Ya, the US did not have to worry about holding it’s NO’s, US can build a major in europe (like norway), and a few other reasons.
G40 Alpha 2 -
I don’t remember it being too axis slanted, even though sealion was VERY popular. A lot of folks argued that US can focus 100% pac and then save europe at the end.
Well, perhaps OOB was fairly even- however it was very easy to do Sealion and take India. I suppose if the Axis didn’t do Sealion/India than it was more even? 2nd edition made it harder to do either, but most of the bids still go to Allies.
I still believe the addition of railroads,factories and fortifications could have opened up a ton of options for this game, therefore a lot of different results.
I think larrys definition of playtesting is 10 games with the same few people.
We have played 100s of games as a community already, and what are we at 66% Allied victory?
I think larrys definition of playtesting is 10 games with the same few people.
We have played 100s of games as a community already, and what are we at 66% Allied victory?
For 1914? Probably more like 75-85% allied victory.
I think poor playtesting.
As in my opinion I find ww1 a very ‘fair’ war. There was never an exact clear winner until the very end.
I said it in a earlier post if they would playtest these games more we wouldn’t get as many of them ,but I believe the community would be a lot happier because it would be a better game. I think this games mechanics are great. I love the way the combat works but I do feel the Central will typically run out of gas 80% of the time. With a few more unit types(Heavy artillery,bombers) and maybe industrial tech(Gas,long range aircraft and advance artillery) this game could be the best ever. Heres to Second edition boys and girls cause it’s a coming.
I agree. Larry isn’t trying to send us a message, this just wasn’t playtested enough. No way was the outcome of WW1 inevitable. Either side could have won the whole time.
