House rules only work if everyone agrees. If there can be unilateral agreement, then I’ll stop being a stickler.
BUT FIRST…
The game must be released (A novel Idea, I know)
What do you mean by “everyone?”
We know a lot about the game already; for some things its very clear there is no need to wait in brainstorming ideas to share for house rule changes; the Russian Revolution for one.
The worst part about this game so far that’s it’s not released yet. :wink: :-(
My vote as well. I was originally very bummed about the way the board looks–I’m a graphic artist and care a lot about that kind of thing–but I’m now curious enough about it to strongly consider a purchase. I’m sure once it’s in my hands at the store I’ll give in.
Yrs.,
R.
PS. I actually skipped the 2004 Revised edition because I thought the board looked like garbage. I don’t think I missed much on that one. :-)
I actually skipped the 2004 Revised edition because I thought the board looked like garbage. I don’t think I missed much on that one
Revised was the best according to me because it was the most balance A&A ever.
Eastern front felt like trench warfare (when Brit player gave good support to Russia)
I think I will like this game because of that. Just waiting to see how the balance turns out. Which is the most important part for me.
I actually skipped the 2004 Revised edition because I thought the board looked like garbage. I don’t think I missed much on that one
Revised was the best according to me because it was the most balance A&A ever.
Eastern front felt like trench warfare (when Brit player gave good support to Russia)I think I will like this game because of that. Just waiting to see how the balance turns out. Which is the most important part for me.
Classic and Revised were good if you liked the JTDTM and little Pacific action. I, for one, hated that completely ahistorical aspect, so I am extremely happy that has been mostly phased out.
For some reason, I don’t think I’m quite as stoked about this game as I was when it was first announced. I think I will await user reviews before shelling out.
Classic and Revised were good if you liked the JTDTM and little Pacific action.
Yes, but that was the way the Axis should have played it out, if Hitler and Hirohito had cooperated. Attack Russia from two sides at the same time. The ultimate strategy. But Japan was scared of the big ugly Russians after the Khalkin Gol battle in 1939, so they choose the lesser strategy, to attack America, alone. Like a mouse attack the cat. But you want Larry to design the game in a way that favour the historical correct timeline, like a scripted game, so the lesser stategy always will be choosen over the ultimate strategy, because some retards did that in the real war ? Explain……
Classic and Revised were good if you liked the JTDTM and little Pacific action.
Yes, but that was the way the Axis should have played it out, if Hitler and Hirohito had cooperated. Attack Russia from two sides at the same time. The ultimate strategy. But Japan was scared of the big ugly Russians after the Khalkin Gol battle in 1939, so they choose the lesser strategy, to attack America, alone. Like a mouse attack the cat. But you want Larry to design the game in a way that favour the historical correct timeline, like a scripted game, so the lesser stategy always will be choosen over the ultimate strategy, because some retards did that in the real war ? Explain……
No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games. There are just more territories. A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!
I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front. In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated. I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns. India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight! How fun is that?
I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc. Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).
No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games. There are just more territories. A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!
I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front. In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated. I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns. India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight! How fun is that?
I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc. Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).
Its two ways to deal with that, man. You can play the Europe stand-alone game and the Pacific stand-alone game, or you can play with individual victory conditions. Its the win-as-a-team spirit that broke the game, cause now everybody gang up on Germany. And they should be punished when doing that. Like when Japan get a set of VC’s in the Pacific map, lets call that an individual cut-throught win, and the Allies lost. Derogatory……
No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games.� There are just more territories.� A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!
I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front.� In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated.� I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns.� India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight!� How fun is that?
I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc.� Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).
Its two ways to deal with that, man. You can play the Europe stand-alone game and the Pacific stand-alone game, or you can play with individual victory conditions. Its the win-as-a-team spirit that broke the game, cause now everybody gang up on Germany. And they should be punished when doing that. Like when Japan get a set of VC’s in the Pacific map, lets call that an individual cut-throught win, and the Allies lost. Derogatory……
I agree with what you said… And the fact that in AA1940, if Japan is left alone she can win on the Pacific map fairly easily- which forces a more historical outcome- i.e. the US contesting Japan in Pacific.
No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games.��  There are just more territories.��  A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!
I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front.��  In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated.��  I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns.��  India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight!��  How fun is that?
I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc.��  Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).
Its two ways to deal with that, man. You can play the Europe stand-alone game and the Pacific stand-alone game, or you can play with individual victory conditions. Its the win-as-a-team spirit that broke the game, cause now everybody gang up on Germany. And they should be punished when doing that. Like when Japan get a set of VC’s in the Pacific map, lets call that an individual cut-throught win, and the Allies lost. Derogatory……
I agree with what you said…�  And the fact that in AA1940, if Japan is left alone she can win on the Pacific map fairly easily- which forces a more historical outcome- i.e. the US contesting Japan in Pacific.
Why do you discuss that here at 1914 Board?
No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games.�� �� There are just more territories.�� �� A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!
I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front.�� �� In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated.�� �� I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns.�� �� India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight!�� �� How fun is that?
I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc.�� �� Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).
Its two ways to deal with that, man. You can play the Europe stand-alone game and the Pacific stand-alone game, or you can play with individual victory conditions. Its the win-as-a-team spirit that broke the game, cause now everybody gang up on Germany. And they should be punished when doing that. Like when Japan get a set of VC’s in the Pacific map, lets call that an individual cut-throught win, and the Allies lost. Derogatory……
I agree with what you said…� �� And the fact that in AA1940, if Japan is left alone she can win on the Pacific map fairly easily- which forces a more historical outcome- i.e. the US contesting Japan in Pacific.
Why do you discuss that here at 1914 Board?
Probably because there is just only so much bitching we can do on WWI without seeing the actual Game  :-D
Seriously I’m excited about this Game but I do feel,at least with my Group it will be heavily Home Ruled.
Sorry about that. Back to discussing 1914.
Classic and Revised were good if you liked the JTDTM and little Pacific action
What is that?
Back on 1914 topic
I’m going to wait for the reviews from you guys before I buy it. (anyway I will buy the game when I go to the US in the summer)
Japanese tank drive to Moscow. Basically revised all came down to who could pile the most units into Moscow/Caucasus. Since it took too long for Japanese infantry to march there (no rails, remember?) they just had to shell out for tanks and drive there.
Dramatically highlighted the fundamental flaws of the A&A movement system.
The map.
I have no idea why they thought having a distorting map of a real place was a good idea. For me the game loses a lot of appeal with that goofy map.
I’ll say for sure nobody on this board will by the game to get that derogatory map, they will buy it to get the new inf pieces to use as neutrals in the G40
I’ve wanted an A&A WWI game for so long I’m going to find the time to do my own board.
Tempting to base it on my own variant, but need to test the full OOB version a few times before deciding what to change.
But East Prussia is being fixed for a start, not having that.
Probably lose Lorraine to bring Paris back where it should be; if this needs rebalancing I’d rather give Germany fewer starting units.
Probably keep the diamond, but with the projection I’ve used on my maps, so that for example “Mesopotamia” can be divided north/south with Armenia having the Black Sea border.
The worst (at least I think) is that italy is allied, and in the war from the start. Why don´t they have a delayed entry, or an option to join the centrals?
What is the East Prussia problem?
What is the East Prussia problem?
That the area isn’t under German control and that somehow it is part of Poland.
