Why have the Ottomans playable if your just going to gimp them to all hell?.
I think the best way to represent the Ottomans and their inability to produce modern arms will be to just have them have a really small economy, kinda like Italy in G1940. Flashman is absolutely correct in his appraisal of Ottoman capabilities and their absolute lack of modern industry and infrastructure. In game terms I think it will be represented by a poor economy and alot of poor or no value territories outside of the Turkish heartland. You will probably see a scenario where the Ottoman forces within what we would consider Turkey to be quite robust and powerful, especially on the defensive (think Galipoli), while those in the rest of the Empire will be weak and unsupported (maybe they could pose a threat to allied positions in the region in the beginning rounds but not for long).
Granted China did not do a whole lot so I guess not them.
Yes, that’s right. I think the only Chinese territorial connection to WWI was Japan’s conquest of Germany’s colonial port in Tsingtao, where the Germany’s Asiatic squadron was based.
It should be noted that Turkey was a major power in a limited sense, as it had no modern industry. All mechanical weapons were imported from Europe.
One factor to keep in mind is that, when Austria-Hungary occupied Serbia and when Bulgaria entered the war on the side of the Central Powers, these two events created an overland connection between Austria-Hungary and Turkey. So in one sense, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey had the advantage of being directly connected to each other by land from that point onward – unlike the Allies, who were geographically isolated from each other and whose Mediterranean/Black Sea connection route (which was far from ideal to begin with) was severed by Turkey.
Yes, this is why the Dardanelles was seen as so important - controlling this area allows the Allies to supply Russia by sea (about 90% of Russian imports came through here); while for the CP it allows a continuous rail link from Berlin to Medina.
I’m not suggesting Turkey should be “weak”. It will start off with fully equipped armies from supplies purchased pre-war. As long as A & G can keep a supply route open they can continue to supply Turkey with mechanized units, especially since the Bosporus is considered to have an unbroken rail link from Europe to Asia. They just can’t be BUILT in Turkey.
This also raises the question of turn order: presumably the official game will still have every power playing individual turns one after the other. However if we go to the other extreme and have “All Axis plays; then all Allies play” converting units isn’t even an issue.
Personally I’m in favour of something in the middle for both eras: in WWII I have Japan and USSR as separate factions; Germany and Italy are one; UK, F & USA are one faction as the Western Allies; making 4 blocks, each of which plays all of its members simultaneously.
For WWI I’d suggest Russia and Turkey as separate, but ALL then ALL turn order makes more sense for this game.
Regarding Russia & the Bolsheviks: A reminder that Germany surrendered while occupying about 3 times the tt it had when the war began. Just defaulting to the old “capture 2 capitals” idea will not work if the game is reasonably balanced; the game will likely go on forever. Therefore, there needs to be a mechanism for nations collapsing into disorder and revolution. This can happen to any power, but Russia is the familiar example.
Otherwise, how do you represent a power suddenly just dropping out of the game? The Allies tried to keep Russia going as an anti-German power, Germany supported the Bolsheviks. As the great powers descended into anarchy, civil wars and revolutions were going on all over Europe; if the game just ignores all this its a poor representation of history.
@CWO:
It should be noted that Turkey was a major power in a limited sense, as it had no
modern industry. All mechanical weapons were imported from Europe.One factor to keep in mind is that, when Austria-Hungary occupied Serbia and when Bulgaria entered the war on the side of the Central Powers, these two events created an overland connection between Austria-Hungary and Turkey. So in one sense, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey had the advantage of being directly connected to each other by land from that point onward – unlike the Allies, who were geographically isolated from each other and whose Mediterranean/Black Sea connection route (which was far from ideal to begin with) was severed by Turkey.
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.
I remember TGW originally had turn order as:
Germany
France
Austria
Russia
Ottoman
UK
The problem was that Russia was quickly "1-2 punch"ed and taken out of the game by Germany and Austria.
The solution was a more “historical” turn order
Austria (attacks Serbia, thus starting the war)
Russia (counters by declaring war on Austria, in support of Serbia)
Germany (declares war on Russia in support of Austria)
France (declares war on Germany because, damnit, they hate Germany)
Ottoman
UK
This seemed to work a lot better, and maintained the original “back-and-forth” of the original turn order. But if the objective is to allow for a bit more team coordination, you could easily switch the Ottoman and UK turns, allowing Austria and Ottoman to collaborate in the Balkans, and the UK and France to coordinate their moves on the western front.
Turns:
Each game turn constitutes four months (except the first) of real time outlined as follows:
Turn order:
Turn 1 only: Austro-Hungary, Russia, Germany, France, England and Ottomans.
Turn 2 - till end of game: Russia, Central powers, Allied Powers.
Note: Each nation must perform their turn individually on turn one. On later turns, Russia always moves first and separate from the other Allies. The Central Powers and Allies may move simultaneously when it is their sides turn.
If I had to have 8 separate turns, my order would be:
Germany
Russia
Austria
France
Ottoman Empire
United Kingdom
Italy
USA
Austria shelled Belgrade, but this was hardly a major action. The first big attack came from Germany, then Russia attacked in the East while Austria was dawdling between 2 fronts.
So for a 4 block game, I would have:
1. Germany (& Italy?)
2. Russia (& Italy?)
3. Austria (& Turkey)
4. France (& Britain, & USA)
Turkey joins in round two (or perhaps when a battleship is delivered to the Sublime Porte…)
Britain joins after an attack on any neutral (only the CPs can ever attack neutrals!)
USA really needs a chart to track its attitude to war; its entry certainly shouldn’t be automatic after X turns.
Italy decides who to join in May 1915 (see my timetables attached)
http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/world_war_i_1914.htm
The Russian Civil War cost as least 3 million casualties. Hardly a bar-room brawl.
How do you represent the Russian Revolution? When and how does it happen? What do the Germans do - just stop at the borders? Is Russia declared off-limits (lets leave them alone while they fight among themselves?)
Britain joins after an attack on any neutral (only the CPs can ever attack neutrals!)
USA really needs a chart to track its attitude to war; its entry certainly shouldn’t be automatic after X turns.
The game would be ruined since the Central powers would avoid UK the entire game, A variable entry USA is also a game breaker. It must be fixed because the games balancing would prove impossible. The game must be Historical, not full of nitpicking rules that destroy play balance.
Would Britain have gone to war if Germany had avoided Belgium? Not certain.
What if Germany had not even attacked France?
At the very least, offer a number of scenarios leaving the possibility of unhistorical results.
American entry was based on so many factors that it is ridiculous to make it mandatory on turn X. Instead, each side should be able to influence it in various ways. It will always be likely, but if you make it and its date certain where’s the game?
Would Britain have gone to war if Germany had avoided Belgium? Not certain.
What if Germany had not even attacked France?
At the very least, offer a number of scenarios leaving the possibility of unhistorical results.
American entry was based on so many factors that it is ridiculous to make it mandatory on turn X. Instead, each side should be able to influence it in various ways. It will always be likely, but if you make it and its date certain where’s the game?
The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.
@Imperious:
The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.
I think that “to allow Historical developments at specific times” makes for a predictable game, rather than a balanced game, necessarily. This isn’t a bad thing, as this kind of predictability allows you to create a framework for balance.
I’m broadly of the opinion (usually pertaining to East & West but in all history-based wargames) that the game should only be as historical as it is balanced. If adding something historical ruins balance, edit it out/obfuscate it/whatever. If you can add in something historical to balance out a deficiency in the rules, all the better! I think this is the direction that the A&A franchise is going with National Objectives and such.
@Flashman:
How do you represent the Russian Revolution? When and how does it happen? What do the Germans do - just stop at the borders? Is Russia declared off-limits (lets leave them alone while they fight among themselves?)
I am thinking you could borrow from A&A Europe (1999 version), where the territories that the USSR captured since the start of the war were coloured differently (this is also similar to Chinese territories under control of Japan in A&A Pacific, IIRC).
So, basically take the territory that (historically) was given to Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and colour that separately from the main Russian territory colour; have the rule be that if the CP capture all of those territories (or alternately, Russia’s capitol) then Russia is out of the war. CP units in other Russian territories are moved to the nearest friendly territory, perhaps. Have this as a sort of “Check For Victory†rule at the end of any turn or round.
I’m most curious about the color for each nation
I’d check out the MapView module for The Great War; IMHO they did a great job with the colours for the various countries (granted, there are only 6)
Otherwise, how do you represent a power suddenly just dropping out of the game? The Allies tried to keep Russia going as an anti-German power, Germany supported the Bolsheviks. As the great powers descended into anarchy, civil wars and revolutions were going on all over Europe; if the game just ignores all this its a poor representation of history.
The British television series “The First World War” (based on Hew Strachan’s book of the same name) has an episode on strikes, revolts, mutinies and revolutions. It discusses the concept of revolution as a weapon of war: trying to prevent it on your own side (both in the army and on the home front) while simultaneously trying to encourage it in enemy countries. Germany succeeded in Russia (it helped Lenin get from Switzerland to Russia, ultimately resulting in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian surrender to Germany at Brest-Litovsk), and it had a partial success in Ireland (in the form of the Easter Rising). Britain lost a large number of man-hours to strikes, to which the government responded by ordering its negotiators to give the strikers what they wanted. The French Army mutinied in 1917, and was brought back into line through a mixture of reforms, concessions and executions. The Italian Army responded to excessively harsh policies from its highest officers by surrendering to the Autro-Hungarians in the tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands. The German Navy mutinied in 1918 when its leaders planned a suicidal final sortie against the Royal Navy for the sole purpose of salvaging its honour. Austria-Hungary and Germany both underwent social collapse in the final months of the war. Ultimately, none of the regimes on the losing side survived the war: the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were all destroyed, and the latter two were dismantled into a patchwork of successor states.
Yeah, I know about all that, but I think the only way to represent it is a disorder and revolution chart similar to the IPC income chart. When a nation drops so far it falls into disorder; after another target is falls into revolution.
When all powers of one side are either defeated (occupied) or in revolution, the game ends. Indeed if the game is correctly balanced this is the ONLY way it can end, otherwise the stalemate continues forever. But a nation should always be recoverable, even after revolution; hence I prefer to put revolutionary forces in the game, rather than just placing a country off-limits.
@CWO:
Otherwise, how do you represent a power suddenly just dropping out of the game?� The Allies tried to keep Russia going as an anti-German power, Germany supported the Bolsheviks.� As the great powers descended into anarchy, civil wars and revolutions were going on all over Europe; if the game just ignores all this its a poor representation of history.
The British television series “The First World War” (based on Hew Strachan’s book of the same name) has an episode on strikes, revolts, mutinies and revolutions. It discusses the concept of revolution as a weapon of war: trying to prevent it on your own side (both in the army and on the home front) while simultaneously trying to encourage it in enemy countries. Germany succeeded in Russia (it helped Lenin get from Switzerland to Russia, ultimately resulting in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian surrender to Germany at Brest-Litovsk), and it had a partial success in Ireland (in the form of the Easter Rising). Britain lost a large number of man-hours to strikes, to which the government responded by ordering its negotiators to give the strikers what they wanted. The French Army mutinied in 1917, and was brought back into line through a mixture of reforms, concessions and executions. The Italian Army responded to excessively harsh policies from its highest officers by surrendering to the Autro-Hungarians in the tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands. The German Navy mutinied in 1918 when its leaders planned a suicidal final sortie against the Royal Navy for the sole purpose of salvaging its honour. Austria-Hungary and Germany both underwent social collapse in the final months of the war. Ultimately, none of the regimes on the losing side survived the war: the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were all destroyed, and the latter two were dismantled into a patchwork of successor states.
My preferred scheme:
France - Blue
Britain - Brown(khaki)
USA - Green
Russia - Light Grey
Italy - Light Green
Turkey - Light Tan
Austria - White
Germany - Field Grey
Communists - Red
Nationalists - Black
Japan - Dark Blue
China - Yellow
Neutrals - Orange
Probable Avalon Hill colours:
France - Blue Grey
Britain - Medium Brown
USA - Green Brown
Russia - Dark Brown
Italy - Medium Brown
Turkey - Light Brown
Austria - Light Grey
Germany - Field Grey
Some other schemes:
Great War:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/547029/the-great-war?size=original
Conflict
http://www.legiongaming.com/
Diplomacy(Gibsons)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1050314/diplomacy?size=original
War To End All Wars
http://www.guildofblades.com/WWI_Map.php
I’m most curious about the color for each nation
I love the idea of countries falling into revolution, but how would we perform this? What factors would we use to tell if a country is falling into revolution? Certainly not a dice roll! The only thing I can think of is national objectives with turn limits:
(example: Germany must capture Paris by turn 10 or this will lead to rolling of two dice, the number is the number of revolutionaries that spawn in the capitol territory on the place new units phase and must be dealt with on the countries next combat movement phase, this only happens once in a game).
So instead of making the national objectives purely economy based, we can have a mix of some economy/citizen unrest. And I agree with Imperious that it would be silly to have China and Japan represented, focus on the meat of the conflict.
What say the rest of you about how can we implement the revolution system into the game? Oh, and I actually like making the USA a token power/neutral in the game. Face it, the French and Brits won that war, we were the straw that broke the camels back.
I love the idea of countries falling into revolution, but how would we perform this? What factors would we use to tell if a country is falling into revolution?
Presumably through some kind of chart similar to the income tracking chart. Call it, say, a social stability chart. The marker for each country would move up and down (mostly down) based on various game-event inputs such as the length of the war, the accumulation of casualties, major victories or defeats, etc. The chart’s outputs could take the form of increases or decreases in industrial productivity, army combat morale bonuses or penalties, and so forth. The closer a country gets to the bottom of the social stability chart, the closer it comes to having its war effort collapse through civilian revolution and/or military mutiny.
@Imperious:
Britain joins after an attack on any neutral (only the CPs can ever attack neutrals!)
USA really needs a chart to track its attitude to war; its entry certainly shouldn’t be automatic after X turns.
The game would be ruined since the Central powers would avoid UK the entire game, A variable entry USA is also a game breaker. It must be fixed because the games balancing would prove impossible. The game must be Historical, not full of nitpicking rules that destroy play balance.
How is a fixed entry in any way historical, unless you think that everything that happened HAD to happen as it did? There can be balance without scripting the game (Russian Revolution happens turn Y, Italy enters turn X, USA enters turn K, etc etc etc)
One cool way for USA to enter that my friends and I did for 1939 Europe and for WWI was a provocation system.
For example, it’s 1 pt for every allied DD/TRN that is sunk on a axis/cp turn, 2 pts for battleship/carrier.
2 pts for every IPC germany collects from a neutral territory, 1 for every IPC a Central/axis power collects from an originally french/british territory, plus some for convoys (which changed based on game for us, you get the idea), and MINUS points for every IPC that is SBR’ed out of Germany.
If the points are at a certain total on USA’s turn, they declare war.
This adds a dynamic to the game that is new and interesting for A&A, where wholesale beatdown of the enemy must be balanced with the threat of a sleeping giant. Adds a lot of variety to the game.
There may be some whining about how that makes the game too political, but WWI was a very different war from WWII and to think that the US entry had to happen because it did happen is a disservice to any attempt at studying history and making a game historical.
Will it be harder to make the game balanced for both sides if the US entry is based on actions rather than a preset schedule that ignores the conditions in the game? Probably. But, unless what you like in A&A is the ability to replay the exact same scheduled events over and over again with a little variability in dice to spice it up, it will be a better game if the political situation is decided by factors that would decide it in reality rather than scheduling it based on what already happened in reality, ignoring that differences in events leading up to those key events that you would script would in fact change the script.
