Already Looking Forward to 1914 2nd Edition

Has anyone found proper colors to use for custom units for 1914 for each power ? I’ve had no luck finding anything so I try to color match to the best of my abilities but if there was RGB or CMYK info out there it would be awesome for modders.

@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

@Krieghund Thanks. I don’t play a lot of 1914 so some of the mine rules are pretty wonky for me. The bit about mines halting movement in particular is pretty important.

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.

No beef, really. I just draw a distinction between what might foreseeably happen in a new, 2.0 version vs. what would occur with house rules/tweaking.

Given the WotC delivery on generic sculpts, no cold, hard, IPCs, and the like, I doubt anything like cavalry would make an appearence. Changes in the rules, however, are a more likely thing. Africa, especially, needs some simple but specific rules (ie. restrictive movement, reduced unit attacks/defense, etc.)

However, they would be something I would consider adding in a house-rule/variant derived from A&A 1914. But they would need to add something significant or unique to the game play. I know that’s been discussed in other threads, and personally, I’m split on the issue. I am more likely to add trains and fortresses to the mix (e.g. the latter did significantly affect the course of the war, such as in Liege or Przemsyl). It gives another focus for artillery/infantry, and siphons off troops from the otherwise attritional wars o’ stacks.

Point being, I’m just drawing distinctions between “what might” and “would if”. And nothing personal was intended.

Hypothetical question: If the attack resolution rules for 1914 were the same as the other A&A games, which current first moves would you change and why…for example, I would change my opening moves by AH to build up forces to attack Italy first and just build up a force in Galicia rather than attack Venice and Poland…I would still have to attack Serbia, but I would hold off on Albania…