Posts made by protevangelium

@Chacmool:

Another idea is to give each of the eight powers national (dis)advantages:

Russia: Infantry is not pimped by Artillery (Inf was actually weaker than others in ww1 because of lack of riffles/Obedience )

This is an excellent idea, and very historical.

I’ve noticed that quite a few WW I games allocate a certain amount of strategic movement points to each nation, based mainly on their historic rail capacity and effeicency. For some nations, this declines with time due to wear and tear on the rail infrastructure. But it’s not my point to complicate the game with all of these factors.

Just so happens I got quite a few of these cool, plastic choo-choo trains from www.spielmaterial.de, and am dying to work them into the game some way.

What if, every turn, you earned so many trains representing a capacity for long-range strategic movement? I.e., lets say each train could carry two infantry (change this as you would like). The number of trains in play would be limited and could diminish due to territorial loss. Replacing the trains could also be based on a factor of territories controlled. Instead of trains based on countries, you could have a certain color represent CP trains, AP trains, and Russian trains (due to the track) gague. In this way, your allies could ride them.  I’m just not sure how you would go about “destroying” them other than territorial loss.

In short, I’ve been thinking of the movement situation incorrectly. Think of naval transports, only with rails! In this way, significant troop movements over distance can be represented, but without getting too carried away.

Criticism solicited!

@Chacmool:

Did you ever thought about an activation of Minors via paying money?

That’s actually a pretty good idea. I’m more in favor of aligning Bulgaria with Germany, but paying to activate it is basically an equivalent of a war loan (e.g. 4 IPCs). And in my when-I-have-time house rules, Bulgaria would operate as a country piggybacking on a larger CP power, but with an economy unto itself. So the activation is basically like a significant cash infusion into an otherwise small economy.

I can’t see Romania being aligned with France, even though it recieved substantial help later in the war. It simply had more natural political ties with Russia, and Russia increasingly had to assist the Romanians directly once the Romanian invasion turned into a rout. So, yes, then after that point, the French assistance becomes more important.

I would consider operating Romania just as Bulgaria (attaching it to a larger country but with its own economy). Bulgaria and Romania were not too far off in the amount of troops mobilized, and if not equal, the Bulgarian troops made up for it in quality. Though I must say the Romanians had improved greatly by the end of the war.

I have early-war British HaT pieces that will stand in for Bulgarians (field caps are pretty similar at that scale), and A&A 40 can provide Frenchmen in Adrian helmets posing as Romanians (accents will give them away).

But I think it would only fair to boast the value of Bulgarian and/or Romania by an IPC just to facilitate their economy. They really shouldn’t be able to reinforce with more than a corps/infantry per turn.

@Oddbjoern:

Its a pity the navelpowers arent balanced in this game. CP dont stand a chance after a few turns, ie when the allys have moved into place.

Essentially, yes.

In real life, the Austrians had several ships in the planning stages, but nothing being laid down that I can remember that would have given them an advantage in dreadnoughts (other than the Tegetthoff class ships coming into service). The A-H army was weak enough as it was.

I’m not as familiar with the German shipbuilding program during the war as it applied to dreadnoughts. But the U-boat, as in the game, is the cheapest, most effective naval strategy. But even then, you really have to buy carefully.

A quick house rule (that is very historical) might be to launch 1 German U-boat per turn (max) out of Trieste. The German navy sent subs via rail to Pola where they were reassembled. Sometimes they were crewed with Germans, Austrians at other times. While small in number, the U-boats operating in the Med out of Pola were very successful proportionate to their numbers. The Allies could never find enough destroyers to deal with them in the Med. It would certainly give the Allies one more thing to worry about in their French/Italian/British lake.

@Chacmool:

I am curious you have 36  D12 Dice ?

12 red, 12 blue, and a heap of other colors. So, yes, I have 36!  :-D

In other words, it’s quite historical. The Central Powers’ navies were, at best, coastal defense navies.

Germany was only barely a blue water navy due to Tsingtao in China and its accompanying cruiser squadron. So it could only project a very limited amount of power, and with Japan’s modern battle fleet entering the war, it was hopeless. The High Seas Fleet, even with its strength could only operate into the North and Baltic Sea with any efficacy; beyond this was out of the question. In other words, “Die Kolonien mussen in der Nordsee verteidigt werden!” Britain’s battle fleet has the Germans pretty much contained when it comes to surface action. Hence, subs are the only real way Germany (or any of the CPs for that matter) can challenge Allied seapower and hit the Allies in the pocketbook.

Austria’s navy really has but one function, as it did in real life, and that is to stop the Italians from landing uncontested along its Adriatic coast. During the war, other than U-boats, the Austrian battle fleet went no further than the Straits of Otranto (to attack the Otranto Barrage).

The Ottoman Navy was in an even worse predicament from years of neglect. The Black Sea straits, in combination with a system of coastal fortresses, were the focus of its navy. The addition of the Goeben and Breslau did give it some limited striking power, but this was going to hide anyhow in the face of any serious challenge by the Allies (Russian Black Sea dreadnoughts and French and British ships in the Med).

So this leaves the Allies with one of their major advantages: command of the seas. This was one of the reasons behind the Gallipoli landings; it took advantage of one of the Allied strengths, attack from the sea. From there, it was simply mismanaged. The attack really should have gone toward Alexandretta to cut the railway to Syria and Palestine. The German colonies, with OOB rules, are simply throwaways.

Unfortunately, I am finding the OOB rules are unsatisfactory, and I am spending a lot of time on creating my own version (powered by D12s). This way, you can bring out some of the real differences in quality between the combatant nations. So a German corps/infantry fights and defends better than a Russian corps.

This is one of the reasons I have been sold on the D12 approach to AA1914. If you look at any of the other WW I games out there like Le Grande Guerre, Guns of August, Paths of Glory, etc., you notice that German units are usually have higher stats than most other nations. Only the UK really approaches them, for instance. Other nations, like Russia and Austria-Hungary are more on par with each other (which is historically accurate; both armies were utterly cumbersome in battle). And those Stahlhelm infantry from WW II make for perfect Stosstruppen…

I have spent so much time considering house rules that I am starting to end up with a Franken-game. But variable stats for infantry (think of these as roughly approximate to a corps) are one of the best options I’ve considered. So cruisers, battleships, artillery, and so on, remain at the same stats and cost for everyone.

I plan to try out a D12 system with A&A 1914. Still in the works at this point, but it would mainly revolve around giving the infantry of various countries varying numbers. For instance, German units would attack at a slightly higher amount and also defend a bit higher. It might counteract the tendency of the game to go south for the CPs too soon. I might keep arty at the same basic level, as the qualitative element took second stage to the quantity.

I love A&A 1914’s slogfest combat feel, just not the way it equates all nations’ infantry as good as the next. From this standpoint, I’m looking at the infantry as being roughly equal to a corps in any given power. In Africa, that changes naturally, but it’s a matter of proportionality.

Major fortifications are something I might add as well. By forcing an attacker to concentrate on a siege here and there, it helps to simulate the relative difficulty of terrain. Such as the rivers of northern and eastern France to the narrow approach available to invading armies in Palestine. It also chews up some of mega stacks that can potentially develop and is more akin to the ridiculous casualties sustained just about everywhere in the war. Suggestions welcome!

The War to End All Wars uses this as part of its game mechanic, except for all nations.

The only problem, for me, is that transports really represent the sea-lift capability of a nation, not so much its merchant fleet (though the ships may be one and the same). This would explain why in other A&A versions convoys are represented by sea zones that can can cut into the IPC income of the owner nation.

Though the U.S. enters on R4 (1917, roughly), it took nearly a year for U.S. troops to arrive in Europe and really begin to fight in earnest. The Naval Act of 1916 authorized the buildup of the navy, but it was going to take a few years to build up to that. The Washington Naval Treaty scrapped a lot of those ideas anyhow. Point being, the U.S. did not become the economic powerhouse overnight like it did in World War II. So I am one of those in favor of not getting too carried away with U.S. IPC production.

Perhaps more important that U.S. production (the U.S. troops used a lot of British and French equipment anyhow, albeit some license built in the U.S.) was the amount of money loaned to the Allies. And they in turn were loaning it to Russia! Do you see a problem there??  :-D

Is this with the limitation on IPCs per dice in effect for USW?

@Chacmool:

No, the features would not have any effect, but I like the styling of the OOB-map more than this plain map. (this one looks a bit like the olk risk-maps to me)

The “Deluxe-House-Rule map” is still under construction and will need some more time.

The D-H-R-map is more for History-Nerds who have time for playing this game fo(u)r days, while the simpler map is more suitable for one-afternoon-action gamers.  8-)

For all of its faults, the OOB board is a nice piece of artwork.

As you point out though, those of us that make our living on history see through its artistic appeal. I wouldn’t worry about DHR map taking four days to play through. That works out to 1 day per year of war!

My HaT and Airfix 1/72s will fill in for askaris and British colonial troops. Early war British infantry will serve as Bulgarians!

@Chacmool:

@protevangelium:

@Chacmool:

I have no plans for an english version at the moment, but maybe in the future.

Even if your friends don`t understand a word german they should be able to play with this map ;-)

I have added the second Capitals Budapest and Moscow, also changed some names and made SZ 18 smaller to reduce the options of the AH-fleet in the first 2 Rounds…

Well, I guess they are going to have to learn German.� � :-D

How big can this map be made before the text, etc. becomes distorted (i.e in relation to the OOB map)?

It can be made really big, even big enough to place units on western front…

I am planing to get the map printed � 1 meter x 1 meter.

After I playtested the map in the last weeks I decided to reduce Russian economical/political collapse 1 IPC to 12/14.

I think I am going to get this version (1 capital per Power-easier) printed in XL, would be cool if there was someone who knew some styling tips like adding topographical features etc.

Even without styling, that’s a pretty good looking map. It corrects most of the glaring errors in the OOB map. Would topographical features have any effect on gameplay?

1x1 meter should be decent sized; that is about as big as I can go given my current table space. Just a few inches more than the regulation playing size for X-Wing!

I assume your other house rule map is still in development? I didn’t want to try and print anything off that wasn’t fully complete.

@Chacmool:

I have no plans for an english version at the moment, but maybe in the future.

Even if your friends don`t understand a word german they should be able to play with this map ;-)

I have added the second Capitals Budapest and Moscow, also changed some names and made SZ 18 smaller to reduce the options of the AH-fleet in the first 2 Rounds…

Well, I guess they are going to have to learn German.  :-D

How big can this map be made before the text, etc. becomes distorted (i.e in relation to the OOB map)?

@Flashman:

Don’t like bottling up the Austrian fleet like that… I suppose it depends what you do with the Italian entry. I like giving Austria more options, such as invading Cyrenaica; they then have to choose between taking advantage of this (bringing Italy into the war early), or leaving Italy in peace for a turn. Another factor is if you allow Italy to move and build before being at war (I don’t.)

The Austrian navy’s ability to operate beyond the straits of Otranto was very limited. Even when they escorted the Goeben out of Pola, it was only to that point. If I recall correctly, it did not seem to have any extensive collier capabilities. It was also assisted by the relative lack of good Italian naval bases on the Adriatic coast of Italy.

As much as I would like to use the Austrian navy (I love playing Austria-Hungary in any WW I game), it really is only good to prevent an Italian landing via the Adriatic. And maybe to take the occasional potshot coastal bombardment on Italy.

I had thought about house-ruling a German sub deployment via the Austrian naval base. As you probably know, they dismantled U-boats, shipped them by rail, and reassembled them at Pola. It would make the naval war in the Med get… interesting…

Almost forgot to ask, Chacmool… will there be an English version available? I can read German (to an extent), but most of my friends cannot. I would like to give your map a shot when it is finished.

Thanks!

@Chacmool:

This is probably my final map for light version close to OOB.

Still not sure how to handle Moscow/Petrograd…

Took me a while to figure out you had two maps, at least, circulating around. I like the changes.

1 tt movement for Africa, for sure. I cannot think of a single railroad traveling between two colonies.

Two capitals for A-H sounds right. With the two parliaments, it was a wonder they could wage war at all.

Perhaps a rule, too, for Russian RR movement–only Russian units can move two tts within Russian homeland territories. All others, move 1. This would reflect the relative size of the Russian territories, amount of track and rolling stock to cover them, and the efficency of their operation. Not to mention the Russian railroad gauge. Would 3 tts within Germany be too outrageous?

I’ve been reading through my To End All Wars rules. Has anyone considered putting a manpower cap on units for each nation? Once it has been reached, costs double. I’m not a fan of bookeeping, but that might one instance where it would be worth it.

@Flashman:

Another idea from one of my maps is the Khenifra area in Eastern Morocco to give the French similar problems:

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

Exactly! Also, too, in the French colonies were the problems with the Tuareg in 1916-1917 (Kaocen Revolt). And you can throw in some problems for the British with the Mad Mullah’s state in Somaliland. Just when the Allies thought Africa would be a pushover…

My plastic 1/72 figures should come this week, but then I will at least have askaris that look like askaris, figures that look like passable Sennusi, and early war British who will stand in for Bulgarians. With the knapsack, they look more like Bulgarians at that scale than Russians with greatcoats slung over their shoulders. Primer and spraypaint will obscure some of that detail naturally.

I might consider using different rules entirely for askari and colonial troops in Africa. Not sure what mechanic to use though. I never liked using the normal combat values and rules since the most the individual Schutztruppen came to was a weak division in European terms (in DSWA, you might call it an oversize cavalry division), if even that. But with remounted 150mm naval guns, you can’t simply write them off as a brigade… DOA should have had the artillery piece to begin with, as opposed to DWSA starting the game with it.

@Chacmool:

Version without Spain and Historical Entry for Minors

Because this keeps me up at night… have you considered reducing the amount of German units in the eastern part of the German Empire (i.e., Prussia), or slightly increasing the Russian forces in Poland? I mention this because so much of the Russian standing army was based here and so little of the German army in eastern Germany c. August 1914 (8th Army).

I have followed your map’s development to a certain extent, but what was the rationale for the U.S. having such a high starting IPC amount? The southern USA seems a bit much given the period, and there is no way it had the industrial output of the northeastern USA. Texas you can justify due to oil boom in OK and TX, but the South really should be around 8 IPCs. It had the potential for agriculture, but its industrial output was limited compared to the northeast and it was soon going to lose population due to internal migration (African American agricultural workers switching to a life in the urban Northeast and Midwest).

I really like your African map setup. In the house rules I am mulling over, I have African units as taking two hits to kill as opposed to one (Central Powers only; sort of like battleships that regenerate without a port). Also, I will probably work in a few “pop up” revolts in Africa (Senussi, Somalia, etc.) for the Ottoman/CP player to spring within a certain time range. The Senussi, for example, were a serious problem for the Italians and their attempts to deal with them were seriously underwhelming when compared with the British. You never see much in English, however, on the Italian side of this campaign. When a Turkish infantry unit pops up Cyrenica, suddenly the Italians or British need to pay more attention to Africa.

BTW, what does the K stand for on the African spawn points? Thanks!

Edit: I see you how you have worked in the Sennusi in Kufra. I like this addition.

What was the railroad gauge like between Germany and Austria-Hungary? I can see some sort of restriction in place for Africa.

@knp7765:

I don’t really have any examples since I have not tried that yet myself, but it basically breaks down to doubling the attack and defense values for all of your current units.
Infantry = D6 – Att 1, Def 2.  D12 – Att 2, Def 4
Tanks = D6 – Att 3, Def 3.  D12 – Att 6, Def 6
Fighters = D6 – Att 3, Def 4.  D12 – Att 6, Def 8
Battleships = D6 – Att 4, Def 4.  D12 – Att 8, Def 8
With a D 12 system, you could add new units and have a wider range of values. Also, you could use all the odd numbers to make units a little less or more powerful. Take Battleships for example: Suppose you wanted to include Battle Cruisers into your game. A Battle Cruiser is not quite as powerful as a Battleship but they are stronger than Cruisers. It would be hard to put them into a D6 system and try to make them distinct without giving them some sort of special abilities. However, you could slip them right into a D12 system quite easily.
Cruiser = A 6, D 6
Battle Cruiser = A 7, D 7
Battleship = A 8, D 8
Of course, you would have to make up your own Battle Board since the current A&A games are based on a D 6 system. I think Imperious Leader has made up a D 12 system and would probably be able to give you more information on that. Hope this helps you.

Yes, it does. Thanks for explaining that. I guess it doesn’t work too well for A&A 1914 at this time since “variation on a theme” pieces don’t really exist yet. Much easier to do with all the stuff HBG has for WW II. It might, however, be a good way to work in the increasing technology available during the First World War without going crazy on pieces. So you could have stormtroopers without having a separate piece, as they were more or less a tactical advantage.