Posts made by protevangelium

Consider, too, expanding the area that Germany has available to conduct in USW in. The Mediterranean was a place where CP subs were incredibly destructive, well out of proportion to the their numbers. This would force Britain and her allies to spread out their naval defense, as it did in reality. Also, it would give the CPs an opportunity to attack more sea zones, inflicting IPC damage over a wider area than the North Atlantic. Might also want to consider expanding who can conduct USW, as the Germans launched U-boats out of Pola in Austria-Hungary,

When I get some time tonight, I will throw some potential rules everyone’s way for trains and movement. Outside the scope of this thread, but I had an epiphany. I will just say for now, why not replicate naval transports on dry land, in a matter of speaking? With that said, don’t think in terms of money, but in terms of infrastructure…

From what I gather, IL’s game will offer the pieces seperately, in addition to the game itself? I’m interested in both, but the added game pieces are always useful for A&A 1914 variants or other similar themed games.

@Flashman:

Purely an arbitrary number, would need testing.

Too many, and it has little effect; too few and the war’s over in 1916.

Just throw all casualties into a bowl; it’s the responsibility of the enemy players to see when the’res ten of a colour to trade in for a -1 morale.

It probably isn’t a bad number. If infantry represent, roughly, a corps, that’s about 30,000 soldiers. Of course, this would equal a Bulgarian or American division. So 10 would represent some very serious losses, assumnig you play with a turn representing a year. Personally, I feel a turn is probably closer to six months or better represented as six months.

What about allowing cavalry to roll and hit on half of their attack, if the overall attack is successful? In other words, if you are the attacker, and you score more hits on the enemy than you take (take this to mean your whole attacking force), you roll an additional die for each cavalry unit, hitting on a 1. Basically, to represent the real role of cavarly in this time period: to follow up on successes, pursue retreating forces, hit flanks, etc. More potent than a tank, but unable to absorb losses like them.

Will do. Why was 10 infantry chosen as the number (i.e. what are you assuming that represents, roughly)?

I like this set of rules better than the OOB or even revised rules. Territory should not have been the driving factor in determining the RusRev. It was a mix of internal politics and horrendous military casualties.

Would you work in something for casualties to partially trigger the Rev?

@Flashman:

My point is that the material damage done by bombing in WWI was insignificant; but the moral panic it caused was highly damaging, forcing nations to build their own bombers to retaliate, and withdraw fighters from the front line to defend their cities.
Bombers only become a viable unit if morale is the main factor in forcing the enemy out of the war.

Sort of like an SBR on a nation’s morale factor, is what you’re thinking? I could go with that, in addition to their tactical abilities. Assuming we’re talking about Gothas, Handley Pages, Zeps, Capronis, etc. and not D.H. 4s!  :-D

@Flashman:

Might work with my morale system; though the shelling only killed a few civilians, it did cause a panic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Scarborough,_Hartlepool_and_Whitby

We do need new submarine rules though, that do substantial IPC damage if not dealt with.

Agreed. A morale system is a better option for reflecting internal politics; I just worry that it would grow too complex for easy recordkeeping.

Thanks.

Has anyone seen cavalry sculpts on Shapeways that might fit this time period and/or scale?

@Flashman:

In the later war aircraft conducted some pretty damaging strafing runs. We’re only talking about a few machines, so I don’t think 4 is that excessive.

But perhaps aircraft should only be able to straf if there is no air to air combat.

The level would also apply to movement; so German planes based in Belgium would be able to SBR London and return to base only at level 4, available 1917 which is about right. This depends on if you want separate bomber units or not.

Ok, I see where you are going. I’m not a big fan of a seperate bomber unit, but at the same time, the Zeps, Gothas, etc., at least need some representation. They were an innovative use of airpower, but their casualties were horrendous. I’m not sure what a Zeppelin (or Gotha) cost, but it probably never broke even. Just seems like a piece that might cost a lot of IPCs for relatively little return. My feelings are mixed.

@CWO:

@protevangelium:

Looks to be a good size. I looked around for anything that came close, and found zilch. Maybe HGB will cook up something. I know they have a French cavalry piece in the works. Maybe an uhlan and a cossack can be slipped in…

The 2002 edition of Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Boardgame includes these Gunpowder Era Dragoons.  The first picture below isn’t taken from a good angle, but the second one is a bit better.  I like to think of these units as representing French WWI mounted cuirassiers (if there was such a thing).Â

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/873915/sid-meiers-civilization-the-boardgame

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/89426/sid-meiers-civilization-the-boardgame

Great find! French cuirassiers did ride into battle, complete with breastplates in the early part of the war. Usually, they had covers for their helmets and plates to decrease their visibility.

Austro-Hungarian hussars (I think) also wore their crested helmets even after becoming dismounted units, for a while. They probably ditched these once the steel helmets became available, but in some photos, you can see that old style helmet covered over with canvas, etc.

The modern cavalry from Civ remind me of mounted Schutztruppe units (in East Africa), or perhaps better, the mounted elements of the Seebattalion in China!

@Quintus:

I use older risk peices for cav. They dont fit the best but its the closest i got.

Looks to be a good size. I looked around for anything that came close, and found zilch. Maybe HGB will cook up something. I know they have a French cavalry piece in the works. Maybe an uhlan and a cossack can be slipped in…

@Flashman:

Its worth considering the naval retreats rule (my idea) introduced in PTR; this gives the German navy the option of hit-and-run attacks vs the British fleet, returning safely to their own mined waters. This at least creates a kind of balance in the naval war.

That’s a good idea. Has anyone considered tying BB or CC shore bombardment to IPC/strategic attacks? I know that at a certain point in the war, German shore bombardments of British North Sea towns was a serious problem. Serious enough that it caused the Royal Navy a great deal of embarrassment, as citizens wondered, “where was the navy?”

@Flashman:

Another possibility is that the level of a plane also relates to movement, so that a level 4 plane would be able to conduct bombing missions, e.g. a German L4 aircraft based in Belgium can bomb London and return to base, corresponding to 1917 Gotha bombers conducting such raids. So maybe we don’t need a seperate bomber unit at all…

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

By level 4, I assume you mean an aircraft attacking on a 4 or less? Seems a bit much for me. Perhaps that might be true against air-to-air action, but what about their involvement in the land battle? Fighters strafing at 4 or less would be kind of ridiculous for this time period. They could certainly do damage to ground targets, but not on the scale of WWII.

Russia, France, and Germany should start with air forces. Everyone else should build them. I’m going to see what sorts of numbers I can find for air forces, c. 1914.

@Flashman:

Overall the system is, I think, easier to keep track of than calculating thresholds as per LHPTR.

What is LHPTR?

While I’m not a big fan of its system, The War to End All Wars uses the manpower mechanic as part of the costing of units. Every nation is assigned a number (not sure how it was arrived at), and once that number is exceeded, infantry (maybe more units) cost double thereafter. I thought that was interesting, but it would need some adaptation to A&A 1914. In other words, the costing was not tied to a factor of time, but of committing troops to battle and facing the potential downside of exhausting your reserves.

In a game like Paths of Glory, political collapse is tied to the playing of event cards. So for instance, cards played as event push Russia further down the path to revolution, such as the Tsar taking command of the army, his abdication, etc. But that’s a bit too much for A&A, I think.

Why would cavalry boost artillery? Aircraft do this due to their eye-in-the-sky capabilities, but I’m not sure I follow the connection of cavalry to my guns to shooting more accurately.

I do, however, see a connection between a successful overall attack (infantry, planes, arty, etc.) and a bonus to cavalry subsequent to that. If they served any unique use it was to take advantage of a breakthrough (much as what tanks would later do–or better, help create one).

Reading Norman Stone’s The Eastern Front (p.134-135), the mobility of cavalry divisions was a bit of a myth. Horses require a lot more food than men, and it caused massive logistical problems, especially train transport, for the Russian army. Given Russia’s already stressed rail infrastructure, all those cavalry divisions posed a strategic problem in addition to their tactical advantages.

On the other hand, cav divisions had their own organic artillery and machine guns.

The Middle East and German Southwest Africa (camelry, too, here) were also important places for cavalry or mounted infantry. In German East Africa, horses didn’t last too long due to disease.

Where could you find a game piece to represent cavalry? I’ve not seen anything that fits the 23mm size very well.

@AlphaAeffchen:

Hi,

thx for yourt answer.

Im not interrested in historical facts. This is a game. I dont care about history in AA games, the balance is the most important thing. The balance must be correct (this is the most important thing to do in this kind of games otherwise we have no fun because its onesided). What i want to point out is if the CP ignore the allied Navy and build no ships they cant win the war (Perhaps all in on Russia but ist still difficult). Like Texas said in one of his posts we cant play this game like the WWII versions. The CP need a bit of Navy to win the game. The Atlantic and the mid Sea is the key. I dont see other ways. If you know please tell me.

Best regards

A. Aeffchen

Yes, it is a game, but the same limitations that affected the CPs, economically and naval, are still present in the game.

There never will be a naval balance because there never was one to begin with.

@DarthShizNit:

I would agree that the Balkan armies should start off bigger to represent their veterancy, but yeah, more IC doesn’t make much sense, I mean BUlgaria collapsed economically without ever really being challenged. They weren’t exactly economic powerhouses.

Agree to more planes, by early 1914 Russia already had the best strategic bombers of the war, and even the Austrians had their own flight schools. Every nation should start out with at least one plane IMO.

And for Argentina, I mean for game purposes sure, makes an easy balance, but as long as we recognize that it wouldn’t happen historically  :-D.

In fact, the Russian air force was the largest in the world at the start of the war. It seems that it wasn’t used very effecitvely at first, but picked up greatly from there. Some of the tactics developed by the Black Sea Fleet with seaplanes and carriers were highly advanced for the day.

I would agree that the game is not grossly unbalanced, but much of the unbalance comes from a starting setup that is both a) ahistorical and b) makes no sense (i.e. France starting with two battleships).

Building battleships, unfortunately, does only one thing for Germany: costs it a great deal of money needed elsewhere. In real life, the costs of the KM’s building program were astronomical. Dreadnought parity with England was a losing gamble.

U-boats are Germany’s best best. Not only can they inflict battle damage on the Allied fleets, but they can cause some level of economic trouble.

Building battleships for Austria is, in general, a bad idea. A sub or two may not hurt, but their navy’s job is to simply keep Italy out of Istria and Dalmatia.

Their economy cannot spare the money.  On other other hand, for the Ottomans it might actually give them a brief, local naval superiority. The second option would be an interesting avenue to explore, given Turkey’s fairly extensive coastline and the possiblity of shore bombardment and a threat to the Suez Canal.