.
That definitely think that could change things up a lot. Those mines in SZ17 and the large allied fleets make any early AH naval plans difficult.
Suggested Topics
