I like attacking holland with kiel and berlin fighter.
And, i would probably not bother with the canadian ships and go for better odds on the big fleet.
what is stopping russia from attacking your sub?
The attack on the Canadian ships is in the Germans favor. with typical luck, you kill the cruiser and transport, losing only one sub. No mines to run either.
I also like attacking Holland turn one, this was the original Sheflin Plan.
Kim
I think you should discuss that on the Axis&Allies1915 Board
That’s Great!! :-D
Well, that’s in effect a 19 point bid for the Allies right? Are the current bids in that range?
In addition, France could move her fleet out of harms way or move to link with the British so as to preserve it and keep it in play for an extended period. France could then add 6 more infantry to Paris, plus move in more troops to make even taking it not a sure thing.
Is this what you want? Not sure that’s a “balancing” change, might just be too much for Germany to overcome and have anything left for the UK turn one.
Kim
For the Central Powers, especially Austria, taking control of Switzerland is a no-brainer. With only 2 units rising up to resist this, she will easily be crushed in a single turn by anyone. Taking Switzerland for Austria allows her to get to France one territory sooner. It also forces the French to defend Burgundy so she has a longer line to defend now. Italy also now has her flank threatened as well through Piedmont.
Is it too easy to send large armies through the Alps? Should there be some limits on the number of forces? Should the whole area just be impassable? Should there be more troops to resist the invasion?
Right now, there really is no reason NOT to attack Switzerland. Not so much for the extra 1 IPC, but more so logistically to get through a restricted front line.
Unlike Global 1940 where invading strict neutrals caused all the other neutrals to go against you, in 1914 it really makes no difference. In our last game, all but Spain and Norway were invaded, and Norway was next to go when the game ended.
Just wanted to hear what ya’ll think about this.
Thanks
Kim
However it is battleships that are too cheap (increase to 14)
I can’t see any reason for this at all. Battleships are fine and in fact should be the primary ship purchased in this era anyway. We found that while battleships got more buys, every power still built some subs and cruisers too. Fleets looked very WWI because of this.
There was a rush to judgment on the value of tanks right from the start, but now that games have been played, you are seeing the consensus taht tanks are a real bargin!
Kim
Question,
Since you used the optional Russian Revolution rules, did youuse the rules from the game, or the new revisions from Krieg?
Thanks, looks like you had a great game!
Kim
The tanks don’t really get rolling like you said until turns 7-9, but that is when you are going to need them. Our last game the CP won was around 16 turns, so got lots of use of the tanks.
Kim
Good Questions! Might need to move them to the FAQ list though.
Kim
If that’s the case, wouldn’t you want the Allies to be favored since we won the war?
What you mean “We” round eye?
Kim
So nations in WW1 built far more capital battleships/battlecruisers rather than smaller cruisers ? I doubt it.
Yes that is true, and after the war EVERYONE was building battleships and battlecrusier. Look at the OB for Jutland, there are virtually no cruisers, it is all battleships and battlecruisers.
It makes no logical sense to buy subs over battleships and cruisers are worse than both unless you want long range.
Increasing the cost to 14 would fix this and/or giving cruisers the bombardment ability.
You probably have not figured out the value of long range movement for cruisers yet. That’s ok, once you figure it out just like Flashman and tanks you’ll see their value. They are definitely need dependent, so in some cases, not as valuable (don’t buy) and in others, will be a real threat.
Subs are of value for several reasons, first is soak off, but two subs are capable of getting two hits in combat, where a battleship can only get one. Also, don’t discount the ability of subs to move unhindered through enemy sea zones and not have to stop. Again if you have not done it, you probably have not seen the value.
All this ships have special abilities that will be of value in the right situation. If it is not an immediate need for such, you will probably just build a battleship, and that’s fine, cause that’s what the Great Powers where enamored with.
Larry did a good job with this.
Kim
KimRYoung - Doesn’t sound too bad except for the absence of any random result from dice as happens in the rest of the game, which I think adds a lot to the fun.
Then let every remaining combat unit make ONE attack on the transports.
Even when wolfpacks and convoy raiders attacked transport flotillas, they did not kill everything!
Kim
It may make sense to reduce cruisers to 8.
Could you please explain why? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Kim
Well there is certainly no chance of Larry making any change in the current rules until some 3rd edition comes out in the far future.
That said, I really like the defenseless transports. What I don’t like is a single bomber coming out of left field that I did not see wipe out 6 unprotected transports.
I good compromise would be simple:
**Transports in a sea zone DO NOT participate in any naval battle. After the battle is concluded, the winner side will sink ONE transport for each remaining combat unit. If any trasports are left after this they must be moved out on their next turn if there are still enemy units in a sea zone.
If attacking un-escorted transports, the attacker can only kill one transport for each attacking unit.**
This means that a single lone trasport or a small group could still get wipped out, but a large fleet of transports could not get completly wipped out unless a large amout of combat units go after it. After all, transports would never really be in the area of a naval battle (even in the same SZ). They would disperse away from the fight, and certainly some would get away.
So for example, Japan strikes at an American task force with 6 transports in it and destroys all the warships and has 3 ships (combat units) left, the US would have 3 transports sunk. On the US turn, these would have to move out of the SZ.
Add any ideas you think off.
Kim
I did notice the $$$ around the table, we also used paper IPC’s from our old A&A games. For mine markers I had the mines from the old Milton Bradley game “Broadside” that we put out as a constnet reminder that the SZ was mined. Didn’t see any reason to put out factories, though we probably should have as the Turks kept putting their builds down in Bulgaria lol!
Also, we used chips from older games. In fact I have tons of chips that I got from flea markets and old poker games that are that same size as the WWII games, like hundreds of blue and red chips. The new games chips are a bit smaller (I assume so as to fit everthing in the conjested areas on the western front) so we used all my old chips for the Eastern front which has large areas.
One problem we had was forgetting about doing the artillery bombardment against a naval invasion, so need some way to be reminded of that. Might put out my fortress guns from Broadside in a few key areas as a reminder. They look like the Guns of Navaronne :lol:
Kim
The optional rules for the Russian Revolution as currently written are a non starter to use. Most everything else Krieg has cleaned up very well in his FAQ along with his rule change proposal on moving units out of contested areas.
It is going to need lots of playing for us to see how balanced it is for the long term with the various strategies. If you recall how Global 1940 became a big mess with 3 re-writes and changes before the final Second Edition was completed, I would say we are only in the very early stages of determining if there are any major flaws, and what minor flaws can be fixed with FAQ’s and errata.
Kim
@Uncrustable:
i think battleships are too cheap
I would disagree. For this time period everyone was building battleships. It was so out of control that after the war, The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 was designed to stop to the battleship arms race.
Under the assuption that this game goes beyond the 1918 armistice, large fleets of battleships would have been the norm. The Germans would have had 4 Baden class battleships and several large 2nd generation battlecruisers. Britain had 4 Hood class battlecruisers planned! (yes the same Hood that was the pride of the fleet in WWII).
Definitely in our game at the end, every nation had around 4 battleships in a long game (around 16 turns) that the CP won, and I figure that would have been about right if you assume the war going into the 1920’s. Seemed VERY WW I to me :-)
Kim
how many territories did Germany lose while trying to take out Russia?. in a game i played i send both a large German force and most of the Austrians against Russia and i still could not take it had it to Moscow but could not defeat them as they can build there every turn right in the battle. The reason i ask how many territories Germany lost in the west is my line with France was secure the whole time, did not lose a German Provence, dose this mean i should of send much more Germans? i just find its hard to conceive Germany doing Russia in without Austrian help and still holding against France and Britain.
In the game we played which was a victory for the Central Powers, the Allies re-took Belgium, Alsace, Munich and also the Ruhr before the CP turned their strength back to the west after totally occuping Russia. Once the CP had tipped the total ICPs in their favor though, then the war of attrition went in their favor.
One thing to keep in mind, unlike the WWII games where the US comes in with big money and a big fleet, in this game the US has only $20 and really no way to make it larger. Once the IPC total in europe goes in the CP favor, there is no way to get it back. Once Russia is out, its out. Italy is next and then how ever long it takes to win in the west is just a question of time and patience.
Kim
Good point about Artillery, except I hate losing them; would rather lose Infantry if I can. Having a few tanks are invaluable in protecting your stack as it advances on Rome/Paris.
If you know for certain you are going to get the air supremacy in a battle, then guns are in fact more economical then infantry. Attacking and defending at 4’s (8 total pips) compared to infantry at 2/3 (5 pips) you are getting more then 50% more combat power out of a unit that costs only 33% more.
So for 12 IPCs (3 artllery vs 4 infantry) you get 24 pips of firepower to 20 for the infantry. And while infantry can move up to 3 on the attack, this is a bonus provide by the Artillery which is not even figured into the economic comparison.
And yes you have to buy the fighters, but once that investment is made, then you can get your return on large stacks of guns. It sure worked in our game.
Kim
