The Great War 1914-1918: Clash of Empires

@superbattleshipyamato

Optional Rule 3:

Italy can join the war on the side of the Central Powers. Keep in mind that this might make the game unbalanced.

In the 90’, I played a couple of Xeno game and with and without gamerparadise rules.
It was well balanced but not enough for me.
The rules are not bad but the gameboard is ugly.
Over the year me and my friend changes the rules and created our own map.

@C_Strabala:

I am considering buying the pieces only to add to my exspansive collection of plastic miniatures. How well do the ships sit on the gameboard?

The submarines have bodies that are a bit narrow, so they can sometimes tip over, but the other pieces are stable.

yah, with three diffrent idealogies competing for contol, that would be cool, but i was going for a game that was a little less black and white

leaders of arab countires are more often allied with western powers than with Islam, Russia and China are not on the best terms either, and in this game i am going to make it possible for Russia and China to have full scale war with each other. Also its not like the US, UK, and France are able to agree on eyerthing either. I think it is best if they are seperate powers.

sure their will still be too sides, NATO, headed by the US, and the Warsaw Pact, headed by the Soveits. but the alliances are not set.
In fact at the start of the game all countries should still be at peace. each power can either buy NATO or WARSAW Pact vicotry points with 10 IPCs, of course doing that lowers the effectiveness of their armies the next turn, and so should only do this when they are not expecting attack

THe US and USSR are the only countries that start out active, If  US/UK/France are attack all of those countries can become active, of course I am going to have diplomacy rolling that can weaken or change the NATO alliance

China, and India are different. You can gain control of them diplomaticly or you can attack them to makes them active. if you attack one, the other becomes contoled by your alliance

The diplomacy thing will be clearer later, I also might make diffrent national objectives for each contry so that when you have more than two players, diplomacy can be represented by people instead of dice rolls.

:-o
May I suggest a possible infantry change based on historic facts. Russians had more men, Germans had better equipment and training for their troops not to mention their skill at combined arms tactics. So, why not let the Russians have their cheap infantry buys while giving the Germans a bonus in attack strength, say 2 in attack and 2 in defense when combined with armor or air units, ( no need for Artillary). Now that is what I call an easy fix. Since the germans start out with more tanks and planes than thier opponents they will kick butt early. But when the allies start to build up their combined arms, Germany will be overwhelmed in numbers. So the axis better do a lot of damage real quick to win.
    Should be more fun though.
If someone does play-test this in a game could they let me know how it worked out? Thanks.

:roll: Crazy Ivan

If something doesn’t work right,
                  fix it!
    I can’t help it, I’m left handed

Im sorry i am not in the habit of making my games so anybody can just send files of it around the world and print their own copies of it. IT took me way too many hundreds of hours to create… Yes i did say hundreds… about 700-750 to be sure. The map alone took me 6-7 months to make.

Honestly, if you play the board game for the map and pieces, then you should avoid most of the board games out there.

As far as 4 revisions in 10 years, maybe that’s a bit high, granted, but….  I can tell you a fact that in 10 years, Dell has gone through more server revisions in those same 10 years.  Does that make their products (or substitute Apple, IBM, HP, etc) any worse?  That’s the worst comment I’ve ever heard.  Not only that, but revisions are there to help make the game better.

Ok, rant off.  Talking about World at War 2005 now.  The game is ok, but unfortunately when combining the latest rules from Axis & Allies (which this is based off of), the Allies has too much of an advantage.  Especially when comparing this version with the 3rd version.  There are now factories in India and Australia for Britain to use, you can still purchase infantry off of factory sites, but at a max of 1 per land and they cost 1 IPC more, which hurts Germany a ton since they can’t keep Africa.  Then again, Britain got a bump in Africa as well with the tank defending on a 3 now and they get an extra artillery piece, so you really have to commit in Africa to take it and hold it.

The technology rolls are interesting, but kind of confusing to understand at first.

I’m actually on this forum to see if anyone has brought up house rules or variants to make the game a little bit more balanced.  I believe the Allies should win about 60-65% to keep in line with history, but this version (and the previous ones as well) gives the allies about 80% chance to win.  This is assuming average dice rolls.  We’ve played around with giving Germany super subs and Japan get fighters to start, but it didn’t help all that much.  Japan usually never has a problem and the jet fighters were just the icing on the cake.  Super subs really didn’t help Germany as much as we had thought it would.

Anyone else try to do something different with this game?

@Toonster:

The rules for World at War says the following about an Axis IPC win:

“Germany and Japan win whenever their combined IPC total is 20 IPCs higher than all of the Allies combined.”

Does this mean directly after Japan has finished his turn, implying Russia and US cannot fight back?

Toonster

I assume (as in orig. A&A), that the Axis must maintain the IPC total at the end on one complete round of play (meaning every player has had a turn).