Any new rules? any big changes to how the game is played?

@Imperious:

You got to wear that “pointed helmet” to even get the idea of playing the game. I think you will be shocked how much more fun it is when you see it.

Oh I own pointy helmet and Imperial German officers uniform (purchased here; http://www.hessenantique.com/Imperial_German_Militaria_s/8.htm ) and the more I think on the idea of setting this up and sitting in another room with a glass of brandy while other people implement my plans and orders, the more I like it. Still, I don’t know how much fun this will be on a strategic wargame level from what i’m seeing.

It almost seems to me like what we’re going to get is not so much a World War 1 game as an Axis&Allies “infantry and Artillery” edition.

I think you will be shocked how much more fun it is when you see it.

I meant the helmet, not the game.

JK

I share some of your concerns, but I’m happy for the game to be, in the right places, a slogging match along a static frontier because that’s what I expect from a WWI game. There is plenty of scope for movement on other fronts.

As Churchill said, “in the West there were too many troops for the front, and in the East there was too much front for the troops”.

I just hope that there’s been some intensive playtesting, the usual wall of silence suggests there may turn out to be serious flaws which could have been ironed out by involving forums such as this one.

My main concerns:

1. Lack of rail movement.

Any war from 1861 to 1945 was driven by the movement of land units by rail. If it doesn’t happen in this version it’ll never happen in A&A, and the game system’s most serious flaw will remain forever.
Without it, the Central Powers will be seriously (and unhistorically) handicapped.

2. Lack of convoy zones.

The blockade of the Central Powers was the #1 factor in forcing them to surrender. It was also, like in WWII, the best chance the Germans had to win the war by starving out Britain. The failure to press ahead with unrestricted U-boat attacks (for fear of American intervention) was the biggest mistake the CPs made.

If there are no CZs, what incentive do the CPs have to invest in a fleet? They can use subs to attack Allied shipping, but since they have a virtually continuous block of land tt, a surface fleet is practically useless to them.

3. Unrealistic placement and use of factories.

There should be no factories outside Europe and North America. Other regions should be able to place infantry (and cavalry) only. Powers should not be able to build units at captured factories.
USA capturing Constantinople and using it to churn out American tanks? No thanks.

4. Capture the Capital.

Always hated this as a victory condition, especially the attacker getting all the money, and the defender just dropping out of the war. Virtually directs players to target the 2/3 most easily attainable capitals and ignore everything else, when there should be a broad front towards capturing ALL the enemies industrial capacity. Only when a power has lost all its factories should it be prevented from continuing the fight and building units.

Some stuff I’d like to see (in addition to the above points)

An Official Expansion pack, featuring units not included in the basic game. Specifically:

Bombers
Cavalry
Zeppelins
Flying boats
Armoured trains
Heavy Artillery/Rail guns
Destroyers
Elite/Veteran infantry/Stormtroopers

Separate recruitment for infantry units. They can be placed in any area with an an income value in home tt, up to the value of the tt. Factories are irrelevant. They still have to be bought (trained), but are not “built” as per mechanical units. Each unit should be of a specific nationality, effecting sometimes their loyalty.
Possibly, UK & US infantry cost more than soldiers in continental armies due to their lack of national service training.

Ship re-fueling. Ships could not remain at sea indefinitely, therefore each naval unit must stay within range of a friendly (or neutral?) land tt to reflect the need to take on coal. Hence, small islands and enclaves can become important irrespective of IPC value.

A Pacific expansion, with Japan as a major power. The German East Asian fleet was a major headache for the Allies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Emden_(1906)

Official rules for more open scenarios. Certainly Italy with the possibility of joining either side, and American neutrality not automatically ended so early.
Maybe even a full “Diplomacy” scenario with 7 players all out for themselves and making & breaking alliances as they go.

@Imperious:

I think you will be shocked how much more fun it is when you see it.

I meant the helmet, not the game.

JK

Seeing your helmet doesn’t sound like much fun to me. I just hope you have the decency to cover it with a cloth.

1. Lack of rail movement.

Any war from 1861 to 1945 was driven by the movement of land units by rail. If it doesn’t happen in this version it’ll never happen in A&A, and the game system’s most serious flaw will remain forever.
Without it, the Central Powers will be seriously (and unhistorically) handicapped.

Special  moves:

Strategic movement:
Ships may make a strategic non-combat move from any originally controlled port to port, subject to the following:

1. The move must begin and end in a friendly port.
2. The move may not move into or pass through any enemy ships.  However, submerged subs are ignored.
3. The quantity of ships transferred is limited by the printed economic value of the attached land area where the port is connected too.
4. Ships are subject to mine and coastal fortress pass-through attacks.

Railroad transportation:
Rail movement is allowed from anywhere within contiguously controlled and connected land areas, limited as follows:

1. If you are not in a factory space, rail movement must be to the nearest starting factory that your side started the game with or an original home factory. No limit of moves of this type.
2. If you are in a factory space, you can only rail to either item #1, or any space you control limited by the printed economic value of the area.
3. If you control both sides of the Suez or Dardanelles, you may pass thru these areas.

These moves are valid if:

1. You can trace the movement through a continuous line of controlled territories.
2. The movement does not cross any sea barriers that are not controlled (such as the English Channel, or a blocked Dardanelles strait).
3. The movement is not into a contested area.
4. The line is not traced through Russia (unless you are Russia).
5. The territory is not newly captured (exception: Belgium).

Russia may only use rail movement within their own Nation.  Until Russia surrenders, nobody may use her rail lines.

3. Unrealistic placement and use of factories.

There should be no factories outside Europe and North America. Other regions should be able to place infantry (and cavalry) only. Powers should not be able to build units at captured factories.
USA capturing Constantinople and using it to churn out American tanks? No thanks.

Step 11 – Unit Placement:
Units that were purchased are placed on the map at this time subject to the following conditions:

1. Infantry, storm troops and cavalry may be placed in any territory you control with a value; Total number of units can be built to the value of the territory.
2. Mechanized units, with the exception of subs at Zeebrugge, may only be built in original friendly areas that have a factory.  Total number of units can be built up to the value of the territory.
3. Ships that are purchased may be placed in any home port or in the sea zone adjacent to that territory.
4. Mines may be placed in any friendly sea zone which was controlled at the beginning of their turn.  To do so a warship must remain in the area.
5. Contested areas may build and place half (rounded down) of their normal level.
6. Corfu, Osel/Dago, Gibraltar, Fao, Gallipoli and Rhodes all have a white one value inside a black circle.  This may be used to recruit a single infantry, cavalry, or storm troop by the side that originally owned the territory.  However, only upon the collapse of Serbia does Corfu’s value come in play (see fall of Serbia).

Placements may never be made into newly captured areas.

The Gallipoli campaign was fought primarily to open up a southern route to supply Russia.

http://maps.omniatlas.com/europe/19150426/

Would this involve landing units in, say, Crimea; then Russia railing them internally within Russia?

I’m in favour of “no Allies on Russian soil” for WWII games, but does the same principle really apply to WWI?

To what extent should units be transferable between allies? Turkey relied entirely on imports for ships, land vehicles and aircraft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Goeben

1)  If you are not in a factory space, rail movement must be to the nearest starting factory that your side started the game with or an original home factory. No limit of moves of this type.

Don’t quite understand this; it would make it a disadvantage to possess factories close by each other, as this limits the range of rail movement. Also, why not use captured factories for rail movement?
Wouldn’t it be fairer (and simpler) to limit rail moves to X spaces?

Personally, given that a turn represents several months, I’m in favour of unlimited rail transport. If you control Portugal and Siberia travel the whole length in one turn if you like. It’s up to the enemy to disrupt your communications by capturing territories in between.
It could even be possible to combine rail and sea transport during non-combat movement.

Would this involve landing units in, say, Crimea; then Russia railing them internally within Russia?

Placing them yes, only Russia can use the rails in her Empire.

I’m in favour of “no Allies on Russian soil” for WWII games, but does the same principle really apply to WWI?

Or you get some glitching in the game where the allies try to “save” Russia or kill Ottomans from northern direction. Not really realistic.

To what extent should units be transferable between allies? Turkey relied entirely on imports for ships, land vehicles and aircraft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Goeben

They are as long as the land areas are connected.

1)  If you are not in a factory space, rail movement must be to the nearest starting factory that your side started the game with or an original home factory. No limit of moves of this type.

Don’t quite understand this; it would make it a disadvantage to possess factories close by each other, as this limits the range of rail movement. Also, why not use captured factories for rail movement?
Wouldn’t it be fairer (and simpler) to limit rail moves to X spaces?

The transfer of rail within allied nations forces some restrictions, no restrictions to your factories that you began the game with. We didn’t want it to be possible to just send a huge army from a non-factory space ( meaning an area where no rail exists) to any other area en masse. SO the rule protects against glitching. You can move from any space you control to a home factory, but not a non factory space to another non factory space. Allowing that would be too much.

Personally, given that a turn represents several months, I’m in favour of unlimited rail transport. If you control Portugal and Siberia travel the whole length in one turn if you like. It’s up to the enemy to disrupt your communications by capturing territories in between.
It could even be possible to combine rail and sea transport during non-combat movement.

It is unlimited but only to home factory areas. Otherwise limited by production value as cap.
Well it is but only to a factory ( rail hub): choice is only to nearest factory, or home factory. Too much ‘teleport’ is not good for the game and it is a game. Fixed numbers of redeployment’s without restrictions is just as bad.

I would prefer simply to print available rail lines on the map. This would involve avoiding mountainous areas, marshes, and underdeveloped areas such as central Africa.

This would involve avoiding mountainous areas, marshes, and underdeveloped areas such as central Africa.

The game does not have central Africa and in any event water straights block railway movement, except Turkish straights and to have a connection to say some faraway place is limited by production value, which those places have not therefore the problem is solved by other means ( no factories so no rail, no production value so no rails)

Do you have a map to reference?

I do hope Sinai isn’t still in Palestine.

It is Between Egypt and Palestine. The “triangle” portion of land.

Sorry can’t show the map or anything yet.

The important thing is that it should be part of Egypt (British), not Palestine (Turkish). This is a mistake every A&A game to date has made, and I was hoping it had finally been ironed out.

The Suez canal runs THROUGH EGYPT, not between Egypt and Palestine.

Also, be careful about the borders of Italian Libya and Egypt which were different from 1939.

http://unimaps.com/africa1914/index.html

The Turkey-Russia border in the Caucasus also changed.

http://unimaps.com/mideast1914/index.html

It is part of Egypt and the border changes for Italy don’t appear on the map ( only strip of land showing)

At last! I had visions of Turkey having joint control of the Suez Canal.

Slowly, slowly, we get there.

Also, with regard to air combat…

Planes fight in aerial combat until one side is defeated or retreats. Fighters, Zeppelins, and Bombers can be scrambled once this is completed the side with planes provides aerial spotting for one round for qualifying land units ( artillery, railguns) where all these units fight at +1 ( this can be defender or attacker).

Planes also roll and hit land units and land units can now hit air units ( the player would hardly choose planes for loses in any event)

In naval combat all planes and ships just fight together, but planes with metal frame technology can participate in sea combat or Zeppelins.

Mmmm, I was thinking about fighters raiding a tt on their own to knock out enemy air power, then returning home.

It makes sense that they have to undergo fire from enemy ground units, otherwise they’d just massacre them.  Also relevant if accompanying bombers to targets.

Mmmm, I was thinking about fighters raiding a tt on their own to knock out enemy air power,

Realistic but is busts the game because players with larger air forces will bully and easily defeat poorer nations straight away and they don’t get the ability to effect air power on their turn.

Air planes are expensive and to allow hordes of  “plane hunters” to wipe them out makes the game less fun. Of course they can retreat after a round, but it would be too commonplace to do this.

Planes were used in conjunction with land combat, rather than sending over fighters in a quiet area where no land combat occurs.

Air power in this game should really be an after thought, given how flimsy they were and how new most of the technology was. Planes barley had the ability to shoot through their own propellers by the end of the war their impact was anecdotal at best. The best use for planes would be to provide an attack in a territory like any other unit, however if the enemy had planes present as well then a separate battle would have to be resolved between the two opposing air forces (with their attacks being rolled against eachother and nothing else) until one side is destroyed or decides to retreat. Then the aircraft could contribute its attacks to the larger land battle going on.

That is exactly how air combat works, with surviving planes providing aerial spotting for artillery and railguns.