Possible Rules Change

Four points I guess:

1. I usually stack Ukraine with Russia. Trying to attack the Central Powers will lead to what actually happened in World War 1, Russia getting steamrolled and politically collapsing.

2. It seems to me like your France isn’t playing aggressively enough in the face of Germany focusing on Russia. You didn’t mention the French once if your report, when it seems to me like you could have made a serious push for Ruhr, which would have either crippled the German economy or forced it to actually send units West.

3. If Russia is proving a challenge for you, you can always march troops from India -> Persia -> Sevastapol to keep the Russians alive. Even under tournament rules there’s nothing stopping the UK from dumping it’s entire income in India and rampaging across the Middle East. The Ottomans shouldn’t be able to put up too much of a fight unless you’ve got a really strong Ottoman player. This gives you free reign to either wipe out the Ottomans or prop up the Russians long enough for the Americans to win the game for you.

4. If the Italian front is stalling and Americans aren’t needed in France, you can send the Yanks to Italy instead. If you’ve established Allied naval dominance and the Austrians aren’t putting up any serious fight in the Trieste/Venice region, a steady line of Americans will probably be enough to ruin Austria’s day, or at least force them to divert troops away from Russia.

Thanks  :-)

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.

You can evacuate a contested tt, but not use such a move to attack. The tt you move to must contain one of your own units (allies do not count).

It says that in mobilize units, if you have a tt with other land units but no infantry, you must demote one unit to an infantry to fulfill the “minimum 1 inf” criteria.

It is sensible to enforce this after movement as well if you spot the enemy has made such an error.

That’s the idea - people at home are going without to pay for this vast army, and its just sitting there doing nothing.

Also, troops and sailors sitting in barracks getting bored are a breeding ground for mutiny and revolt.

@BJCard:

@Flashman:

Thats a risk anyway, hence my suggestion that every player must make at least one mandatory attck each turn of no less than 5 units (if able).

That’s a pretty good idea and it plays into your morale system- you lose morale every turn right?

Between British India and Russian forces I’m not sure the Porte will have much time to pump out a fleet, a sub or two maybe but the British have a strong fleet down there and they don’t have to ever move out of the red sea.