(2) Revolutionary forces.
IL believes that Russia, on the Revolution of October 1417, simply drops out of the war to fight its own internal civil conflict - something irrelevant to the Great War itself. He has yet to reveal how this will be implemented, especially in regard to how and what Germany gets in Russian tts.
I think this is oversimplifying the reality, and believe that Bolshevik and Nationalist forces were an inherent part of the conflict. Hence, I would like revolutions in every country to be possible, with relevant forces in red and black used (will have to buy a 2nd copy…)
October 1417? oh that revolution!
(3) Open development of when countries enter the war.
This has been discussed “at some length” above, suffice to say my view is that the game should aim to simulate August 1914 exactly, with everything that might have happened thereafter possible in the game. I appreciate that this can make balancing more difficult to achieve.
The USA joining the Allies eventually would still be very likely; but the possibility of it joining the Central Powers should be just feasible; for example if the British Navy blows the German fleet out of the water the Americans might begin to consider the RN as its greatest rival.
Well you then see the issue of early entry. I prefer the “opportunity” to occur as it did historically, with modifiers for both sides from that point. Allowing them to start on turn 3 would mess up the game just like it would by allowing the Russians to attack Germany in global 40 on turn 1. Global does have provisions like when London falls, it activates USA at war. I guess the same could apply here.
Ah, yes, 1417. Back in my medieval mode, there.
They’ve found Richard III. Never thought it would happen. Dead, unfortunately.
My turn order requires a bit more planning.
Weapons developments and money collected can only be used next turn. Hence, you still save money between turns for paying bombing damage etc.
With techs, its surely more realistic to have to wait a turn before putting the new units into production.
I prefer both movement phases consecutively and both before combat; combat movement first, then non-combat (so you can immediately see which units have moved into combat, without mixing up retreating units). I also don’t like immediately reinforcing newly captured areas; it took time, for example, to reconnect rail lines which were often sabotaged or of a different gauge. Instead, reinforcement should only be to areas you already hold, just as aircraft can only land in areas where you’ve already established an airfield.
I think this also speeds up the player turn.
note: you say rail guns can move in the combat movement phase. I assume that means they can move them to a tt you already occupy in order to bombard units you’re attacking. Under my system this distinction isn’t needed.
My turn order requires a bit more planning.
Weapons developments and money collected can only be used next turn. Hence, you still save money between turns for paying bombing damage etc.
In our game, the developments occur for each nation as it did historically, so you can employ them on the turn they become available.
With techs, its surely more realistic to have to wait a turn before putting the new units into production.
The only units that appear as “New” are bombers, and tanks and each nation has a different turn when they can be bought, but they can be used on the turn following placement so in those instances they don’t have an effect till the following turn.
I prefer both movement phases consecutively and both before combat; combat movement first, then non-combat (so you can immediately see which units have moved into combat, without mixing up retreating units). I also don’t like immediately reinforcing newly captured areas; it took time, for example, to reconnect rail lines which were often sabotaged or of a different gauge. Instead, reinforcement should only be to areas you already hold, just as aircraft can only land in areas where you’ve already established an airfield.
I think this also speeds up the player turn.
yea good idea, but rail movement cannot be part of this. It must be separate or you could bring too many units into combat, rather than allowing the other side to anticipate your rail movements. For this reason we keep them separate, but really this is all axis all allies movement. In our game railguns can move by rail in the combat movement phase, but this is the only unit.
note: you say rail guns can move in the combat movement phase. I assume that means they can move them to a tt you already occupy in order to bombard units you’re attacking. Under my system this distinction isn’t needed.
They can.
@Imperious:
Hmm. So even though UK and Japan can choose to go to war against each other one any of their respective turns, you would consider that to be fixed?
Didn’t say anything about Japan. I’m talking about Europe, of which you skip over and never admit to anything because the spoiled brat can never admit anything. Address comments to Europe but we both know that will never happen because it destroys your argument completely.
What? My comment was that GLOBAL had variable entry. You can’t change what I am talking abaout just because you feel like it. Look at post 34, my second post in the thread. I pointed out how Global has variable entry and you denied that. You can’t restrict the Global game to just Europe. I would love to play you in a Global game where you ignore the pac side completely. Now that I proved you incorrect, you try to say you were only talking about Europe. Nice try. Anyways, I am not sure how much longer I am going to bother with your trolling. I am very thankful that it seems that since your post count is so high on here, it means you have very little input in a venue that actually has bearing on what we will see in the game.
What? My comment was that GLOBAL had variable entry. You can’t change what I am talking abaout just because you feel like it. Look at post 34, my second post in the thread. I pointed out how Global has variable entry and you denied that. You can’t restrict the Global game to just Europe. I would love to play you in a Global game where you ignore the pac side completely. Now that I proved you incorrect, you try to say you were only talking about Europe. Nice try. Anyways, I am not sure how much longer I am going to bother with your trolling. I am very thankful that it seems that since your post count is so high on here, it means you have very little input in a venue that actually has bearing on what we will see in the game.
What? My comment was that GLOBAL had fixed entry. You can’t change what I am talking about just because you feel like it. Look at post 12,785, my second post in the thread. I pointed out how Global has fixed entry and you denied that. You can’t restrict the Global game to variable. I would love to play you in a Global game where USSR and USA can attack Germany on turn one. Now that I proved you incorrect, you try to say you were only talking about Global. Nice try. Anyways, I am not sure how much longer I am going to bother with your trolling. I am very thankful that it seems that since your post count is so low on here, it means you have very little input in a venue that actually has bearing on what we will see in the game.
Stop hiding behind that phony badge of saying the opposite of what is true:
@Imperious:
What? My comment was that GLOBAL had variable entry. You can’t change what I am talking abaout just because you feel like it. Look at post 34, my second post in the thread. I pointed out how Global has variable entry and you denied that. You can’t restrict the Global game to just Europe. I would love to play you in a Global game where you ignore the pac side completely. Now that I proved you incorrect, you try to say you were only talking about Europe. Nice try. Anyways, I am not sure how much longer I am going to bother with your trolling. I am very thankful that it seems that since your post count is so high on here, it means you have very little input in a venue that actually has bearing on what we will see in the game.
What? My comment was that GLOBAL had fixed entry. You can’t change what I am talking about just because you feel like it. Look at post 12,785, my second post in the thread. I pointed out how Global has fixed entry and you denied that. You can’t restrict the Global game to variable. I would love to play you in a Global game where USSR and USA can attack Germany on turn one. Now that I proved you incorrect, you try to say you were only talking about Global. Nice try. Anyways, I am not sure how much longer I am going to bother with your trolling. I am very thankful that it seems that since your post count is so low on here, it means you have very little input in a venue that actually has bearing on what we will see in the game.
Nothing but a fake cop:
And instead of actually addressing my post you devolve into mockery. It’s clear that you have no valid argument to give, your last weapon is to mock and insult. In that case I accept your admission that you were incorrect. Enjoy the game when it comes out.
And instead of actually addressing my post you devolve into mockery. It’s clear that you have no valid argument to give, your last weapon is to mock and insult. In that case I accept your admission that you were incorrect. Enjoy the game when it comes out.
When you acknowledge that the Russian and USA player are not allowed to enter the war early on their own accord, and can only enter voluntarily on turn 3 and 4 respectively, you might see the light.
So going back to the topic of the tread… I think Ottoman will be one of the funnier nations to play. or atleast the most different
Not unless they mothball that player ( e.g. no tanks, just basic units). It would be like playing “china”
not sure that will matter, even a country like china hitting into southern russia or mideast or pushing into africa would be interesting and again atleast different
IL: yea good idea, but rail movement cannot be part of this. It must be separate or you could bring too many units into combat, rather than allowing the other side to anticipate your rail movements. For this reason we keep them separate, but really this is all axis all allies movement. In our game railguns can move by rail in the combat movement phase, but this is the only unit.
Just to be clear what I meant - all combat moves first, then all non-combat. You cannot use rail at all in the combat move phase. So you cannot rail units into combat, but you can rail them to your own front lines to build up your reserves prior to combat on the following turn.
In the case of rail guns, they would move in non-combat, but because this takes place before combat resolution they can still bombard adjacent tts.
Turkey is not mothballed - it just has to obtain its mechanical units from its Allies. If Germany transports tanks to Baghdad Turkey is free to use them.
Similarly, the USA will probably not build fighters at home (I don’t think they should have the range to fly over the Atlantic anyway), but acquire British and French models in Europe. Furthermore, if F/B/U all play at the same time, it matters little which country the unit belongs to.
Turkey is not mothballed - it just has to obtain its mechanical units from its Allies. If Germany transports tanks to Baghdad Turkey is free to use them.
You can use the same reasoning and allow them to build normally, assume the planes and ships came from her allies. The CP have too many foes and making special rules to limit Ottomans makes them weaker.
Similarly, the USA will probably not build fighters at home (I don’t think they should have the range to fly over the Atlantic anyway), but acquire British and French models in Europe. Furthermore, if F/B/U all play at the same time, it matters little which country the unit belongs to.
Same thing here, whatever planes they build can be assumed to be from elsewhere, make no changes.
But… they… didn’t. have. any. industry.
One of the principle strategic goals of the CP must be to keep the supply lines open to Turkey. As long as they do this they can rail/ship/fly the units there, so it isn’t a big handicap.
If the Allies succeed in cutting the supply lines, then Turkey should be in trouble. Otherwise you’re suggesting they just teleport the units from Europe, and the game is just a big killing match with no strategy worth the name.
If the CP intends a major campaign in the middle east, its up to them to build up Turkish supplies while they still can. Is the “Sick Man” worth propping up?
The only thing America needs to build, then, are ships to transport their infantry over the sea. They generally used French and British tanks, machine guns, steel helmets and airplanes; the only snag with this is the limit on production in European factories. The main US contribution was precisely the thing the Allies were running out of - manpower.
But… they… didn’t. have. any. industry.
One of the principle strategic goals of the CP must be to keep the supply lines open to Turkey. As long as they do this they can rail/ship/fly the units there, so it isn’t a big handicap.
Thats fine, but they still build any units, assumed they were transported to Ottomans. Of course if they are totally isolated, that cant happen ( would never occur, unless they fell already)
If the Allies succeed in cutting the supply lines, then Turkey should be in trouble. Otherwise you’re suggesting they just teleport the units from Europe, and the game is just a big killing match with no strategy worth the name.
But taking Constantinople is the same as they are defeated, so you don’t need that.
The only thing America needs to build, then, are ships to transport their infantry over the sea. They generally used French and British tanks, machine guns, steel helmets and airplanes; the only snag with this is the limit on production in European factories. The main US contribution was precisely the thing the Allies were running out of - manpower.
But let them build all the units they want, you just assume they were built in France or whatever. People don’t want half the nations gimped over technicalities. This is a game , not flames of war. Planes could be shipped over by boat as well as tanks.
I don’t like assumptions - I want it to work convincingly. America is, of course, free to build anything it can since it has the industry to do so. I’m merely pointing out that if European factories have the capacity it makes sense for the units to be built closer to where they’ll be needed (and without the risk of being sunk in the Atlantic).
Or do we simply “assume” that America successfully ships the units over without the CP having the opportunity to intercept?
In order to supply Turkey by rail, the CP need to occupy a couple of Balkan neutrals. I would suggest that Bulgaria automatically joins the CP as soon as Serbia or Romania have been captured.
IL and Flashman, why not use the HBG rail and rail station piece for rail movement rules. I’ve used them in a few 1940 games, its more fun than having very abstract “strategic movement rules”. You could even have train pieces that actually transported units along the rails or between rail stations, plus railguns can only move on places with rail(no rail guns in the sahara). That would be so much fun! Plus it could help illustrate the construction of the Berlin-Baghdad railroad. If it had been finished, it could have turned the tide of the war. Image the German Army invading across the Sinai or into India! just an idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Air_Force
Regarding tanks for gimped nations like Ottomans, perhaps they might and anybody else get a roll for capture if they win the battle. It appears they took 8 British made tanks and used them in Palestine campaign. For planes they had developed the proper organization to accept transport of planes from their allies and reached the apex of some 90 planes by 1916. IN the naval section, they already did have most ship types, with Germany supplying them.
IN the game they should be allowed to buy any unit, Germany could have sold Pasha a few tanks and transported.
I guess a captured tank roll would be in order rolling a 6 gets the victor one of the defenders dead tanks.
than having very abstract “strategic movement rules”.
Flashman proposed that. MY game has it pretty easy and way easier than HBG:
Railroad transportation:
Rail movement is allowed from anywhere within contiguously controlled and connected land areas, limited as follows:
- If you are not in a factory space, rail movement can be to any originally controlled factory (including allied factories) or an original starting home territory. No limit of moves of this type.
- If you are in a factory space, you can rail to either item #1, or any space you control. No limit of moves of this type.
- If you control both sides of the Suez or Dardanelles, you may pass thru these areas.
These moves are valid if:
- You can trace the movement through a continuous line of controlled territories.
- The movement does not cross any sea barriers that are not controlled (such as the English Channel, or a blocked Dardanelles strait).
- The movement is not into a contested area.
- The line is not traced through Russia (unless you are Russia).
- 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.
I’m not sure they will have a rule that Ottoman can’t build this or that. The Italian industary wasn’t up to pair but there was no special rules for them
Also, fighters could attack in 1914. They had mounted guns above the top wing or machine guns mounted in the back. Interrupter gear made the process easier. WE have them at 1-1-4-7 units
http://www.wwiaviation.com/british1914.html
http://www.wwiaviation.com/german1914.html
http://www.wwiaviation.com/french_2seaters1914.html
http://www.wwiaviation.com/italy1914.html
http://www.wwiaviation.com/russia1915.html
