The Great War 1914-1918: Clash of Empires

@AndrewAAGamer Dear Sir… Yes the Map is 6 feet by 10 feet. The purpose of the map design is to make it both geographical as well as politically correct for 31 Aug - 1939… In the 28 years and 12 version of this game I have crafted… and roughly 400 play test games… you are the first to suggest to get rid of the blow up boxes… and I would if I could keep the ratio the same… The blow-up boxes are not that large in comparison to the total map… As for the pieces, I totally re-designed them for this version and reprinted all 4000 pieces on my 3-d printer… While some of the pieces did not change in size -but in more detail… none were made bigger… all but 1 of the ship designs were made slightly shorter and thinner… but I really appreciate your insight for my game… If youre in the Tulsa, OK area near the end of February of 2026… come to the game con and see it for yourself… Also if you like send me an email at cefjr1961@gmail.com and I will send you .pdf files for both the map and rules…
Sincerely;

Charles Fontaine

Mexico was not independent during the civil war. It was under French control.

@all-encompassing-goose

Let me try sending it again:

@all-encompassing-goose

Axis And Allies 1932 seems too unbalanced for me. This was before the Nazis rose to power, and if the game is set in 1938 or 1939, the Nazis will just be killed by the Western Allies-if a game needs to be balanced, the earliest date that can be done is the date that the 1940 game starts with, when the French Army, the biggest threat to Germany, is more or less destroyed. I guess an early 1940 game, after German troops redeployed from Poland, could work.

The political aspect of the war has always been interesting to me. Whilst players simply making deals can work, I feel like it can be better, but I don’t know how. Having shifting alliances, however it’s done, can be a lot of fun though, as it adds a lot of unpredictably to the game, and can make the situation like Diplomacy (which I never played, I’m just basing it off of what I read).

Late war research and development sounds like a good idea, especially as military technology would have advanced faster than real life, as all countries would be at war, trying to advance technology as fast as possible. Nuclear weapons seem interesting, as I explore in this topic:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37409/nuclear-bomb-addition-for-axis-and-allies-global-1940/4

Switching sides, especially if they already are at the start of the game and can continue to change, can make the war last a really long time, and can make it crazy and fun-I wonder how will victory conditions work though?

Rules and setup
Please help to playtest this variant.

@Admiral:

I personally like this idea, and love to see the inclusion of warlord armies in the interior and a special map dedicated to this scenario.

Thanks! :-D

there wont be much money in this game. i actually like that better makes a little more cotios(sp?) of loses.

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.

I got a say, though I have never played anything other than AArevised, and earlier addtions, (including expansions), people always did buy all tanks. But when tanks defended on a 2, and cost 3, buying all infantry swamped the tanks. I never bought all men with the guys I used to play regualary with, but just enough not to give it away. I was amazed they never realized the advantage of buying all men versus tanks. I always bought just enough men to not make it obvious. I have been playing for over 25 years. When they made tanks defend at a 3 on revised it became a close battle, but with the addition of artillery, again unless  you had to travel far and fast, infantry and artillery is far superior in strength. It always has been, so I curious what game was it advantageous to do all tanks.

In World at WAr (Expansion), since you can improve factories to produce 2 tanks per turn at a $1 reduce price, those became the only tanks I would ever buy.

Looking at some of the maps like AA40, being so big in terms of spaces it might make sense. But tanks costing now $6, the need for speed really must overcome the advantage of fire power. If I have $42, I would much rather have 6 men and 6 artillery versus 7 tanks. Its a no brainer.