Already Looking Forward to 1914 2nd Edition

@imperious-leader

True, true. I’d rather get the old games before getting new ones. But yeah, I’d like a Kursk and Stalingrad game in the future, maybe even naval battles like Leyte Gulf.

@Arne said in 1914 Introduce Tanks Earlier in Game:

Hi, are there any objections (except for the historical ones) to introduce tanks earlier in the game than round 4?

Other than historical reasons, I don’t know why you couldn’t start buying tanks as early as you please. It would shake up some of the established strategies. Whether that’s good or bad would be up to you.

-Midnight_Reaper

I’ve created a separate thread for my work on the OOB 1914 map. Please go here to discuss it in more detail.

I’m late to the game on this post, but since I have played many many games of AA1914 over the last couple years (and it’s my favorite AA game), I’d like to share on how my group’s thoughts have evolved about tanks.

The first few games, we barely made any, thinking they were not worth sacrificing 2 infantry units for the same cost. We lowered the IPC cost to 5, and within 2 games, tanks were on every battlefield. We figured we probably underestimated them, so we returned to the original cost.

Now, they are always on the game board for some powers, namely Germany, France and the UK. Other countries may field them based on whether or not they are clearly in the attack mode. Our games will never last less than 10 turns, usually more like 14 or 15 before we call a winner.

It’s important to remember that AA1914 is about weapons having synergies with each other, which means you need to figure out their niche for each and everyone of them, and they DO exist.

What we found out about tanks is that, once they start protecting a high percentage of your per-turn production (say 25% or higher), they give you tremendous staying power on the offensive. For the main powers, this means that 3 tanks or more will have an impact. For small powers like Italy, a single tank may make a difference if they are on the offensive.

When you play the usual rules, it takes time to bring reinforcements to the front (we use trucks as land transport equivalents so it is a bit faster) and therefore you want your offensive power to not erode as quickly, especially since the defender will have faster reinforcements. Many AA games were lost because the attacker made it to the enemy capital only to completely run out of steam, which meant a large scale retreat was needed.

While it’s true that tanks alone will lose a fight, their role is to skew the results of a offensive battle in your favor. Since their effect is guaranteed compared to rolling dice, you know you will cut your losses. This turns a relatively equal fight into an advantage, or an unlucky roll into a salvageable situation. Their effect will show over 2 or 3 turns, eating into your enemy’s kills and allowing your units to actually be there to defend when he would choose to counterattack.

Tanks alone are not worth it. But a few of them on a battlefield progressively eat away at your enemy’s army by forcing him to accept subpar kill ratios. Yes, more infantry MIGHT be good… if they were alive to defend for the counterattack. Tanks insure you will have a better attrition rate than your enemy, but the trick is you have to have a meaningful number of them compared to your IPC rate for them to make a difference. So, you either build enough of them to be worth it, or none at all.

The one caveat I would have is if you and your enemies have a tendency to stack ungodly large armies on a single region and wait for that epic clash of arms. In my experience, you should avoid this situation at all costs and force engagements when armies have more than 25 infantry divisions, otherwise it becomes a stacking game, and those are typically slow with a predictable outcome (the losing side just hopes something will happen to turn the tides, while the winning side simply keeps increasing its leverage while waiting for the inevitable). Go on the offensive, move that front, make it as fluid as you can !

All in all, if you feel you are going to be on the attack for a while, build tanks and watch your enemy lose more and more units for less and less of yours. Your staying power will be greatly enhanced and they will turn the tide of war in your favor.

protevangelium makes some great points about how lopsided the sea’s were, and sub warfare being the best option for the CP in the war. Subs are a bit lacking in this edition as well as others IMO (nearly impossible to raid convoys, or inflict econ damage). The Austrians, and Turks were very limited in their abilities. The Germans did have a more modern surface fleet (tried to enter a naval arms race before the war), but failed in comparison to the Brits. In this game the Germans can get temporary control of the North Sea early though and add to their fleet. Once the rest of French Fleet comes up the UK still doesn’t need to build much to protect allied transports OOB (two French BB’s is a nice way to start for the allies rebuild). If the allies want to knock the German fleet out, then it could get expensive, but do they need to, or just set-up a multi national defense that the Germans can’t touch to keep allied transports afloat. Then there is always the 1-2 punch if the allies want to go aggressive. I still believe the problem lies with the French fleet (and the abilities of the sub to a point).

When we play we always reduce the Atlantic French Fleet to just a cruiser (swap BB for cruiser and remove the transport). We have done this even before Larry introduced it in the Tourney rules. It does help for game play, and better reflects what the French had in the Atlantic. The French Atlantic fleet was more of a support to the Brits (not nearly equal). Before the war the French naval focus was in the Med not knowing the intentions of the Italians (fearing an Italian attack which the game doesn’t reflect).

It would have been nice for the sub to have a larger roll in this edition having more raiding ability or sz’s to attack econ. Should destroyers be introduced so subs have a better survival rate? Maybe the naval set-up cost should be tweaked. BB’s at 12 IPCs is too cost effective IMO (should they be 15 IPCs?), no one buys cruisers. Just thinking out load……don’t read to much into it. WB

It slows down US shuck to Europe too much, but it does help get those Canadians across when the UK is shucking its transport fleet between Picardy-London-Karelia.