Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

@krieghund

Thank you a lot!

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.

Historically Italy should not be considered at war until the start of I1, although A-H will probably decide to attack it anyway.

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

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…

Kreighund never explained why this was introduced, when it appears to benefit the CPs only in limited movement through such tts. They would surely be better off being able to withdraw from them.

There are many reasons for the failure of the Spring Offensive the nutritional status of the German Army, the Deciphering of German radio traffic by Georges Painvin, 1 mio CP Soldiers still hanging out in the East, but the main reason were the Strategic errors of the German leadership.
Ludendorffs decision to reinforce troops who encountered the stubborn resistance led to an improper use of the powers. The findings of the subsequent World War showed that to maximize the shock effect precisely those troops should be increased, which had already achieved the greatest success. Generally, the reserve management during the offensive was problematic, since only the troops in the front line were reinforced and that no full new units were brought there. This led to rapid fatigue of the deployed forces. Furthermore, the fixation of the General Staff only on the military concept of the breakthrough. The offensive had been planned by the OHL consistently methodically, but only up to the supposedly decisive goal, the shock through the enemy lines. An orderly plan for the exploitation of the resulting gaps, something like an (don´t know whats it in english) “Umfassungsmanöver” was not hit. The shock of the attack had been identified as shock troops tactically decisive factor, however, to use this principle as a strategic moment, was not considered.

Hey Flash, will you also simulate the Christmas Peace of 1914 ? Maybe with a little football on the map ?  :wink: