1914 Sculpts list by type…from larry

@Running-Away Per page 22 of the rulebook, units of another power may be transported only if that power is friendly. Per page 12, the US is not considered to be either friend or enemy to any other power while it remains neutral. Therefore, the US cannot transport units belonging to any other power while it is neutral.

Axis and Allies 1914 - British Strategy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW9pE6IcRdw

Hello All,

Don’t know if you’re interested, but right now at Massdrop you can get A&A 1914 for $54.99 + $10.00 shipping. If enough of us join up, we can get it for $44.99.

Here’s the link: http://dro.ps/axisandallies-1914

Just thought I’d pass it along to you guys, Enjoy!

[admin]Updated with new link and new drop end date[/admin]

I don´t need a strategyguide for the Allies ,because they win all the times.

What I really need is some input for playing the Central Powers especially Austria and the Ottomans.

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.

Larry posted this on his site yesterday. Latest clarification to the 2 move concept.

How about this…

All land units (infantry, artillery, and tanks) can move up to two territories. They can move into friendly territories to reinforce them, contested territories to battle for them, or hostile or neutral territories to attack them.

Land units that begin their turn in friendly territories can move up to two territories, but they must end their movement if and when they enter a contested territory. However, they may not move into a hostile or neutral territory unless they began the turn already adjacent to such a territory. In other words, they may move only one space to enter hostile or neutral territories. Such land units can also be moved by transport, in which case they may either be transported to any territory within range or remain at sea.

Land units that are moved out of a contested territory can only be moved to an adjacent territory. The adjacent territory being moved into must have been controlled by the moving player at the beginning of his turn or contained units belonging to him. They can also be moved by transport, in which case they may either be transported to a territory within range that meets those same requirements or remain at sea.

(if you think this was well written you can thank Krieghund)

Kim

@KimRYoung:

@rjpeters70:

Dude, no offense was meant whatsoever.�  I was not knocking you or Koreans at all (I’ve even been to the ROK, and loved it).�  It’s just the first thing that jumps in my head these days, given that we have a crazy dictator actively threatening nuclear war named Kim.

I’m not offended at all RJ, just letting everyone know who I am. It was also bad in the late 60’s when the name Kim became a common girls name (short for Kimberly), then if they didn’t know, they thought I was a girl. In H.S. I got put in an all girls health education class, which I thought was great! I still get mail to Ms. Kim Young  :lol:

Kim (white, non-Korean male  8-)

For what it’s worth, I know a Korean named Robert E. Lee.

That link is common knowledge.  Hurray for it!