Topics created by Chacmool

@Chacmool @Randy_Randelman1234
Thank you for your interest. I’ve finished the 1914 map, but haven’t had much time to work on the AAZ map. I’ve managed to retouch about 20% of the folds I guess, but don’t know when I have more time at hand to finish the work.

That’s OK, I just like messing about with maps.  :-D

From my previosu thread:

Start date May 1917

The first Russian Revolution has occurred, but really makes little difference to the military situation. So continue using RR rules as normal.

America is at war, so we’ll assume that Germany has already declared USW.

Territorial changes are surprisingly few; I’d say they were:

Assume all aligned neutrals have been activated.

The only non-aligned neutrals violated are:

Persia: contested Turkey & Russia/Britain

Greece: contested Britain/France & Germany(Greeks)

Other tts not under original control:

Picardy & Lorraine: contested France & Germany (BEF in Picardy)

Belgium: German occupied

Poland: German occupied

Livonia & Belarus: contested Russia & Germany

Romania: contested Russia & Austria

Serbia: Austrian occupied

Albania: contested Italy & Austria

Togoland & Kamerun: French occupied

SW Africa: British occupied

Galicia: contested Austria & Russia

Mesopotamia & Trans-Jordan: contested Turkey & Britain (poss Russians in Armenia?)

America gets its draft of X infantry, but only the regular 20 IPCs to spend.

Tanks are available, probably only B & F have any just yet.

Fighters should be up to 3-3 by this stage.

Bombers should just be coming on line for both sides.

Edit: Or possibly consider July 1st 1917 as the start date: in something of an A&A tradition the game begins with a Russian great summer offensive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky_Offensive

Larry Harris wrote some great “Reports from the front” last year before A&A1914 was released. They helped me very much to learn and understand the specific rules and settings of the new game.

My question is, are there any similar reports for A&A classic or A&A50? Maybe somebody else did write this kind of reports with detailed actions?

Thanks!

When is the new english version coming out.

I really enjoyed 1914…I really wish I had more time to play it.  To be fair…I wish I had more time for a lot of things :|

I have something new in mind. A game with OOB.1-tt-movement. A Major power is only allowed to attack once in a turn.

First Three powers have mandatory attacks: Austria -> Serbia. Russia -> GE. GE-> Belgium.

A power collapses if 3 of its Home-tts were captured by the enemy. (Russia 4 tts) (or if the capital is lost) Game is over if two CPs or three Allies are finished.

OE, Italy and other minor powers enter war as they did historical. It is not allowed to attack them before their entry.

Neutrals are impassable.

Capturing tts doesnt pimp your income. Minor powers if not captured generate their own units (they can spend their own IPCs every turn they survive)

Not sure about the initial Setup-armys:

Maybe:

Belgium 6/2
Portugal 1 (it will after entering war consequently produce one Inf per turn surely without getting captured)
Bulgaria 8/2
Romainia 7/2
Serbia 6/2
Montenegro 3/1
Arabia 2
Greece 3/1

India can build max. 16 IPcs per turn.

Rest you can see on the map.

USW means a 12-sided dice if one Sub manages to be in a zone when US/GB collect income.

US-initial Setup has 6 more Inf.

6 more Infs for Russia.
Austria gives 3 Infs and 2 Art to GE.

GB gets one more transport in India.

1914NEWDEAL.png

Maybe a morale tracker for Alliances instead of Powers.

When Capitals worth 12 IPCs together were captured, the alliance that lost these capitals has to give up fighting.

@oztea:

I am interested in ways to add an endgame to 1914.

For the time being, im tinkering with making powers economic and political collapse thresholds decrease as the war drags on, or as they lose units.
Originally I had thought to make each powers economic collapse threshold lower by 1, each turn after the 8th.
But now im tinkering with having that number lower each time an opponent kills 10 of your units in a single turn. Representing morale

That could be an interesting game mechanic.  Here are a few suggestions, which arise mainly from some of the earlier posts in this thread.

You might want to track both military and civilian morale, since they’re different variables.  The French Army mutinies of 1917 and the High Seas Fleet mutiny of 1918 are good examples of the military side of morale problems; for the civilian side, the revolutions in Russia in 1917 and in Germany in 1918 are useful to look at.

In huge, lengthy, costly conflicts like WWI and WWII, morale isn’t always affected by events in the way that one might think it is.  This is particularly true with regard to the way “news from the front” affects morale back home.  There are several reasons for this.  First, civilians rarely hear the truth about what’s happening on the battlefield, especially (but not exclusively) in authoritatian regimes.  State censorship (or control) of the press, the selective release of information by the military, outright lies by the authorities, and propaganda campaigns all combine to distort the true picture for the general public; victories tend to be played up and defeats are played down or omitted.  Military censorship of letters sent home by soldiers also keeps civilians in the dark – though some families manage to read between the lines better than others.

Another reason is that, as the war progresses (especially on the losing side), civilians frankly care less and less about the overall situation at the front (to the extent that they still believe what they’re being told).  They focus more and more on the immediate effects of the war for them: news that a family member in the military has been killed in action; the rising cost and greater scarcity of food and fuel and other essentials; increasingly harsh rule by the government as it tries to keep the restive population in line; death and destruction caused by bombing and shelling (if applicable to a particular conflict).  Interestingly, letters from home to soldiers (for example, describing the privations that their families are undergoing) can be more devastating than letters from soldiers to the folks back home because they may not be subject to the same level of censorship as mail originating from a soldier.

Suggestion about POWs:

Every fourth Infantry-casualty is handled as a prisoner of war.

Use chips to count the numbers.

After a powers political collapse it has to hand out all the POWs to the victors.

Every second of this units can be mobilized next turn and is sent back to the front.

The War to End All Wars uses this as part of its game mechanic, except for all nations.

The only problem, for me, is that transports really represent the sea-lift capability of a nation, not so much its merchant fleet (though the ships may be one and the same). This would explain why in other A&A versions convoys are represented by sea zones that can can cut into the IPC income of the owner nation.

Though the U.S. enters on R4 (1917, roughly), it took nearly a year for U.S. troops to arrive in Europe and really begin to fight in earnest. The Naval Act of 1916 authorized the buildup of the navy, but it was going to take a few years to build up to that. The Washington Naval Treaty scrapped a lot of those ideas anyhow. Point being, the U.S. did not become the economic powerhouse overnight like it did in World War II. So I am one of those in favor of not getting too carried away with U.S. IPC production.

Perhaps more important that U.S. production (the U.S. troops used a lot of British and French equipment anyhow, albeit some license built in the U.S.) was the amount of money loaned to the Allies. And they in turn were loaning it to Russia! Do you see a problem there??  :-D

Since the PTR the Centrals have won about 50% of our games, and we also have an impassable Switzerland. We don’t have the Italy rule however.

My strategy as Centrals is going after Italy from the start with as much as possible. But considering you dont do that, I have to tell you about my friends strats.

One of my friends buys quite a lot of ships. There are certain advantages, but I wouldnt do it too much. I tend to buy a sub with GE and AH every turn. That way every ally has to consider those subs. They are never really free to move whatever whereever without expensive escorts. And sometimes you can attack a small groups of ships which messes their plans of follow-ups, etc.

Another thing I do is keeping forces occupied by sending their unit count plus one to it. Just so you are sure that those, for example, four units in a Russian province are pinned down and the territory contested. This I do with just inf, which makes it quite expensive, as they don’t do much harm themselves, but this way you cut their supply lines and get one step closer to an economic collapse.

Amazing images.  I can imagine that the feeling of the field is lost in pictures.

Thanks for sharing

Arab irregulars or “Lawrence of Arabia” are regularly voted the number one most requested set for new 1/72 plastic figures.

The nearest you can get are the old Airfix Arabs:

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=34

With L of A supposedly appearing in the Esci set:

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=576&imagetype=2

On a side note: the 2 movement rule seems to better the central powers on the Eastern front but might allow the allies to put pressure on the Germans right away

It’s actually the other way around. Once you have played a few games you’ll see.

Kim

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

Fair point, I think the same should apply in the official game, that is you can build tanks turn 3, bombers turn 4.