Posts made by protevangelium

Any examples out there as to how others have put a D -12 system into effect? I  had never considered using something like that.

I have been toying with some house rules that would piggyback on to the new tournament rules in development for A&A 1914. Among several things, it would have Romania (not sure about Romania actually) and Bulgaria as stand-alones (as I see some have done in their tweaking). Just a few things I would like to solicit opinion on

1.Bulgaria: It would enter as the very last country in R1. I plan to start them off with 7 infantry and 2 artillery. Bulgarian infantry would be able to reroll defensive and offensive die misses, scoring on "1"s during the reroll (to represent their high quality during the war and previous experience in the Balkan Wars). Until the CPs conquer Serbia (representing the open rail link to A-H and Germany), Bulgaria would not be able to produce artillery. [Note: to be fair, Russian infantry in Serbia would be able to reroll misses on defensive dice, scoring on “1s”. Russia would also be able to place one infantry per turn in Serbia. Serbia would not be a stand-alone nation but function with the Russians on their turn. I am also toying with an evacuation for Serbs via Albania and their later reappearence in a subsequent round). Bulgaria would be able to produce infantry, of course, functioning a bit like China in the WWII versions of A&A. It could also save its IPCs.

2. Romania: Not sure how to start these guys off. Their army should be larger than 5 infantry and one artillery, but they would not enjoy a bonus like Bulgarian infantry (a large army, but nowhere near the battle experience of Bulgaria or Serbia). Would it be better to simply have Romania enter in R2, mobilized, and operating with the Russians on their turn (i.e. no distinction between a Russian and Romania piece)? Should Romania operate as a seperate economy, with troops mobilizing in Romania?

3. Greece. The rules I am messing around with would make it possible to violate Greek territory without mobilizing them before X round (probably round 4). Bulgaria, France, Britian, etc. routinely violated Greek territory without too much done on the Greek part–for a time.

4. Russia would probably also have an increase in infantry, to start, along certain points of the Eastern Front. Their relatively weak economy would remain as-is.

What do you think? The idea is to make the Balkans the fiesty sump that they were for both the Allies and CPs. Thanks!

Some of these changes to the rules were similar to things I was thinking of. Part of the changes I was considering toying with had to do with making the Balkan countries a bit more feisty. A lot of that would involve giving Russia an initially stronger setup in some places (though with no bump in artillery) and making Bulgaria a playable country in its own right (i.e. think about how China works in A&A Pacific). Serbia would give Russia a couple perks, but Romania would be a sad sack. It would make the Balkan area of the board a whole lot more interesting.

I like your Kiel Canal idea; I was thinking of the exact same thing. To that I might add a mine roll of 1 or 2 when attacking German units in the North Sea off of Germany. This would represent the very heavy mining and the defenses of Helgoland. And that plays right into a major part of the German naval strategy for the High Seas Fleet: run away!

Along with this would be Britian’s battleship off of India going to the North Sea and being replaced by a cruiser off the coast of India. I would have to find out exactly what they had off of India in 1914, but nothing that would be represented by a BB in the game. About the only dreadnought worthy of the name east of Suez was HMAS Australia, not counting Japanese units operating with the Royal Navy on convoy and patrol duties.

@BJCard:

If we made Russia any tougher, then the CP cause is even more hopeless than it already is.

As it is, I hardly find Russia a tough country (unless you are the Russian player–then God help you), and I like playing the CPs. Call me cRaZy? Why, yes, please do.

I’m working on some house rules for myself to make the Eastern Front a bit more interesting. I am agreed, however–if Russia is made stronger in any setting like that, the CPs must also have a countervailing presence. Unfortunately, I have been too busy to sit down and really try them out. My sense of history professionalism requires me to read beforehand. But subs on rails is not long in coming (???) …

I would say an 8.5 for this version. I really like the simplified combat mechanics and the costing seems reasonable. I’m not so big, however, on how weak Russia (it should have weaknesses but should have a much larger infantry presence on the board.) is in the game and some of the means through which the revolution is triggered (i.e. territorial acquisition of Russia vs. its internal political breakdown, though they are related for sure). I do like the expasion of the game geographically into the Middle East and Africa, and not simply a focus on Western Front slogfests.

If the game provides anything, it is a good platform for house rules. The trick is to not get carried away with tactical elements like poision gas, etc., and try to keep them on a strategic level (British blockade of Germany is a good example).

Overall, I enjoyed what I played so far.

@Imperious:

We all would love to see them.

They are still in the prelim stages at this point, but it would basically call for a more vigorous Eastern Front. I am ambivalent with the RR rule at this point. I think it serves a valid historical point, but there is no way the CPs advanced that far into Russia (as the rules require for the event to trigger). And the turning point came with the offensives launched by the Kerensky govt. that produced empty victories and more horrendous casualties. Enter, Bolsheviks.

Anyhow, adding some of the historic fortress complexes might make for a more interesting game. It would certainly slow down steam-rolling advances, and create more of the static warfare that you saw in the Carpathians, Alps, and even near some portions of the Western Front. Games like Paths of Glory or Guns of August can help to identify those fortresses. You could keep the rules simple but interesting. I think a small siege element would be a fun factor in the game, but I would keep the number for forts down to a manageable number.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

The argument that goes like “Italy can’t just switch sides because the setup is not prepared for it” is completely irrelevant.

It’s not completely irrelevant. Having Italy potentially flip-flop is an interesting what-if, even if it’s not well grounded in historical hindsight. But the placement of Italy’s forces on the game board might have to reflect that. Because they did not enter the war until May 1915, the Austrians had left a token force in the Alps and had pulled a great deal of artillery out of that region. Italy was not at all prepared either when the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine bombarded its Adriatic coast; just about the only time all major units of the navy sortied. They spent a lot more time hiding or becoming floating artillery. They were a bit caught off guard at the Austrians doing so, and the Italian navy even set up an armored train to help prevent it again.

The White War, 1915-1919: Life and Death on the Italian Front might be an interesting read in that regard.

As far as I know, the Italian colonial units were usually kept at a fairly high strength. In Libya, they had only captured it 1911-12, so it still had internal security problems. Over 60,000 Italians were eventually kept busy by the Senussi during the war, and the battle name escapes me… but they suffered a rather stinging defeat in 1915. You almost never read about this, or the Portuguese border war with the Germans in Angola.

So if you want to have Italy change alliances, it might be best to reflect that with a decreased mobilization on the board.

My pet peeve is how weak Russia starts the game in terms of infantry/corps/whatever. Not so far fetched (infantry=corps), for in Africa, the German forces did approach 20,000 troops and carriers under Lettow-Vorbeck. That’s probably adequate to qualify it is a corp equivalent in Africa. Even a brigade was tough to utilize in GEA; units like the KAR had better luck. In New Guinea, the Germans barley mustered 350 men to oppose the Australian landing.

If someone were to put some time into it, you can really crank out some very spiffy house rules for A&A 1914. I am hard at work on that…

@Auztria:

Yes. If they truly had a historically accurate setup, Russia would have almost as many troops at start as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined. The Ottoman Empire would have no fleet, Germany would have extra cruisers in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, Britain would have just 1 infantry, and Africa would be even more barren. Of course they can’t do that, simply for gameplay reasons. If Russia could conquer Galicia and East Prussia effortlessly every game, people would quickly grow bored.

But you see… I went to school to be a historian! I will have to do a little bit of experimenting with the Russian infantry bordering Galicia and East Prussia. Naturally, it raises my hackles that the Russians can’t do much more than poke the CPs on this front. The Russian TTs containing six infantry probably ought to have eight (on the western border). Any attack they make in Prussia or Galicia is going to be bulldozed by a massive A-H or German attack with at least 12 infantry in each case to throw at the hapless Russians.

I have a soft spot for those intrepid Bulgarians c. 1915. This has led to some experimenting on my end to make them a playable country in lieu of a country in the direct Ottoman pale. Instead of collecting income, they would do something like China does in A&A:Pacific 1.0–crank out people or arty (no planes, tanks or ships). I even thought about allowing the Germans to give them a subsidy (1 IPC or something along those lines). Australia is often talked about for its commitment to the war (and justly so), but I was blown away when I read the Bulgarian stats. 1,200,000 mobilized out of about 5 million people!!  If Italy is in this game, surely Bulgars can’t hurt…

Can you give an alternate/optional initial setup for Russia, especially for infantry?  I am not really interested in rehashing the reasons for and against, but I will say that when playing it was too easy for the Central Powers to press into Russia while not being faced with a similar threat from Russia. Six infantry in the frontier territories is far too weak for Russia to have any chance of posing a challenge.

A strong A-H drive into Ukraine puts the CPs on the Russian doorstep far too quickly and thrashes the weak Russian economy too violently. So that is my question… what setup (for Russia) can I use to balance against this, in keeping with some of the game’s original design? This is regardless of playing with the RR rule in effect (or not). It would also keep the preexisting Central Powers setup on the Eastern Front. Thanks!

@Auztria:

@protevangelium:

if I recall what I read in Keegan

Sorry, off topic, but I have to know: Are you talking about John Keegan, the late British historian? You’ve read his books?

Yes. It’s been a while since I have read The First World War, so I may be off on my numbers or assessment. But my general impression was that while the Russian military suffered serious command and equipment problems, it was both a.) large and b.) capable of inflicting serious defeats on the Central Powers at various points in the war.

I suppose what stands out to me with the current A&A 1914 setup is that the concentration of Germans in the east is very large. Austria does not bother me as much, since they were among the first to mobilize and their war plan called for a large, central reserve group. But the Russians seem too sparse, especially in the northern border with the German Empire. It just does not seem to reflect the unexpected superiority in numbers they had there in 1914, and the initial German miscalculation of their capabilities.

What happens beyond that point is up to Russia!

I haven’t had a chance to a play through a complete game yet, only one round so far. I played the CPs, while my friend took on the role of the Allies.

Besides the German navy being ridiculously successful in its North Sea breakout, my friend pointed out that Russia appears to be too weak and the CPs far too successful from the outset of the game.

Do you agree? For a country with a substantial standing army (though with equipment problems), should Russia have more units on the board from the get-go? In most frontier territories, it has at most six infantry. From what I recall, this seems a bit weak. Russian strategy relied on a substantial force in Russian Poland (2/5 of the army, if I recall what I read in Keegan) because the railroads were intentionally kept to a minimum to avoid an enemy breakout.

If you do agree, how would you remedy the initial startup for the Russians? To me they seem to be too easy to defeat, esp. with the RR rule in effect.

Thanks!