Preview 5: A Turn by Turn Game of 1914

@Mutu98 said in 1914 contested territory multiple countries combat question:

Which units will fight on germany side?
Just the german 6 inf 2 art and 1 plane or the combined 11 inf 4 art and 2 planes?

Only the German units attack. See page 22 of the rulebook.

Does it matter who controled the contested territory prior to contention?

No.

I added using Tournament rules as an option - didn’t think of at first because I’m not a fan of the quick movement.

@KimRYoung:

even if 50+ brits are coming through sebastopol? and by then the french are also making a lot of IPC, from spain and such.

50+ Brits?? Never seen that many units on the board ever in the Mid-east. Not saying in your games that didn’t happen (unless your just talking theorectical), but if the UK sends NOTHING into France early on, then Germany and Austria can usually push on to Paris and if not capture it, severly weaken the Allies while increasing their IPC count enough to fight on two fronts.

We have found that the once the Turks and Austrians secure the Balkans, the Turks can either press into Egypt and or towards India. Britain can’t get enough troops into Egypt quick enough do to lack of transports in the Indian ocean and the Turks can push into Africa gaining vital IPC’s if things go well. Enough to pin down UK troops in India.

Don’t get me wrong, the CP has a tough road to victory in this game, but if the IPC count goes their way early on and Russia can be knocked out (revolution or capture) then the UK MUST send resources to France to assist (along with the US) or the French will get overwhelmed.

Have you tried the Tournament rules?

Kim

and IPC balance in france, even with entire western front taken that’s still like 8 IPC. important yes, but not life threatening. and it’s probably round 4 at least till you reach that.

That might make sense.  Either that, or have contesting the capital as a precondition to checking for them.  However, in all three cases, the situation was caused by sneaky moves of troops to places just big enough to cause them to be contested, which is why I suggested giving the country the entirety of its turn to try to correct the situation (like in WWII games of A&A when a capital is captured).  As it was, we sent armies on suicide missions right before the turn of the country in question just to trigger the collapse, even though the moves would otherwise NEVER have been made (like sacrificing a considerable army just to have 1-2 units survive, thereby contesting a territory).

I don’t agree with the two space rule change for land units. Land units in World War 1 were not mobile and if you are looking for a game with full mobility the original axis & allies WOII games are a much better choice.

However I do see the potential of limiting the capacity of producing units in India to 5. Playing UK is much harder as you have to keep producing units in India to keep the Ottomans away and also have to build a navy in the west to threat the Germans. The UK simply lacks the IPC to help the Russians in this scenario since a decisive victory against either the Ottomans in the East or against the German navy in the west is very hard to accomplish. In the two games we have played with this rule Russia Revolution has occurred.

@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.

OK after playing the game a few times I have to say this is my least favorite AA game to date.

I agree with many others it is near impossible for the Central Powers to win, the first game we played I won but we where still new to the game.

The Russian Revolution oob was just broken, now it has been fixed but I still hate the idea that if the Russian Revolution is triggered the CP lose one of the victories cities need to win the game.  As if it’s not hard enough for the Central Powers.

The debate over contested territories and moving out of, is just silly.  The first game we played this rule wrong, but the idea that you cannot leave a contested battle into a territory that you already have units in is beyond stupid.  The idea I couldn’t leave a contested zone into an allies is bad, but not being able to move into territory with my own army unless I own the territory.  Shows a easy way out when writing the rules in my opinion.

Cruisers are next to useless in this game.  The extra movement of 1 does not make it worth buying them, with battleships being so cheap.

Obviously many rules where overlooked when first released such as
US neutral rules and what they can or cannot do  (many of these things are not in the OOB rules as written)
US transports before they are at war.
I also notice when many of these things where questioned the official response came back with what seemed like a bit of attitude at people pointing out these errors and that truly turned me off.  It is not the players fault the rules are unclear or just out right do not say something cannot be done.  There is no reason to blame the players for pointing out these faults in the rules.

Haven’t ordered mine yet. I would suggest the infantry size discrepancy is either an optical illusion or perhaps a subtle attempt by Avalon to aid player’s abiity to distinguish oposing forces on a crowded board.