The Great War 1914-1918: Clash of Empires

I am at it again! Here I present to you A&A 1800 Napoleonic Wars! This game will provide several scenarios within the wider scope of the Napoleonic Wars, beginning in the year 1800. This game will include full diplomatic, combat, and economic systems; as well as the destructive variable of Napoleon himself.

Combat system:

Infantry- Atk 1/ Def 2/ Move 1/ Cost 3 ipc
Atk of 2 when paired 1 to 1 with cannon

Calvary- Atk 2/ Def 2/ Move 2/ Cost 4 ipc

Cannon- Atk 3/ Def 3/ Move 1/ Cost 5 ipc
May move 2 spaces if paired 1 to 1 with calvary

Frigate- Atk 3/ Def 3/ Move 2/ Cost 8 ipc
May carry up to 2 land units, 1 must be infantry

Economic system:

All nations collect the stated amount of ipc with each of their respective territories at the end of each of their turns.

Diplomatic System:

Every nation may earn and spend PPT (Political Power Tokens). +1 PPT for defeating an enemy army/fleet (either destroying it or forcing it to retreat from a territory/sea zone ). +1 PPT when having captured an enemy territory. +1 PPT when forming an alliance with another nation.

-1 PPT when breaking an alliance with another nation. -1 PPT when having lost a land or sea battle. -1 PPT when having lost your nations capital.

PPTs may be spent to ally a neutral nation to your cause; 1 PPT per allying neutral nation. 1 PPT can be used to delay a nations declaration of war upon you (may only be used ounce per round, per nation). 1 PPT may be spent to declare war on another nation.

Here is the map…
IMG_6924.jpg

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Added TripleA compatibility.

Probably Confederate infantry attire would strongly resemble British or French kit, to include either the Adrian, or, even more likely, the Brodie helmet.

One imagines that the Union would take its cues from the Germans, or, even more likely, the Russians, meaning either no helmet, or else some version of the stahlhlem. It’s also possible that one might see a distinctive steel hat more akin to the M1, or even a kind of “stovepipe” or “top hat” in steel.

I’m trying hard to think up certain National Advantages. Perhaps Confederate cavalry would be able to execute a kind of blitzkrieg. Would it be likely that a nation without much native automobile production, but having to cover a long border with a relatively small standing army, would develop a heavy emphasis on motorization?

As early as Bull Run, both armies were learning the military value of railroads.

@ossel:

@1Bean432:

Are we talking full-fledged rule changes or are we just changing the map around?

This particular thread is devoted to SIMPLE map changes (moving a border here or there) in order to make the OOB map more accurate to the actual borders at the time. No rules changes.

Alrighty.

The size of Tunsia, Morroco, Gold coast, and Togoland should be increased.

Angola should connect to Kamerun. I know its historically accurate the way it is now, but it just feels so strange to have two territorys so close to each other, but have to spend an entire turn in Belgian Congo.

Munich border with Switzerland should be a bit more obvious.

Another SZ that splits up SZ 17. This new SZ is connected to Sicily, Naples, Rome, Tuscany, Piedmont, Sardinia, SZ 16, and the other SZ 17. This new SZ houses all of the Italian navy.

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.

The territories are intentionally squared off as part of the “look” I was going for. Wanted to give it a modern, almost sci-fi feel to it since it depicts a conflict that never actually happened.

The green territories represent US “landing areas” in a way. Places where new US units may be placed after purchase simulating safe landing areas for reinforcements from the mainland. Grey are NATO nations, brown Russia, orange Pact, and light tan neutral.

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?

didnt they get tanks 1915?
So just for the first couple of turns you would have no tanks.