Posts made by protevangelium

To get the ball rolling,

-Poland should not have a coastline; this should belong to East Prussia.
-Bulgaria should have an Aegean Sea coastline
-St. Petersburg should be reflected as a capital and a spawn site.
-Hungary might also count as a capital territory. Some would argue with this, but the economic loss of IPCs and the political damage from its loss basically cause Austria-Hungary to crumble. It was an empire held together with baling wire. The PTR add an interesting element of economic and political collapse. A-H should be the weak political link in the CPs, just as Russia is for the Allies. And I say this as a great lover of playing the A-H empire.
-Maybe raise Bulgaria and Romania an IPC. The addition of Bulgarian resources (reluctantly given) and Romanian plunder (taken without asking) really helped Germany prosecute its war effort at a time when the blockade was starting to put the hurt on it.

Well, for starters, Bulgaria needs an Aegean coastline, Poland no coastline, and some re-configuring of Russian territory to reflect St. Petersburg.

I can add this to your linked post talking about a revised WWI map (thus bumping it). Others have worked on versions of a WWI map, but you can never have too many! Some prefer a global scale; I was fine with the area A&A 1914 portrayed, as this was where the majority of the fighting took place. The only battles outside that scope were largely naval ones, a skirmish in New Guinea, and the siege at Tsingtao (though these intensely interest me and have for nearly two decades). The benefit of a global map is that you can use it for circa 1900 Great Power scenarios.

Ossel,

Do you have your own version of the OOB map for A&A 1914, with corrected map flaws?

The monotony of the fronts, esp. Western, doesn’t bother me either in this game. I would like to have seen more development of a railroad/strategic movement capability for non-combat movment and forts (i.e. sieges that require a diversion away from the “attack 'o stacks” and control certain elements of attack, movement, etc.). Static front lines are just a characteristic of the time, but countries like Germany should have been able to benefit from a superior rail system (and interior comm lines). Other countries like Russia should not be rewarded for having a comparably inferior one. The Allies, of course, benefit from near total command of the oceans; they go where and when they want to.

But alas, this is where house rules come in, and I’ve seen some pretty creative ones so far. The PTR were a good start.

The game system really handles house rules very well. And I might be in the minority, but the lack of R&D in the game is one thing I find a plus. It keeps things under control.

@Imperious:

Yes they marked on the map since you can’t just “build a fortress” during the war.

If you want questions, just ask. I can repost sections of the rules.

Actually, I do have one. Do railroads figure into the game into a direct way (literally on the map, as strategic movement, etc.), or is this wrapped up in the movement structure in general?

Thanks.

@Imperious:

Yes and that was insisted by me for people like you. Some people wont buy the game and just want pieces. Not getting the game is their loss, but the pieces will be sold–-once the game is on sale.

Thanks. I will buy both. And then some.

Fortress rules seem pretty reasonable. Funny… I was just reading on Fao last night, and the Kaunus Fortress on the Baltic.

So I assume the fortress is not its own piece but marked as such on the game board/map?

@Flashman:

I’ve also suggested that new fighters increase in power, so planes bought on round 2 are more powerful in combat than starting machines as so forth to a maximum of 4.

Do you mean this to say that they should increase in air-to-air battles, or also against land units once the air battle is complete (i.e., when the surviving airplanes of the winner strafe the loser’s land units)? Or both?

@GENERAL:

We already play tested and it seems to work fine….
Don’t get me wrong it needs more playtesting…

Even with the lack of this or that, the basic combat mechanic, I think, works pretty well for simulating the era. And maybe the fact that it didn’t go far enough in some areas, lends it to some interesting house-ruling. I was never sold on the Russian Revolution optional rule, however (esp., its territory-as-trigger element). It really ought to be triggered by the pile of hit plastic infantry…

You may have answered this already, but will the pieces be available for sale outside of the game?

Either way, I’m still very interested in the game. As long as Bulgaria has an Aegean coastline, and Poland has none, you can have my wallet.

Are fortresses represented, or is that what the entrenched infantryman represents?

I don’t have the rules in front of me, but there is a vague mention of “corps” in the rule book. And while not explicitly mentioned, that is probably the best approximation.

As state above, it’s not set in stone. And if anything, it represents a typical European corps. But that in turn was equivalent to an American or Bulgarian division. (US corps were larger; Bulgarians had no corps. Only field armies and very large divisions).

The higher, starting concentration of artillery simulates the per gun total per division, I think. German artillery was better suited for high trajectory fire. Meanwhile, the typical amount of artillery per Turkish division was about 25 guns (Hence 1 artillery piece with most Turk unit concentrations).

If you house ruled this, you could use different attack/defense values for each nation, esp. on a D12.

No beef, really. I just draw a distinction between what might foreseeably happen in a new, 2.0 version vs. what would occur with house rules/tweaking.

Given the WotC delivery on generic sculpts, no cold, hard, IPCs, and the like, I doubt anything like cavalry would make an appearence. Changes in the rules, however, are a more likely thing. Africa, especially, needs some simple but specific rules (ie. restrictive movement, reduced unit attacks/defense, etc.)

However, they would be something I would consider adding in a house-rule/variant derived from A&A 1914. But they would need to add something significant or unique to the game play. I know that’s been discussed in other threads, and personally, I’m split on the issue. I am more likely to add trains and fortresses to the mix (e.g. the latter did significantly affect the course of the war, such as in Liege or Przemsyl). It gives another focus for artillery/infantry, and siphons off troops from the otherwise attritional wars o’ stacks.

Point being, I’m just drawing distinctions between “what might” and “would if”. And nothing personal was intended.

How did things in Africa go for the CPs, and how do you feel the naval balance affected this, Chacmool?

@Flashman:

Cavalry had a measuarable impact in that all armies had lots of them, and they were expensive to maintain. Contrary to popular belief cavalry were not all disbanded or converted into infantry regiments, but remained an important element of most armies till the end, and indeed until and including WWII.

It is still a matter of debate as to Germany’s decision to use all its cavalry on the Eastern front after 1915 cost them the war, as they failed to exploit the breakthroughs of Spring 1918 due to (according to some) a lack of cavalry.

All of us who’ve contacted Wizards have received a generous supply of extra pieces; as I’ve said I’m not bothered about the lack of unique artillery or cruiser pieces.

However the game is unbalanced with OOB rules, hence the debate about fixes and tweaks.

I see where you are coming from cavalry, but it also has to do with the level of their deployment. Pretty much every country had attached cavalry to their infantry corps, but when you represent that with a piece in the game, you are talking representation at a divisional or, probably closer, corps level. Most cavalry divisions, were rougly about 6,000 men in number (depending on nation, give or take) with limited artillery support? So the amount of arses in the saddle is about a half to 2/3s less than boots on the ground at your average division size.  My point isn’t to parse numbers of this and that, but the level of deployment does matter. Arty in the game don’t bother me because they represent a large concentration of artillery as opposed to a set number. But this is something that was pivotal in the war.

@ossel:

I appreciate the original post. It was very concise and wrapped up much of what others have been suggesting all over this board.

I have to say, however, that the responses to this post were disappointing. Allow me throw in my two cents on all posts regarding “fixing” or “balancing” AA1914. I’m not trying to be negative in this post, but I want to give an honest critique of some of the posts I see on here that call for drastic changes to this or that aspect of the game.

First of all, when I open up a thread and it starts with a yards-long wall of text regarding adding cavalry/gas attacks/railroads/zeppelins/telegrams/supply lines/Mexico/etc./etc./etc., I can’t close the thread fast enough. I, like others, think that the game in its OOB state is not complete. I like tweaks to add realism here and there, but doing a massive overhaul of the rules so that it simulates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the war is inane. This is a high level strategy game. It is not a perfect war simulation. I’m in favor of the added tournament rules, because they add things like rail movement without having to draw little ladder lines all over the board.

In the introduction of the rules, Larry says explicitly that he’s not trying to represent machine guns and gas attacks in the game, those things are low level aspects. Other things like cavalry and zeppelins had no measurable impact on the war, so it makes sense that these things are not represented.

Just take a step back, people. The reality is that no one is going to want to play with house rules that require a law degree to master.

Again, I agree with OP in that we need changes that are realistic to a reasonable degree (correct map, etc.), but we can’t hope for a perfect simulation.

The brilliance of this post cannot be overstated! In a word, it’s all about “abstraction.” I love the mechanics of A&A1914, especially the combat. I thought it balanced, at a high level, the feel of this period. I love zepps (even lead ones), but you are correct, their impact was limited (using them as one example among many).

@ossel:

@Flashman:

Get lost in general house rules.

By all means post a 1914 House Rule section.

This.

That would be very helpful actually. The 1914 threads become hard to follow in the House Rule section. If not a subforum, maybe a sticky would help.

@Flashman:

German subs also operated out of Constantinople, though probably under nominal Ottoman control.

The most obvious use of cruisers is as defacto destroyers in anti-sub role; Battleships sunk a total of 1 sub in the war (by ramming).

A U.S. battleship, wasn’t it? Assigned to the Grand Fleet in Scapa Flow?

I just kind of look at cruisers as representing about half a battleship, i.e. a crusier squadron at most.

Has anyone considered giving the humble cruiser more to do? It’s the one naval piece that really, other than speed, doesn’t have much of a purpose. I would say factor its role in commerce raiding purposes, but that was only true for the first few months of the war. Other than the Koiningsberg in East Africa, all were sunk by March 1915.

Armed merchant cruisers, like those used by the Germans, were also very destructive on the high seas. They sunk a fair amount of shipping, but also wasted a lot of resources in the hunt involved in neutralizing them. Maybe a role for German transports in this… This might produce some wild goose chases and give the cruisers something to do for once.

I agree with most of the above. Austrian subs would probably be better suited to conducting USW warfare rather than German subs. Any German subs operating in the Med were dependent upon A-H bases and resources anyhow for operations.

@Flashman:

Do you want armoured trains with laser beams on the front?

I did take armoured trains into consideration. Not as a piece unto themselves, but aggregated into one.

@Flashman:

Do you want armoured trains with laser beams on the front?

Yes. What is so hard about getting friggin’ armored trains with arty strapped to their boilers???