Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. kraftwrk_5
    3. Posts
    K
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 1
    • Posts 19
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by kraftwrk_5

    • RE: ?? Best way to take France ??

      @Preussener:

      Hello, all,

      I have had a general strategy for Deutschland against Frankreich that has worked well, every time (6 times now).

      Germany has so many land units in the beginning that they can simply go all-out navy-builds if they use their troops efficiently (something the Germans were usually known for). By using a land strategy of “Boom-and-Bust” sending overwhelming forces into one territory at a time, Germany loses very few soldiers. You will then move all armies in West and Central Germany to the west (only East Prussia and Silesia need to hold down Russia, especially when the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish players are attacking them).

      Following this rule, the best thing to do on land would be to send all 14 infantry and 6 artillery into Belgium. On the second turn, use all 30-something units available (including Munich forces) to take Lorraine. Third, take Picardy. Fourth, storm into the capital with about 30-something units. And finally, the Berlin force of nearly 20 units will be “having lunch in Paris”.

      As for its navy, the Germans can become a nightmare for the UK if they spend all on 2, and later 3-4 battleships, per turn. The Brits, and later the Americans, do not stand a chance on the high seas.

      Once again, this strategy has worked very well for me, and I would be delighted to see how it comes out with someone else.

      • Chris

      You must be playing against French and British players who have no idea what they’re doing.  The French should generally be building nothing but infantry and the occasional plane until the Brits have landed enough troops in Picardy or Belgium to make a counteroffensive viable.  With the French doing this and the Brits also landing troops, I don’t see any way the Germans can take Paris in time.  I say in time because the U.S. is entering the war in Turn 4 and will also be able to dedicate amphibeous forces and navy to support the French and Brits against Germany.  Not only that, but by that time and with no offensive towards the eastern front, not only will Russia have likely avoided the revolution, they will also be able to consider making an advance on German territory.

      Simply put, the Ottomans and AH are not strong enough by themselves to take down Russia without Germany’s help.  If AH dedicates everything to Russia, they will pay the price in Italy and the Balkans.  And if the British player is doing his job in India and Persia, Ottoman won’t be able to contribute much to Russia besides the Bulgarian forces and possibly one turn of infantry out of Constantinople without having to worry very soon about the loss of their own territories.

      This game is a pretty simple race against time.  Can the CPs knock out Russia before the U.S. gets involved in the war and the Americans, British, and French have assembled enough troops in Belgium, Holland, or even Picardy to end Germany’s dreams of taking Paris?  If so, then the CPs have a good chance of winning.  If not, then they don’t.  I’m not saying Russia has to be revolted or taken over by Turn 4 or even Turn 5, but it needs to be well on the way to happening.  Germany and AH need to be able to start sending those troops to the Western fronts (France and Italy, respectively) as soon as possible in order to really compete.  Ottoman just needs to stay alive.  If Russia survives and can hold off the revolution, the game is over for the CPs.  That is the game.  On the other hand, if Russia is knocked out relatively quickly, it’s looking good for the CP particularly once Germany can start building tanks to accompany their forces returning from the east.  The combined forces will prove to be devastating against the French.

      Based on my experience Germany really needs to develop a tank stack before they can successfully take out the French, and that can’t start to happen until turn 5 at the earliest.  If they go after the West like you suggest, by turn 5 the Brits and French should be holding a pretty good line and may have even been able to divide the German forces.  (As the allied player, I smile whenever Germany is wasting money on navy.  It’s a battle they won’t ever be able to win in the long run, especially once the U.S. joins the fight.  All that is doing is preventing them from buying more ground troops to threaten the Russians or French.)  Alternatively, they can send the bulk of their forces after Russia and have either forced the RR by then or be well on their way.  That is a much better use of their first few turns based on my experience and a better overall strategy.

      I’d be willing to bet that if you surveyed everyone on this board, the vast majority of the games that involved a CP victory included taking out Russia first.  When the CP are not able to take Russia or force the RR early in the game, even if they somehow are able to get Paris as you propose, these games will inevitably result in a CP loss.  (Unless of course, the French and British players totally don’t know what they’re doing, as I mentioned earlier.)  Based on all the games I’ve played and all the strategies I’ve seen and used, the battle for Russia is 90% of the ballgame for the CP.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: ?? Best way to take France ??

      @Starlight:

      I’m playing a game of A&A 1914 tomorrow and plan to advance on France as my main objective. I’d like suggestions from you as to the best way to assault France.
      Cheers

      If you’re making advancing on France your main objective, you will lose.  Germany and AH need to concentrate on killing Russia or forcing the Russian Revolution (preferred) first in order to win.  Hold the line in Belgium until troops from the east can start heading west.  Start building tanks as soon as you can, and send them west along with your leftover troops from the eastern campaign.  The key to a CP victory is knocking out Russia early, not France.  Besides, taking out France early is nearly impossible if the Brits are doing their job.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: The CP Playbook

      Ah, well there’s the difference.  We are playing with different Russian Revolution rules.  Those have gone through several iterations.  The current rule two weeks ago when I started playing was that the CP had to maintain at least one infantry in any contested territories and could move out other units.  No other units, allied or CP, could be moved into Russian territory that were not already there.  Russian units were removed from the board outside original territories.  Allied units had one turn to get out of Russia or they were also removed from the board.  There is no such restriction for the CP.  (And why would there be, since they caused the revolution?)  It looks to me like your interpretation of the rules strongly favor the Allies.

      Assuming the rules are as I’ve stated above (whether official or “house rules”), I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the CP to expect to be threatening Moscow by turn 5 or 6.  Good axis players will be hammering Russia from Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman.  Ottoman can shut down Sevestapool as happened in my game.  Although you correctly pointed out earlier that Britain can keep reinforcing Karelia, if the U.S. is not in the war yet or just entering at the end of turn 4, what will be the cost to France if Britain is focused on saving Russia?  Despite Britain’s economic strength in this game, that just seems like a really tall order.

      @Flashman:

      Even if the Allies are stupid enough to allow this, how long will it take these CP units to get to the western front?

      Remember that the official new ruling on RR is that the Allies can take control of CP occupied Russian tts (rather than returning them to Russia). The British should be in a strong enough position in Persia/Mesopotamia and Karelia to ensure that the CPs can send no troops back west without losing all they’ve conquered in Russia.

      The Allies must play as a team, using their sea transport advantage to be exactly where the CPs don’t want them to be. If the Allies play as individuals looking after their own interests they will hand the game to the enemy.

      @kraftwrk_5:

      Try to get Russia in bad shape by the time the U.S. enters the war.  Ideally, you can take Moscow or at least force the Russian Revolution by turns 5/6 (RR happened in turn 6 in my game), then all your CP troops can be sent to the west.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: The CP Playbook

      Look at this way, why would the Allies allow the CP to build their navy?  If they are smart, they will destroy it by the 2nd turn.  They are much better positioned to maintain a strong navy, especially Britain and the U.S.  If I am the allies, I hope Austria-Hungary is wasting money on ships.  Then I can better protect Italy and France, and Russia can at least entertain the idea of making an offensive.

      Tuscany will be taken back by Italy, but you get immediate IPCs (and Italy loses immediate IPCs) and you immediately put pressure on them by being only one step from Rome.  Your troops in Venice can reinforce/counterattack next turn as appropriate.  It’s all about being aggressive and moving the front.  And don’t get me wrong, I like planes - but you only need one of them to move all your artillery up to 4s.  I found that attacking a territory with a number of artillery and infantry supported by one or two planes (since most allied territories won’t have even one or two planes) was plenty effective.  I built maybe one plane a turn for the first few turns, and sent them to different fronts until air supremacy was established in each.

      @BJCard:

      The problem is, if you spend nothing on Navy as the CPs, the Allies can land anywhere by sea- including in Russia.  Even one submarine per turn by Germany and Austria will force at least Britain into building a BB per turn.  You aren’t trying to compete in the sea, just restricting movement of the Allies.  Typically the Allies cannot take out either the German or Austrian Navy on their own due to attacking separately and naval mines.  If Austria over time has a fleet that can threaten the Med, Britain will be forced to send ships there and buy more for the home fleet= less British ground forces in France and India.

      I don’t see the point of taking Tuscany as Austria since it would be taken back by Italy anyway- you can only land 2 troops there and Italy will surely consolidate their position there.

      With how fragile air power is in the game, you cannot have enough air power, France can easily buy a plane per turn for the first 3-4 turns and still have a defensive front waiting for Germany.

      The bonus of the Russian Revolution is it takes that theater out of the game, plus you do not have to send enough forces to take Moscow, just enough to contest it.  You have to take Paris either way, and if you are strong enough to get Paris, then Rome should not be too bad.

      The only friendly troops you can mobilize as the CPs are in Bulgaria.

      Lastly, for Flashman- if Britain is landing troops in Karelia and supplying Russia from India, what is keeping France afloat and the Ottoman Empire at bay?  Are the Ottomans not going for Egypt? Â

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: The CP Playbook

      The game setup does favor the Allies (mirroring real life), but the CP can definitely compete.  Germany, in particular, is really strong.  In the first game I played, the Central Powers won.  Here is the link to the game recap:

      http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30705.0

      I think you are spending too much money on navy.  They are kind of a worthless purchase for the Axis in my opinion.  They can never hope to compete with the Allied navy, and if they did, it would mean not spending any money on the crucial ground units they need to threaten Moscow, Paris, and Rome.  Load up on infantry and artillery, buy a plane now and then (don’t go crazy - just make sure you have enough for air supremacy in the territories you plan to attack, so you can roll your artillery at 4), and then when tanks become available, start buying them as well especially if you’re Germany.

      Germany needs to keep a daunting supply line going along the coast from Poland to Belgium/Picardy, with plenty of artillery in each space to discourage / make more costly a British amphibeous assault.  Two fronts, threatening Paris and Moscow.  Austria-Hungary needs to come hard after Italy.  In the game I played, Austria-Hungary used a transport to take Tuscany on the first turn as well as Venice, putting immediate pressure on Italy.  They should also be sending troops to Russia.  (Don’t waste troops on Serbia - make only a nominal attack there as the game requires.)  Ottoman has at least a few turns to work with before the Brits really start coming for Constantinople.  Use that time to send troops to support Austria-Hungary against Russia.  Be aggressive, mobilize friendly troops, and pick up extra IPCs wherever you can (Germany in Africa, Austria-Hungary in Switzerland [a crucial first-turn pickup IMHO], and Ottoman in Bulgaria, etc.).  Try to get Russia in bad shape by the time the U.S. enters the war.  Ideally, you can take Moscow or at least force the Russian Revolution by turns 5/6 (RR happened in turn 6 in my game), then all your CP troops can be sent to the west.

      @BJCard:

      Is this game balanced?  Not as far as I can tell.  The CPs have a huge hurdle to cover- namely Paris.  After a few games that I’ve played Paris has never been seriously threatened- and the biggest obstacle has been supply lines from Berlin.  But this has been my most successful strategy:

      Austria (26 IPCs)
      Purchase:
      1 Fighter, 1 Submarine, 2 Inf, 2 Art
      Movement:
      Venice- Tyrolia and Trieste Armies (12 Inf, 4 Art) attack 6 Inf, 2 Art
      Serbia- 4 Inf, 2 Art from Budapest attack 3 Inf, 1 Art - Minimal attack on Serbia- no reason to get too many units stuck down there. 
      Romania- 8 Inf from Budapest and 6 Inf, 2 Art from Galicia (14 Inf, 2 Art) attack 5 Inf, 1 Art -The Army in Romania will be the Austrian contingent in Russia- All other purchases will go to Trieste, then into Italy. 
      Tyrolia- 6 Inf, 2 Art from Bohemia
      Trieste-10 Inf, 2 Art from Vienna
      Galicia-2 Inf from Vienna

      -The Austrian strategy is to move as much as possible to Rome as quickly as possible.  The purchased fighter will most likely ensure air supremacy in Italy. 
      -If Russia presses hard into Galicia, which I suppose they could, the Romanian Army along with purchased units in Vienna could hit the Russian stack. 
      -If Russia hits Romania hard, the idea is the Ottomans would come to help through Bulgaria. 
      -If the Allies activate Albania early, just bypass it.  It should not be enough to threaten Trieste.  If it attacks Serbia, then use portions of Trieste/Romania/Budapest forces to counter.  Use the minimum possible forces- it is better to contest a territory in the Balkans and have a few more Inf fighting in Russia and/or Italy.
      -Why buy a submarine?  Well, you are growing the Austrian navy and threatening the med at minimal cost.  with 26 IPCs to spend, more than 6 on navy seems counterproductive; and if you don’t spend it your Navy may be toast quickly.  ‘Fleet in being’ at its finest.  Perhaps in a couple turns with more IPCs rolling in you could opt to buy Battleships instead of Subs.

      Germany (35 IPCs)
      Purchase: 1 Submarine, 1 Fighter, 2 Artillery, 5 Infantry
      Movement:
      If Russia stacked Poland with 18+ Infantry and 6+ Artillery, then move Berlin Army (13 Inf, 3 art, 1 ftr), Hanover Army (6 Inf), Prussia Army (5 Inf, 3 Art) - leave 1 Inf in Prussia) to Silesia- to have 30 Infantry, 8 Art, 1 Ftr. 
      If Russia did not stack Poland, should attack Poland with Silesia and Prussia Armies (And Berlin Fighter).  The Hanover and Berlin Army move to Silesia for reinforcements.
      In either case, the starting Berlin, Hanover, Prussia, and Silesia Armies are the German contingent in Russia.
      Belgium- 7 Inf, 3 Art from Alsace, 7 Inf, 3 Art from Ruhr attack 3 Inf, 1 Art. 
      Alsace- 1 Inf from Munich
      Ruhr- 10 Inf, 3 Art from Munich, 3 Inf, 4 Art from Kiel.
      SZ 9- 1 BB, 2 Cruisers, 2 Submarines vs. 1 BB, 2 Cruisers, 1 Transport (Hopefully this goes well)
      SZ 2- 2 Submarines vs. 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
      Africa- um, yeah- Run around a bit, try and survive, make the Allies attack at low odds if possible.

      -German strategy is to hit Russia as hard as possible early to force them into Revolution, and play defensive on the western front for as long as possible.
      -All new purchases are meant for Paris.  If necessary, a temporary retreat from Belgium to Ruhr is OK as long as you are making headway into Russia.
      -Buying a Submarine is an effort to slowly build up the Navy.  The longer the Navy survives (bring back survivors from SZ 9 back to SZ 10 turn 2), the more ships the allies have to buy and the less help the British can send to Russia (through the Baltic).  Cannot afford Battleships until you get a few territories in Russia, but recommend adding some in later rounds.

      Ottoman Empire (16 IPCs)
      Purchase: 2 Inf, 2 Art
      Movement:
      Bulgaria- 6 Inf, 2 Art from Constantinople (to activate the 5 Inf, 1 Art) - Ottoman Russian Contingent #1
      The rest of Ottoman moves depend on what Britain did, but generally:
      Play defensive against Britain; make them attack with low odds- you want them to spend money in India.
      Mesopotamia- 6 Inf, 1 Art from Ankara (to add to the 2 Inf, 1 Art) - Ottoman Russian Contingent #2 -or- If Britain attacked Persia, then it fights on this front (depending on how many troops are needed).
      Britain probably attacked Trans-Jordan, and there’s nothing you can do about it.  With luck it is still contested.  Doesn’t matter- you leave your Smyrna and Syrian Desert Armies in place.

      -Ottoman strategy is thus- supply two Armies to Russia and the rest is spent fighting Britain in India and/or Trans-Jordan.  The best outcome for the Ottoman Empire is to take a couple Russian territories and to threaten India and/or Africa so much that Britain is forced to spend a lot of IPCs down there- and not on the Western Front.

      What do you guys think?

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: Unrestricted Submarine Warfare

      @Flashman:

      From Larry’s report on Germany:

      Germany begins the game with no less than 4 submarines. None of the other powers have even one. One way for the German player to exploit this obvious advantage, and the rules help him or her right along, is to declare that Germany will begin unrestricted submarine warfare. This can be done at any time during the game. Once this is declared, Germany will be considered to be conducting submarine attacks against both the United States� and the British Empire�s shipping routes. During the US and British player’s’ Collect Income phases, the German player will roll one die for each German submarine in certain sea zones (there are 3 of them, and they are sea zones 2, 7, and 8- strategically located, I assure you.). For each roll of 1 or 2, the attacked power will deduct 1 IPC from the income it normally collects during the phase. You might ask why Germany would not immediately and always conduct Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Well… following Germany�s declared Unrestricted Submarine Warfare the United States will immediately enter the war! That might be reason enough to force the German player to wait a few turns before turning the subs loose.

      Does anyone else think this is rather weak? Scarcely worth diverting subs from attacking Allied surface fleets.

      I might consider upping the damage done, and adding more SZ route targets:

      The attached example has one target for each Ally, plus the target in SZ 7 which effects all Allies.

      Agreed - it is a horrible move.  So what if the Germans have 4 subs?  On the odds, they are unlikely to get more than 1 or 2 hits.  So you bring the U.S. into the war for only $1 or $2 IPCs?  No way is that worth it.  Maybe if you could make it more costly, a la the strategic bombing raids from WWII 1942, where the cost is what you roll on the dice.  But even then, it’s quite a risky proposition.  Oh, and don’t think that you’ll get to do this over several turns.  If the Allied player is paying attention at all your fleet will be destroyed by the end of round 2, if not round 1.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: First game recap - a Central Powers victory

      @KimRYoung:

      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

      Thanks, Kim.  I used the Russian Revolution rules from Krieg, which is great because that is how I was planning on playing anyway.  Make no mistake, RR is a GREAT thing for the Central Powers.  (Frankly, I think I even prefer it over capturing Moscow in retrospect.)

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: First game recap - a Central Powers victory

      @Texas:

      Why wasn’t Albania activated until turn 4.  Did Italy just forget about it?  Also, if Italy moved its fleet out, what kept Austria from venturing out.

      I misspoke - Italy actually activated Albania in turn 1, sorry.  Italy destroyed Austria-Hungary’s fleet in turn 1.  Unfortunately, Italy lost their transport to a mine in Constantinople while trying to help the Brits in Ankara (can’t remember which turn), and at that point there was nothing left for their fleet to do in the Mediterranean with Italy under heavy land assault from Austria-Hungary, so they moved the remainder of their fleet to the UK.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: First game recap - a Central Powers victory

      @Texas:

      For all the reasons you mentioned for the UK is why the Germans must build a navy.

      I disagree.  As my game proved, if Germany can keep up a solid supply line along the coast with plenty of artillery, the Allied navy isn’t a dealbreaker.  It’s a waste of money for Germany to buy a navy IMHO.  They need to keep building land units to force their way into Moscow and Paris.  Not to mention that it will require a tremendous navy to even challenge the allies.  In my game, the Allies (Italy, France, Britain, and even the U.S.) eventually consolidated their navies in the London sea zone only one step away from Kiel.  It took several turns worth of German income spent almost solely on navy to finally clear that sea zone out towards the very end of the game.  And don’t buy subs - unrestricted submarine warfare is useless until very late in the game and will majorly backfire if used early in the game, as it will bring the U.S. into the war immediately on turn 1 or 2 for the sake of only 1 or 2 IPC’s!

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: First game recap - a Central Powers victory

      @wittmann:

      Thank you Kraftwrk. Enjoyed the read and gives me hope for my favoured side(the Germans).
      I see, like me, you lost the German fleet early, but, unlike me, that was not the end for you.
      I need to win my second game or be forever the loser!
      Unlikely to play again for a while though.
      Thanks again.

      You’re welcome.  Let me know if you want any more specific advice on Germany.  8-)

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: First game recap - a Central Powers victory

      Thanks for your feedback and comments, Flashman.  I think Britain was in a tough position stategically in this game.  Although they were never really under threat of attack and enjoyed naval superiority, from the beginning of the game they were saddled with two very weak allies (Russia and Italy), a third that was on the defensive from the start (France) and a fourth (U.S.) that would be useless until really about turn 6.  They also had to split up their forces between reinforcing France and threatening the Ottoman.  They had planned on a fairly quick knockout of Ottoman (hopefully by turn 6), but unfortunately that never materialized.  Russia was not able to hang on long enough to destroy the Ottoman’s invading forces or at least keep them occupied, and by the time Britain made it to Ankara (which was contested in turn 5 and ultimately taken over by Britain in turn 8 ), the Ottoman troops who had been supporting Austria-Hungary in Russia were able to make it back to Constantinople, requiring Britain to spend additional turns building new forces in India and diverting some of their resources from Europe.  Also, the naval superiority Britain enjoys is kind of overrated IMHO.  Once the Axis fleet was destroyed, there was really no use for the warships other than to discourage the Axis from even bothering to build a navy.  (In retrospect, that strangely turned out to be a bad thing for the Allies, as Germany kept spending their entire income on infantry, artillery, planes, and eventually tanks instead of wasting any income on ships until very late in the game when a CP victory was almost imminent.)  The merits of this strategy can certainly be debated, in hindsight.  But it was the first game, so the first crack at trying different strategies.  I will say this for Britain, that this strategy was thisclose to working.  By turn 5, Ottoman was on the run with British forces having taken over as far as Ankara and Syrian Desert, and they managed to capture Belgium, interrupting the German supply line and dividing the German forces.  Soon the German forces behind enemy lines were destroyed, and an Allied push east seemed inevitable.  I think if Germany hadn’t built tanks starting in turn 4, this strategy actually would have worked and the Allies would have won the war.  It was really that close, and at 17 turns a good long game.  It wasn’t until turn 8 that the German tanks finally arrived in Belgium and the tide turned towards the Central Powers.  So I still think it can be a viable British strategy depending on what the German player does (and it would be immensely helpful if Russia could manage to survive for even a little bit longer).

      On tanks, the problem the Brits faced was that Germany constantly had a front loaded with artillery, and tanks are not immune to artillery fire during amphibeous assaults.  (Germany consistently built an approximately even distribution of artillery and infantry.)  Most countries along Germany’s coastal supply line consistently had five or six artillery along with at least a few infantry.  The Brits did not want to lose their expensive tanks and then wind up with no realistic chance of taking over one of these countries after their remaining force was reduced by artillery fire.  So early in the game Britain opted to land troops in Picardy to reinforce the French.  They made their assault on Belgium in turn 4 (which was the easiest target for Britain at that point in the game, with only a couple artillery and a few infantry), and took it over in turn 5.  But even then, Germany was able to contest Belgium again beginning in turn 6, and the Brits never really had enough of a foothold there to where tanks wouldn’t be vulnerable to a German counterattack.  There was a ray of light when American and French troops showed up in Belgium, but by then the German tanks had arrived.  In hindsight, the British player could have built a lot of tanks in this game, but I think it would have been very costly and probably a waste as several of them got destroyed by artillery fire and German counterattacks.  I really think tanks are set up for the CP, and especially Germany, more so than the allies.  Tanks in India might have been useful against Ottoman, but in view of their cost and the two-front war, Britain opted to focus on buying less expensive infantry and artillery units for the most part.

      On Spain, it was costly, but I think it worked out ok and was ultimately a good decision.  France mobilized Portugal and attacked Spain with a decent force.  Basically, they got bad dice and could only contest Spain.  Those German troops weren’t truly a threat due to the rules about troops in contested territory.  Once the U.S. entered the war, they readily took over Spain and cleaned it up.  The extra 4 IPC in income helped America too.  The big problem for the U.S. is their distance from Europe.  The closest they can get in one turn from Washington is Spain.  American transports occasionally dropped troops off in Picardy or Belgium, but that required two turns.  America tried to time these landings to coincide with troops arriving overland from Spain through Paris or Burgundy, and it was effective in helping to keep France alive and destroy the German troops who were caught behind enemy lines when Britain invaded Belgium.  America is just really far away, and it takes them a long time to do anything.  At only 20 IPC a turn with not much chance to move up (24 in my game, with Spain), and not even entering the war until turn 4, they’re just really limited in what they can do in this game.

      On the UK transports, I think you make a good point on Karelia - that looks like a missed opportunity in retrospect.  But Britain’s western front and UK transports were focused solely on reinforcing France.  I’d have to try this next time and see if it can be done without dividing their forces too much.  In this game, UK opted to help Russia by occupying the Ottoman and drawing their forces away from Russia, but obviously that wasn’t enough.  Britain considered Sevestapool as you suggest, but Ottoman took it over in the 1st turn and kept a decent amount of troops there (at least 4 or 5 infantry, as I recall) specifically to prevent Britain from using it as a bridge to help Russia.  By the time Ottoman units moved out of there to get back to Constantinople, the Russian Revolution (or even a CP takeover of Moscow) was inevitable and it was too late for Britain to try to take it over.  I suppose Britain could have taken over Afghanistan and tried to help in Russia via Kazakhstan, but that would have required them to divert serious forces away from their push towards Constantinople.  The troops in Egypt were used to take Trans-Jordan in round 1 and later walk towards Constantinople, so they couldn’t be used against Austria-Hungary.  I still think this was the better strategy.  Other than possibly reinforcing Albania, Britain can’t seriously threaten Austria-Hungary, with Trieste only one step from Vienna.  The inability to build ships in India is a huge impediment in that regard (although I realize it’s necessary for the sake of game balance).

      I appreciate hearing your thoughts, and you make some very good points.  Of course, every game is different, and if Russia/France/Italy could hang on a little longer and get maybe some more favorable dice rolls than they did in my first game, I’m definitely going to try some of those strategies the next time.  Cheers.

      @Flashman:

      Interesting report, with very different conclusions from my own.

      Why didn’t the UK build a tank army? In my game the British tank corps of 8 units was equally devastating as your Germans, winning big battles without suffering casualties. Germany by that time could not afford to counter-build, and the distance from Berlin was again crippling.

      USA invading Spain seems insane; why add another 8 units to the CP army? Use the fleet to attack in Italy or the Balkans.

      The UK is the powerhouse of the Allies, really the only one that can dictate strategy. Italy is just hanging on to survive; France needs every man it can find to push the Germans back into Alsace; Russia is just delaying the inevitable; America is a firefighter, going where it must to save its friends.

      But the UK can fight almost anywhere; a fleet of 4 transports can shuck into Karelia and Belgium alternately, tanks if you can afford them (you should). Persia and Mesopotamia can be a staging post to support Russia through Sevastopol; Egypt can threaten the Balkans.

      The key to Allied victory is the ability of the navies to send troops to any front, much more difficult for the CPs. A big army in Karelia (and another in Sevastopol) not only delays the fall of Russia, but immediately threatens to recapture CP conquests there, especially powerful now that the rules no longer force them to liberate these tts to Russia. The Allies shouldn’t allow the CP armies to just march back west once Russia falls.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: Need input on how cp can win, or is it just sheer luck if they do?

      The Central Powers can absolutely win this game.  Allies will probably win more often than not, but it’s not so one-sided like WWII 1942.  A detailed description of how my game went is here:

      http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30705.0

      Bottom line: CP needs to be aggressive.  Major push towards Russia and Italy by Germany, A-H, and a little bit of Ottoman.  Let the U.S. stay neutral until the 4th turn.  Germany should build tanks once they become available, and maintain a formidable supply line all along the northern coast throughout the game.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • First game recap - a Central Powers victory

      Just got done with playing my first game yesterday.  It’s a wonderful game and was a blast to play.  The Central Powers won the game in the 17th turn, after conquering Paris and Rome, and forcing the Russian Revolution.  Ottoman was within one infantry of losing Constantinople, but hung on.  Here are some lessons learned, and then a summary of how it happened:

      • First of all, tanks are tremendous weapons in this game, particularly for the Central Powers.  More than any one thing, the Germans purchasing tanks beginning in turn 4 turned the tide of the war.  Combined with artillery and infantry, they were simply devastating against the French.  The Germans eventually got around 9 tanks, then never really had to purchase anymore.  It was just wave after wave of infranty coming from Berlin towards Paris.

      • The Allies have a huge naval advantage in this game.  The Axis navy was completely destroyed by the end of the 2nd turn, and they were never able to build a big enough navy to challenge the Allied navy until very late in the game.

      • Along with that, mines were devastating against the Axis, especially in the London and Wales sea zones.  Once it was obvious that the Germans were going to take Paris, they spent several turn’s worth of income to build up their navy and try to challenge the Allied armada in the London sea zone.  (In this game the Allies put all their warships in the London sea zone from Italy, France, and Britain, so it was quite formidable.)  At any rate, the mines would always seem to take out one or two German ships to the point that even after building up the German navy over a couple turns before moving it over, and clearing that sea zone was quite an arduous task.  They eventually did.  (In case you’re wondering why Germany bothered to do so, it was twofold: 1. With the goal of destroying/blocking the American fleet and keeping them from continuing to reinforce Italy.  2. To put more pressure on Britain.)

      • The Russian Revolution happened at the end of Russia’s 6th turn, and despite popular opinion, it was a great thing for the Central Powers.  Yes, they lost the potential 6 IPCs for taking Moscow, but it closed down the eastern front, and Germany and Austria-Hungary could send everyone they had after Paris and Rome, respectively.  And they didn’t have to worry about the Allies trying to liberate a capital that they just captured (and would have been very difficult to reinforce from Berlin or Vienna).  For Germany, this was huge.  (The Russian Revolution allowed them to spend nearly all of several turn’s worth of income on building up their navy, all while still sending troops from the Russian front to the west.)

      • This game is much more balanced than Axis & Allies WWII 1942.  One of the criticisms of that game is that with any Allied player worth a damn, the Axis are practically doomed from the start.  Not so with this game.  Germany is very strong from the start, can easily pick up additional IPC’s in Africa, and not only is the U.S. not nearly the economic juggernaut it is in WWII, it’s not even involved until the 4th turn.  (In this game, the Central Powers smartly were happy to keep the U.S. neutral until then.)  Russia is also fairly weak, and Italy is almost worthless - they are just trying to survive.  Still think the Allies will win more often than not, but the Central Powers player at least has a fighting chance.

      • Key neutrals mobilized: Switzerland (for Austria-Hungary, in turn 2); Holland (for Germany, in turn 2); Serbia (for Russia, of course in turn 1); Romania (for Russia, in turn 1); Bulgaria (for Ottoman, in turn 1); Albania (for Italy, in turn 4); and Portugal (for France, in turn 1).  Neutrals actually played a huge role in this game, which I thought was really neat.  Being able to mobilize troops far from your capital in a friendly neutral was a huge plus.  France tried to take over Spain (to give a staging ground for landing U.S. troops, plus the 4 IPCs), but it almost backfired.  All they could do was contest Spain, which gave Germany troops to the west of France all while Germany was pushing west.  It took the U.S. cleaning it up to take over Spain and make this plan succeed.  (Or not, since the Allies lost, but at least it was a viable landing spot only two turns from Washington, D.C.)

      On to the strategies and recap:

      Germany: Two front war with France and Russia.  The Germans developed a pretty nice supply line along the coast from Poland all the way to Belgium.  Although Berlin is far from both capitals, it was a formidable line for much of the game.  Once Russia revolted (with a big assist from Austria-Hungary and a small one from Ottoman as well), it was on to Paris.  The Germans managed to contest Paris in Turn 6, but soon their supply line was interrupted as Britain successfully contested Belgium and eventually took it over.  The guys in Paris and Picardy behind enemy lines were done for.  It looked like Britain, France, and the U.S. might be able to start pushing east from Belgium, but soon the tanks arrived and the tide of the war changed.  The bloodiest battles of the war were fought in Belgium, for all sides, although the Germans began to make progress once the tanks showed up.  (Germany lost Belgium in the 5th turn, and it did not become theirs again for good until the 9th.)  After finally taking Belgium, Germany continued west and finally took Paris in the 13th, which they would hold for the rest of the game.  The game almost ended after the 13th turn, but America was able to liberate Rome during their turn, prolonging the game for a few more turns.  As mentioned earlier, Germany left the U.S. alone so that they wouldn’t have to deal with them until the 4th turn, and unrestricted submarine warfare was never declared at any point in the game (because Germany never got subs to sea zones 2, 7, or 8 after they were destroyed in the 2nd turn!).

      Russia: They were on the defensive from the start, and the Central Powers managed to contest both Poland and the Ukraine during the first turn.  Mobilizing Romania helped, and although they were able to get Poland, Ukraine, and Romania back or at least contest it a few times throughout the game, they could never really get on the offensive, having to ward off not only Germany, but Austria-Hungary and Ottoman as well.  The goal was just to survive until the Brits and French (because by the time the Americans joined the war, it was frankly a little too late for Russia - they were already down to 17 IPCs by that time) could put pressure on the Germans and Austria-Hungary.  Unfortunately for Russia, that didn’t happen in time, and by turn 4, they were in full retreat mode.  The Russian Revolution occurred at the end of turn 6.

      Austria-Hungary: Their number one task was to kill Italy, although they sent troops to Russia as well.  They were able take Tuscany in their first turn via a transport from Trieste, immediately dividing the Italian forces and putting pressure on Italy from the start.  They took Venice and Switzerland in the 2nd turn (Switzerland would prove VERY useful when the war turned towards Paris), and Piedmont and Romania in the 3rd.  Italy managed to stay alive for a few more turns, but Rome fell in turn 9.  Austria-Hungary left a nominal force behind in Italy (2 infantry) and turned all their attention towards the west.  Germany was still bogged down in Belgium at this time, so Austria-Hungary putting some pressure on France, particularly southern France, was a godsend.  Between turns 10 and 14, they picked up additional income and put further pressure on France by taking Marseilles, Lorraine, Burgundy, and Bordeaux.  In turn 13, the U.S. managed to liberate Rome, staving off execution for the Allies for a few more turns.  But America’s distance from Italy and divided forces (i.e. reinforcing Italy, attacking Germany, trying to liberate Paris by landing troops in Spain, etc.) combined with Italy’s weak IPC production (only 6 at that point) and Austria-Hungary’s strength ensured this would only be temporary.  Austria-Hungary took back Rome in the 17th turn and held it, ending the game.  Incidentally, although required to attack Serbia, Austria-Hungary made only a nominal attack there, enough to contest it but no more.  (Attacking Serbia is as stupid and pointless a move in this game as it was in real life.)  Serbia was contested between Russia and Austria-Hungary for the first two turns (which was really fine by Austria-Hungary, as they wanted to devote more resources towards, Italy, Russia, and later, France) until Ottoman came in the 3rd turn and settled things.

      France: In a bad position from the start, France very rarely had the chance to make an offensive towards Germany or Austria-Hungary.  Germany took over Belgium during their first turn, immediately bringing troops to France’s doorstep.  They got a little bit of a breather beginning in turn 5, when Britain managed to contest Belgium for the first time and continued landing around 8 troops every turn, but this was to be short-lived.  By that time, they had already lost income in Lorraine, Burgundy, Picardy, and Marseille, and were just trying to hang on to Paris.  Meanwhile, it still took a couple turns to eliminate all the German troops behind enemy lines, even with American help.  Although the French were able to take back Picardy, Burgundy, and Lorraine, the German tanks soon arrived (as well as the reinforcements from the east) and it was all downhill beginning in turn 10.  The Germans (with an assist from Austria-Hungary) would march into Paris on turn 13, knocking France from the game.

      British Empire: Britain’s main strategy early on was to try to knock out the Ottoman Empire from the game.  Being able to mobilize troops in India was a huge aid in accomplishing this objective.  By turn 2, Britain had taken over Persia and mobilized Saudi Arabia.  Mesopotamia fell in turn 4, and by then Ottoman was on the run.  They took Trans-Jordan and Syrian Desert in turn 6, Smyrna in turn 7, and Ankara in turn 8.  Beginning in turn 9, they would contest Constantinople.  Unfortunately for the British, by then Ottoman troops who had been fighting in the east as far as Ukraine had returned to reinforce Constantinople.  Undeterred, the British kept building infantry, artillery, and occasional planes in India and sending them towards Istanbul, although as time went on the Western Front demanded more and more of their attention.  The distance from India to Constantinople (4 turns) was another obstacle.  Still, the Ottomans were holed up in Constantinople, and came very close to elimination.  In turn 16, the Brits got the Ottoman down to one lone infantry that survived the battle.  However, in turn 17, Austria-Hungary managed to land reinforcements (they had since built up their navy and cleared the Mediterranean) in Constantinople, ending the British threat once and for all.  Still, it was a close one for the Ottoman Empire.  Meanwhile, British did not ignore the western front.  In early turns they landed troops in mainland Europe to reinforce Picardy, and later, Paris, but with only mixed results in the face of German aggression.  Beginning in turn 5, they landed troops in Belgium and managed to constest it.  Typically 8 men per turn landed in Belgium to fight the Germans, but they were eventually overwhelmed by the German tanks.

      Ottoman Empire: They activated Bulgaria in the first turn and made some early offensives into Russian territory by taking Sevestapool and Serbia by the 3rd turn, and sending troops to support Austria-Hungary in Romania and the Ukraine, but it wasn’t long before they were on the defensive against the British Empire.  By turn 9, they were holed up in contested Constantinople and only producing two infantry a turn.  They were happy to just survive (barely, as detailed above) and luck out by being on the winning side, with really minimal thanks to them.

      Italy: They were hurting all game, and with the lowest starting IPCs (14), they didn’t have a lot of buying power to do much.  Austria-Hungary took over both Tuscany and Venice the first turn.  Activating Albania and taking Ethiopia the first turn gave them a few more IPCs, which helped.  But mostly it was all about survival.  Tuscany would be contested a few more times during the game (mostly due to its distance of 3 turns from Vienna and Austria-Hungary simultaneously fighting the Russians), but Rome would eventually fall in turn 9.  The Americans would succeed in liberating Rome in turn 13, once Austria-Hungary had turned their full attention towards France, giving Italy a little life.  But only being able to produce 2 infantry a turn, it wasn’t long before Austria-Hungary threatened again.  Rome would be contested again in turn 15, and ultimately fall in turn 17, ending the game.

      U.S.: The U.S. is an interesting power.  Their limited economic might (only 20 IPCs) took some getting used to in this game.  Also the fact that while they are building up their military while neutral, they can’t attack anyone or even load units onto a transport until the end of turn 4.  Also, recall that in A&A 1942 they are only 2 spaces from the London sea zone, allowing them to drop troops off in western France in one turn.  Not so in this game.  The best they can do is Spain, so that became their primary staging ground for the western front for most of the game.  So they are limited in what they can do.  They did send quite a few troops to the front (typically 8 infantry a turn, with occasional artillery and planes mixed in).  This helped reinforce Paris after the first German scare (see above), but they would ultimately be overwhelmed by German tanks in Belgium, Picardy, and even Paris.  Saving Italy for a few turns (see above) helped things, but it was too little, too late.  Note that by the time the U.S. entered the war, the allies were already in bad shape.  In the east, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Belarus, and Livonia were either taken over or contested by the Central Powers, and in Italy, Venice and Piedmont had been taken over with Tuscany heavily contested.  The Central Powers had also already taken over Belgium, Holland, Lorraine, and Switzerland, and were already only two steps away from Paris.  Unless the German player is stupid and goes after the U.S. prior to turn 4, they can’t do much but sit on the sidelines and watch.  Given their distance, they really can’t help western Europe until turn 5 or even turn 6 at the earliest provided their neutrality is not violated first.

      Well, there you have it.  It is a great game, and I’m looking forward to many others in the future.  Any questions or comments, feel free to hit me up.  But I think this game should answer three important questions (it does for me at least):

      • Can the Central Powers win this game?  Yes.
      • Is there any benefit to buying tanks?  Absolutely, especially for Germany.
      • Is the Russian Revolution worth the risk for the Central Powers?  Yes!  It eliminates one of the Allied Powers from the game and allows the Central Powers to redirect all their attention to the western front.

      Happy playing,

      kraftwrk_5

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: Ottomans

      @Flashman:

      Why not invade Smyrna, then attack Constantinople over land? Only a fool would attack the capital directly from a mined sea zone. Or Churchill.

      “Only a fool would get involved in a land war in Asia.” - Vezzini  :-D

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: How is it?

      Absolutely, freaking love this game.  Love it even more than WWII 1942 I think.  More interesting gameplay, more historically accurate IMHO (e.g. Russia was never under threat of attack by Japan, Japan’s more critical to the success of the Axis than Germany, etc.), more interesting powers, and I love all the optional/delayed stuff (Russian Revolution, unrestricted sub warfare, U.S. entry on 4th turn, tank purchase beginning on the 4th turn, etc.).  Can’t wait to play again!  :-D

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: Color of the Pieces is Horrible

      @Shakespeare:

      I am somewhat colorblind and when the dark board is setup with all the dark
      pieces, I am lost. I can not easily tell the pieces apart from each other except for the UK and the Italians.

      Even the dark dark blue French give me some problems becz the board is so dark that I don’t see the contrast  that helps to differentiate the colors from one nation’s unit to another.

      I’ve already had to colorize the infantry units bases of the Russians with a yellow, the Ottomans with a red, the Austrians with a white, the Germans with a silver, the USA will have a bronze.

      The other pieces of each country are colorized in some manner in the same color, but less so becz each army must be accompanied by the colored base infantry.

      I believe I can leave the UK, Italian and French pieces as is.

      Anyone else have this color problem?

      Ha!  I’m colorblind too, red-green.  I actually had more problems with the original Axis and Allies 1942.  (The Japanese and British pieces, and Russian and U.S. pieces look very similar to me.  :| )  I do a lot better with WW1 1914.  Although the Ottoman and German pieces look fairly similar, I do okay for the most part.  Having different colored chips is a HUGE help with this game, because all the pieces that look slightly similar are on different sides.  Kudos to the game designers for that one.  8-)

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

      @Krieghund:

      @kraftwrk_5:

      1)  Does the U.S. collect income, purchase units, and mobilize them even while its still neutral?

      Yes.

      Thanks for the response.  And thanks for all your work on the game (and everyone else’s).  It’s an outstanding game - I absolutely love it.  :-D

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

      @oztea:

      Kraftwrk
      Constantinople is one territory that stretches across the Bosporus. There is not Asian side/Europe side.

      Just imagine it like Egypt. The territory includes the water between it and the other side.
      Or like Canada, which also includes the various islands in SZ 2

      Thanks for the explanation, that helps a lot.  Cheers.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • RE: Axis and Allies 1914 FAQ/Question and Answer Thread

      Great discussion, guys.  And big thanks to krieg for the work on the game and all the answers!

      Two topics I haven’t seen addressed yet:

      1)  Does the U.S. collect income, purchase units, and mobilize them even while its still neutral?

      2)  On Constantinople…are new land and fighter units placed on the European or Asian side?  (Or either one, at the discretion of the Ottoman player?)  My confusion arises from the fact that the large Ottoman logo and accompanying orange square (indicating the capital) is shown on the European side, while on p. 5 of the instructions the units are shown set up on the Asian side.  (Another possibility: could it be they are set up in Asia to begin the game, and then anything goes after that?)

      Also, can Ottoman land units cross over between Europe and Asia, or is a transport required?  I assume that (if this is allowed) a move would still be required to go from one side to the other.  (Granted I’m just getting ready to play my first game, but the Ottoman Empire looks to be royally screwed from the beginning unless this is the case.)

      Thanks in advance!  I’m holed up inside in the middle of a Denver snowstorm, so it’s the perfect day to break this game out!!  :)

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      K
      kraftwrk_5
    • 1 / 1