Posts made by Clyde85

@ABWorsham:

A few years ago I did a March Madness Battleship Bracket,

Oh Christ, not this again.  :roll:

Worsham, do you not remember the Chaos this created the last time we tried this? Was it really only a few years ago, because I don’t feel like enough time has passed to try this again. I don’t even know why you bother including ships from other countries because you have to know by now that with this forum it’s just going to come down to the American ships in the end. Hell at this point the only thing that could possibly beat the US ships listed is if Canada had a battleship listed here  :-D

I’ve actually used a newer version of the Diplomacy board as a reference point to try to create the 1914 map. Using the very limited images we have on hand and reading through the various intel reports Mr. Harris has put out, I’ve used tracing paper to create a new outline and change the borders as necessary to give myself an idea of what the fronts will look like and how turns will play out. It’s actually alot of fun trying to fill in the missing parts for myself.

Anyone have any guesses as to how these borders line up? My real question is dose Ruhr border Berlin? Has anyone got a better view of the map and help shed some light on this.

@BJCard:

If you guys can get 8 country turns in under an hour, then either you aren’t thinking that far ahead or you guys are much faster than me

I think that’s the crux of the matter right there. We do think many turns ahead, but were doing it during the other players turns so that when our turn comes around we can just go. Also, I don’t know about you, but I usually have a battle plan mapped out before I go into a game based on my prior analysis of all possible moves, and reactions to possible enemy counter moves.

@ossel:

This is a widely accepted belief, but one that has been challenged by recent historians. The truth is that, for most of the war, the Allies were out of their depth in terms of weapons technology and tactical innovation, and by 1918 were in danger of being overwhelmed by German forces returning from the newly pacified Eastern Front.

It can be debated that without the U.S.‘s intervention, the Allies on the Western Front would have been overrun.
I challenge all those European elitists who seem so intent on ignoring the United States’ influence to try playing the game without them as a power, and see how many times they win as the Allies.

P.S. I’ll go ahead and call it: "But Larry Harris is American, so of course he designed the U.S. to be central to victory!"� :roll: Again, I cite this book: http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Great-War-Military-History/dp/0060084332/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362495407&sr=1-1&keywords=myth+of+the+great+war

No I agree with you, that’s why I said the US involvement was “decisive but anecdotal”. We played such a small part in the greater conflict but the part the US played was important, just in a more indirect way than a direct combat sorta way. To be honest I think that Germany’s defeat had more to do with Germany’s own strategic mistakes then anything done by the Allies (minus the blockade of course). The final Spring Offensive by the Germans, I feel, was more of a desperate last throw of the dice, that could have succeed (whether or not the US was involved) had the Germans not made several strategic mistakes in their planning (and had some oversight on what that dope Ludendorff was doing).

@BJCard:

Turn 6 for the USA?  Wow with 8 players (7 active if the US doesn’t do anything), you are probably looking at a minimum hour/turn (8 players in an hour).

How would it take an hour for a turn? I think the closest we ever got to an hour for a full turn was turn one of Global 1940 but that’s about it. Remember, this game is going to be much more streamlined, there is only one movement phase (no combat and non-combat movement, just movement), and the combat phase is also simplified to one combat roll per-side (attacker and defender). Given this I don’t see how it would take anywhere near an hour to play even the first turn.

Also, as Flashman stated, you should not be playing this game with 8 players, given that Russia can be knocked out of the war, and the US doesn’t enter until late, have one player control both.

@BJCard:

You really want it to be 6 hours before the US can even move, much less 7-8 hours before they can fight?  I understand the US had a much delayed entry into the war, but they don’t make very much money and they have to ship everything over, so they won’t have a large effect on the war as it is.

The US declared war on the Central Powers on April 6th 1917 and the war ended on November 11th 1918, so the US was “at war” with Germany for a total of about 1 year, 7 months, and 5 days, so their involvement in World War 1 was very limited. Also, even though we declared war in 1917 US troops didn’t arrive in force or even engage in combat until the spring of 1918 (the minor incident in Cambrai not withstanding), So I don’t really see the need to include the US any earlier then turn 6th.

IF we were going to be 100% honest with ourselves about it, American involvement in World War 1 was, at best, decisive but more anecdotal than anything else. The main reason the US is included in this game, and (IMHO) has to be included in they way they are, is because the game is being made by an American company for a largely American audience.

The only house rules I think would be necessary to make the game better (not perfect but better) would be as follows.

1. No one can invade non-aligned neutral powers.

2. Tanks do not become available until turn 5

3. Fighters do not become available until turn 3 (or maybe 2 but at that point what’s the difference)

4. The US can not declare war (unless attacked or unrestricted sub warfare) until turn 6, and can’t leave the US tt

5. The Russian capitol is in Petrograd not Moscow (and adjust the Russian Rev rules to reflect this)

that would be it for me, this is all I would change to make the game better.

@MistuhJay:

WW2 Axis & Allies games have been more historically accurate?  Most of the time, Japan’s already allowed to be at war with the Soviet Union, and usually goes through China in order to get to Moscow!  The East Indies and Borneo are worth more than India (!), and Germany’s economy is on more-or-less equal footing with the United States, among other things.

Yeah, thats my point, none of that is 100% historically accurate but it fits in a WW2 setting and makes sense in terms of game play. Also, in just about each and every one of your examples, it shows an instance where players are allowed to take a historical setting and go eight ways bananas with it, which in my opinion is a good thing with a game. That said none of it is too outside the realm of what could have possibly happened. But explain to me the logic that states the US can have forces in France, or possibly defending Paris, on the turn BEFORE they are able to declare war without being provoked? That’s not just historically inaccurate, that absolutely absurd. This is a case where the argument “sacrificed for games mechanics” simply dose not work as an excuse.

@MistuhJay:

Some historical accuracy must always be sacrificed for gameplay; the objective is not to preserve our history, but to present an entertaining board game.

Why is it that am I reminded of the theist cop-out argument “God moves in mysterious ways” whenever I see statements like this. I hope the game is fun, but why should we sacrifice a possible learning tool in the name of having fun, can’t it do both? If the first decade of the 21st century has shown me anything it’s the games have the potential to do way more then merely be fun .I think hoping for a game like this to simply be entertaining is limiting its potential somewhat, especially given what a critical period in human history this game is purporting to be about. A game like this could be useful in generating interest in World War 1 that the newer generations decidedly lack. This game had the chance to be fun and entertaining while helping start a conversation on an often overlooked period in warfare, instead, we get a game that’s way wide of the mark historically but is maybe fun to play.

If Mr. Harris wanted to make a game with the only goal being that it’s entertaining, then why not just ditch all this historical time period malarkey and just make a game with, idunno, goblins and barbarians, or spacemen and aliens or something?

I just want to say, “I bloody called it!”

What we are seeing now are the massive historical inaccuracies that are going to be endemic to game that was made by (self professed) and for World War 2 buffs on World War 1. What we have is “Axis&Allies, Infantry and Artillery edition” not a World War 1 game and I really hate saying this and I get no satisfaction in pointing that out. Now don’t get me wrong, I know these games can’t be 100% historically accurate all the time, but other Axis&Allies games have gotten much closer then this one and it seems like they didn’t really even try. I hate to say this but this game really feels like a quick cash in on the part of the developers.

There are so many things that are just plain wrong with this game, like the Russian capitol being Moscow for instance. If you read anything on the Russian Empire during WW1, you can’t go five minuets without hearing about the capitol being in St. Petersburg, or better yet Petrograd which is what the war caused the city’s name being changed to for sounding “too German”. There is no reason to get that wrong! Mr. Harris’s excuse that Petrograd is “too close to Germany to be safe” is a terrible reason to justify these actions. This is flimsy as best and a tacit admission that Mr. Harris just dosn’t care about his source material at worst. Also, given the new rule that a nations new builds must be placed in their capital, moving the Russian capital to Moscow makes even less sense, as wouldn’t this make things more difficult for the Russian player rather than less?

I want to make this clear, I don’t hate this game, and I will be buying a copy of it when it does come out. I refuse to condemn this game without playing it and giving it a fair chance to suprise me. For all I know maybe it is a wonderful and fun game. What I take issue with is the game being sold as a “World War 1” game, because it is showing every indication to the contrary.

The Great War is a conflict that is rapidly being lost from human memory. Already we have a generation that is growing up in a world where there are no more living veterans of this war. Our task is to preserve this history for these new generations, ourselves, and the sake of human history, to prevent the sad history of this war repeating itself.

Lest we forget.

I’m not the best when it comes to math and all that, so I believe I have miscounted the amount of IPC’s I should have had as well as not adding up the number of units I should be able to build with the money I had on hand, which I don’t really count as cheating as I didn’t do these thing out of a sense of malice.

That said, have I cheated, yes, I will admit to that. Sometimes it was in response to another players obvious cheating (like when we noticed an army of Brit infantry suddenly appeared in the Sudan and he claimed it was from concentrating all his African units there) or to just screw over a really overconfident but clearly inept player to shut him up (had a huge fleet as the US but no ground forces outside of two transports with 3 infantry and a tank who thought he could take Japan with that). Now I should mention that in all instances I was not alone in cheating, any cheating that was done was done with the assistance and support of my fellow players because it had always been directed at one player in particular and I do not believed it cheapened any of our games, but it did have the desired result of these people not coming back to play again.

This a neat little game that I picked up on Steam for about $10 and it was well worth it. It is a fairly standard tower defense game but it has a WW1 aesthetic, which is unique in its own right. What I really enjoy about the game is that if you want you can take command of any of the defense units you’ve built (like the vickers machine gun, or the famous model 1897 75mm cannon) and try to fend of the waves of attacking Germans (there is also a campaign where you can play as the Germans but I haven’t gotten to it yet). The game also have levels where you still have to defend your trenches from enemy infantry (and other WW1 era units) but will give you the ability to take over WW1 tanks and airplanes to aid you in doing so. I spent the majority of one level swooping and diving around the battlefield in a sopwith camel, strafing enemy infantry and (before I figured out the controls to drop bombs with it) I would Kamikaze enemy strong points and artillery to knock them out. It’s alot of fun and well worth a look.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/98300/

As one with numerous connections, both political, familiar, and business, in P.R. China and H.K., as well as being able to speak Chinese (not fluently but well enough) if you need someone “on the ground” to help sort your problems out in China, please don’t hesitate to ask or PM me, and I’ll see what I can do.

As one with numerous connections, both political, familiar, and business, in P.R. China and H.K., as well as being able to speak Chinese (not fluently but well enough) if you need someone “on the ground” to help sort your problems out in China, please don’t hesitate to ask or PM me, and I’ll see what I can do.

Would Great Britain and her commonwealth, support a break away republic of New England into her ranks again? What do you think?

( how do you create a poll?)

You can, if you know what you’re doing, wait, I think I understand why it takes you so long to play now  :-D

@Imperious:

It’s not a good game if you don’t have time to invest playing it. A typical AA player does not usually like games that drag on for a week or more. The OP would then be right in avoiding it.

Have you ever actually played this game? The way you keep describing it taking so much time, or how you keep referring to “making moves” makes me think you haven’t actually played it. The game flows in real time and you have the ability to play in at any speed you want, where months pass in seconds, and it has adjustable objectives so you can play to whatever end you want. I usually play as Nationalist China and play until either I beat Japan of the Russians invade Manchuria, but stop once that’s be achieved.

@Imperious:

But i guess time for you is worthless. My time is not. And you still confuse ‘time’ with ‘complexity’.

This also worries me as the obvious double standard here, cause last time I checked Axis&Allies is a game that takes several hours to play.

@Imperious:

And go ahead and make failing commentary on my faculties. They entertain me.

Well thats good because they entertain me too  :-D

Yes, you are correct the game is very complex and plays nothing like A&A, but its rich with depth and detail. What other wargame lets you play as one of the Chinese warlord states or British India? What other games let you take over Germany in 1943 after the battle of Stalingrad, or Britain after the fall of France? And what other game lets you have the level of control where you can choose minister and commanders from a massive database of historical leaders. The level of historical detail and accuracy is amazing, and if for no other reason then that, I say it’s a good game and well worth a look.

@Imperious:

Responsibility took over, women, wealth, and many other hobbies.

Yes I deal with all those things too yet still manage to find the time to play this game on occasion. I guess you not being able to just speaks to your inability to mentally multitask  :-D

@Imperious:

TO translate: You have to have no life to play it. No job, just spend countless hours just making one move. Got it.

Look I get it, the game is too hard for you, that’s fine. It really doesn’t take that long to play, but I suppose an interactive medium that doesn’t require you roll dice or get to play with little plastic army men might fail to hold the attention span of you AAD lot. I understand that thinking about more than one thing at a time must be hard for you and like I said it really is a more intellectual game that requires higher brain function. Perhaps coloring books would be more your speed, or if that won’t hold your attention (coloring in the line is hard for you I bet) I could just give you two bricks to bang together?

@Imperious:

one of the most in depth…

TO translate: It takes 355 hours just to get past the tutorial.

Not really IL, I’ve been playing Hearts of Iron since the first one came out in 2005 and the series has only improved since then. Now I’ll grant you it’s not for the faint of heart or the easily confused. You need to have the ability to think strategically on several levels, militarily, economically, and politically, while also factoring in things like terrain, resources, availability of units, production time, and even weather modifiers and technological research. It can be overwhelming for some, you need to have the mental capacity to multitask everything listed before at once, and some just lack the critical faculties to be able to do that.

@Imperious:

They suck. Way too complicated to even bother.

TO translate: “I suck at them”

I love Hearts of Iron, it is one of the most in depth and challenging strategy games I have ever played. I have gotten hours of enjoyment out of it, my Steam profile says I’ve clocked 355 hours of play time with it. If you really love the period and want a really challenging game I suggest you check it out. There is a very sharp learning curve but once you’ve got the basics down the rest of the game is rather intuitive. I strongly urge you to try the game before you give up on it.