Posts made by Suvorov

First of all, we never changed the setup from the OOB setup.  All we changed were the land movement rules to allow two moves into a friendly or already contested space as the second space, and the extended 3-move sea movement from friendly sea bases.  And we added in the economic and political collapse rules.

What that led to was a series of games where one side would engage in cheap moves, like dropping one Italian guy in Smyrna to help push the Ottomans into collapse.  It was making the game stupid so we altered the rules to have the effects of political collapse kick in at the end of the turn, and if out of economic collapse the country could collect money.  This in turn unbalanced the game the other way, by creating situations where Germany was in economic collapse at the beginning of every turn but out at the end of every turn, and so it kept collecting money and had something like 110 IPCs when it got lucky and started its turn able to buy about 3 rounds later.

It also led to situations where countries were in political collapse for three or four turns and then managed to turn things around by getting out before the end of that country’s turn each round of game play.

As a result, we think we hit on the right balance: (1) at the beginning of a country’s turn, before purchasing, it must check for collapse.  If it is in economic collapse, it loses all its money.  If it is also in political collapse, it may only conduct moves that are into spaces that would allow it to stop that collapse in addition to losing all its money.  Then check again at the end of the turn.  If it is still in political collapse, it is out of the game.  If it is still in economic collapse, it collects no money.  If it is out of both, it collects money.  (2) In the event that a country starts its own turn in political collapse twice in a row, it immediately, at the beginning of its turn, is out of the game.

These changes to the rules, based on our playtesting, seem to fix the crazy/“cheap” moves and balance the game better.

An absolute OOB change is canning the Russian Revolution rules.  Not only does it make the game formulaic, but it also ignores everything that happened in a political sense in World War I in other countries.  The collapse rules are better but they need to be modified a bit because not letting a nation try to retake its capital on its own turn (or enough points to avoid not getting money) leads to crazy suicide attacks where only one guy needs to survive to sink, say, Italy or the Ottoman Empire.

I also think a limit on builds in India would make a LOT of sense.  That and also perhaps limited ability to build in Africa.  Add the 2-movement options from the tournament rules and you’re there.

It should at least be restricted to “non-combat movement” - moving two spaces into combat, even if it’s a previously contested space, seems a bit excessive for World War I.

Also, as I mentioned in my post on our game using Tournament Rules, the power in question should get to check at the end of the turn, rather than the beginning, to determine if that country is out of the game.  Otherwise there are all sorts of ridiculous moves made with no goal other than to push a country into collapse.

I think it’s pretty clear that you have to trash the Russian Revolution optional rule in its entirety if you don’t want the game to get formulaic.  To play with the Russian Revolution optional rule is not only stupid (all the great powers had serious issues that could have become revolutions due to war fatigue), but it also ensures that the CP strategy will be to knock Russia out of the game as quickly as possible.  This means each game will start to look like the ones before, which makes the whole game become boring.

The far better alternative is to use the political and economic collapse tournament rules, with some modifications.  The way that my group thinks the rule should work is to check at the beginning of the turn, but then give the nation threatened with the collapse the opportunity to try to reverse it on its own turn.

That might make sense.  Either that, or have contesting the capital as a precondition to checking for them.  However, in all three cases, the situation was caused by sneaky moves of troops to places just big enough to cause them to be contested, which is why I suggested giving the country the entirety of its turn to try to correct the situation (like in WWII games of A&A when a capital is captured).  As it was, we sent armies on suicide missions right before the turn of the country in question just to trigger the collapse, even though the moves would otherwise NEVER have been made (like sacrificing a considerable army just to have 1-2 units survive, thereby contesting a territory).

We prefer the collapse rules because the Russian Revolution wasn’t some preordained event, and other countries had similar issues.  The British had serious issues over Irish home rule and Labour, the French had their mutiny, Germany and Austria both came close to collapse, the Turks were close several times, and so we prefer to have the collapse rules over the terrible Russian Revolution optional rule.  Having it only apply to Russia also is a terrible idea because it makes the game a predictable and repeating one, where the only strategy is an Eastern one.  The collapse rules make a Western strategy better, which equals more variety.

My friend and I played with the new tournament rules and we generally like the new economic and political collapse scenarios.  However, we also found that it was making the game a bit absurd.  Italy, instead of protecting itself more, landed troops in Ankara (the Turkish navy was gone and the French navy was sitting in the territory, and the British and French had both failed in landings due to mines) because it was enough to push the Turks into total collapse on Turn 3.

These sorts of moves became common, too, because nations couldn’t do anything on their own turn to stop the collapses.  Italy and Russia both collapsed on Turn 5, but by then Austria and Germany were almost out of troops and the French had a massive army moving East, and England was a monster collecting 65 IPCs each turn and churning out armies in India to move to the Balkans.  The new strategic movement rules made it easier to shuttle those troops north.

We were unclear on whether the 2-space movement could be used to reinforce contested territories and so we didn’t allow it.  I think if we had the game would have been completely ridiculous.

Anyway, our conclusion was that real strategies were being forfeited in order to force collapses in ways that made a mockery of anything approaching something mildly historic.  In other words, the game was becoming as silly as the old 1983 MB version of A&A could get, with massive stacks in weird places and huge stretches of empty board.

We would propose, after playing with the new rules, the following change to the collapse rules (which are still much better than the Russian Revolution rules in the rulebook): at the beginning of the turn, check for collapse.  An economic collapse or greater means that the nation doesn’t get to spend its money.  It then has its turn to try to avert the crisis.  If it fails, at the end of the turn it suffers the consequences.  Example: Italy has only Naples with Rome contested.  If it relieves Rome, it stays in the game but doesn’t collect money because at the end of the turn it’s still in economic collapse.  If the US liberates Piedmont, on Italy’s next turn it can buy units because it is no longer in any sort of collapse at the beginning of its turn.

This seems to be a better way of making the game more interesting while not letting the collapse rules turn the game into a total farce.

As an aside, I will say that I am glad I bought a second copy of the game because we would have run out of pieces and markers otherwise.

My own thoughts on balancing the game:

1. Use the Tournament Rules WITHOUT the starting setup changes.
2. Added Political Rules: (a) Germany must attack Belgium on Turn 1, (b) Italy is neutral on Turn 1 (no offensive actions, but can move into Albania to mobilize) unless/until attacked, and © the US joins on Turn 6, not Turn 4.  Thus, each turn is half of a year (Fall 1914, then Spring 1915, etc. - which also makes tanks at Turn 4 makes sense.
3. Strategic Movement: one or more units in one (1) space of home territory may be moved together to any other space of home territory that is not enemy-occupied or contested which is connected by a line of unoccupied, uncontested home territories from the first.  This may only be used once per turn per country, and is in lieu of other movement that those units could make.

Obviously, those crazy people who actually get 8 living, breathing people together to play the game will not like the US at Turn 6, but they can always find one person to not invite and have the US player also be the Russian player.

I like the rules except for the part that takes all the units out of Africa.  Part of the fun of the game is that it`s a world war, not just a European one.  Sure, the African part tends to end quickly, but it distracts forces from other objectives and that has an effect on the game.

The double move should only be in a nation’s original territories and only if they are not moved into contested territories or hostile territories.  It makes no sense to allow Germans to move from Silesia to Belarus in one turn.  Not only were the roads bad and unfamiliar, but Russia had a completely different gauge rail network (and still does).  By keeping the double move to the original home territories of a nation (and not colonies), it allows the Germans to contemplate a West Front strategy for a change, but it doesn’t radically change the dynamic of the game.

Of course, it still ignores the fact that 9/10 of the German forces were historically on the West Front, and how close the West Front came to collapsing, but it’s better than the way the game is formally set up.

It would have been more believable if you replaced “gym” with “Cheetos warehouse”.

I was thinking about this as a strategy, particularly in games where the German navy is very active.  There are a lot of assets in the region that, if all brought to bear at once, could potentially crush the Ottomans, thereby making a CP victory almost impossible.

Again, I think the game is almost completely correct as is.  If the Central Powers try to invade Switzerland, the French counterattack on Turn 1 would have air supremacy and wipe out the Germans, who would have no reinforcements in Munich at that time.  If the Austrians devote troops there they lose any hope of momentum against Italy, and the road to Vienna is wide open.  It diverts troops from Russia, and it makes the West Front longer, which is a BAD thing for the CPs if they want to knock out Russia first.  If they push hard to the West, the Russians mass in Ukraine and march straight on Vienna.  Result: CPs don’t want to attack Switzerland if they’re smart.

For the Allies, attacking Switzerland has all of the same disadvantages.  The French need the troops elsewhere to try to take pressure off the Russians and the Italians REALLY don’t need to have a second territory threatened.  Before going through all the crazy permutations suggested here, let me ask: how many people have played games where Switzerland held the key to victory?  If so, go back and play it again now that the other side realizes that Switzerland is an “easy” target, and see if it works again.  If it consistently works, then change the game.  If not, DON’T.  Hell, if you’re going to make defense better due to terrain, do the same thing for Tyrolia, and Bulgaria, and Persia, and Afghanistan…this sort of attempt at being hyper-historically correct reminds me of the agony that was old AH games: “Rule 1.2.1.1 - The rule that mechanized infantry and armor cannot cross straits without receiving the -2 penalty to dice rolls is negated in the case of the British Fifth Pony Company if the straits are from Hex XX25 to XY26”.

First of all, A&A doesn’t make any allowance for terrain.  Second of all, Switzerland would be no harder to get through than the Isonzo front.  It has numerous passes.  Hannibal got through, Suvorov got through, Napoleon got through.  The Germans could have gotten through - with their guns.

Switzerland is just fine exactly the way it is.  It’s temptingly easy to invade, but whoever does invade will find their front too long and their forces stretched too thin.  In every game we played where Switzerland was invaded, the invader regretted it.

I voted 9-10 based on how much fun it has been to play the game.  It’s really the first totally new A&A game since the original was released in 1984.  All permutations on the 1984 game have tweaked the general concept, but the way you play the game is generally the same.  This game, however, is completely different due to the 1 round only combat model and the fact that it’s just a different war, with different alliances, etc.

My only issues with the game are minor, but I will note them again in passing:

1. Poland should not have a coastline (map issue).  I think it’s fairly easy to make a house rule that will change that for game play purposes, not that it’s ever come up in any of the games I’ve played.

2. I do think maybe tanks should be available in Turn 3, and it may make sense to reduce their cost to 5.

3. It may make sense to reduce cruisers to 8.

Other than that, now that rules have been changed and clarified, the game is fantastic.

@KimRYoung:

@rjpeters70:

Dude, no offense was meant whatsoever.�  I was not knocking you or Koreans at all (I’ve even been to the ROK, and loved it).�  It’s just the first thing that jumps in my head these days, given that we have a crazy dictator actively threatening nuclear war named Kim.

I’m not offended at all RJ, just letting everyone know who I am. It was also bad in the late 60’s when the name Kim became a common girls name (short for Kimberly), then if they didn’t know, they thought I was a girl. In H.S. I got put in an all girls health education class, which I thought was great! I still get mail to Ms. Kim Young  :lol:

Kim (white, non-Korean male  8-)

For what it’s worth, I know a Korean named Robert E. Lee.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Suvorov:

Okay, guys. � You play whatever crazy alternative reality game you want to. � You can even roll for wormholes, through which AA1940 units can enter the game in a nod to The Final Countdown. � I’m going to play the game with the rules as written, in which Italy is a member of the Allied powers, because no other alternative is plausible. � Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.

Don’t act like some benevolent instructor who is helping us understand the keys to history, helping us idiots out of our ignorance. The question is not whether Italy would have jumped at easy, quick gains in North Africa in the case that Germany offered them after the war might have tipped decisively in CP favor, it’s whether or not Austria and Germany would have even bothered to make that offer to Italy.

I’ll make it simple. France is overrun, Russia is being pushed back. France cannot defend its North African colonies. Italian leaders have concluded that the CP is winning decisively, and the war will be over soon.
The CP offers those North African colonies to Italy if they help against the British in Africa.

Do you honestly still guarantee that Italy would have just snubbed the CP and said “no thanks?”

Well, based on what you and that other guy have posted here, I rather do see myself as a benevolent instructor attempting to help you out of your ignorance; the “idiots” part was not intended.  I’ve cited respected and recognized works of history, I’ve even typed out excerpts, and I’ve done virtually everything possible at an intellectual level.  After seeing the way that no one seems to want to listen to reason, I realized that I had two options: (1) reduce it to stick figure drawings in hopes of getting through, or (2) accept that the resistance has nothing to do with a lack of understanding but rather, simply the propensity of people with too much time to argue on the Internet for the sake of arguing.

You can make fifty hypothetical situations, but the likelihood of any of them is extremely low.  You by your own admission left the standard at “plausibility”, and your hypotheticals aren’t plausible.  France might have been overrun; it was touch and go for a while.  However, Germany didn’t have the manpower to do that and push Russia back in a permanent way.  The Germans were unable to follow up on the successes at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes, and they were only able to do what they did there because they pulled out vital troops from the Marne.

All of these points are the sorts of things that guys with nothing better to do start to argue about: would the Marne Offensive have succeeded if Hindenburg and Ludendorff hadn’t taken out the troops?  Could the Germans have just held a defensive line in East Prussia?  Would Berlin have fallen?  We will never know, and the speculation about that is useless from a historical perspective (history does not know the conditional) but fun in the proper settings.

However, not all historical “what ifs” are as easily debated, because there is no evidence to support a hypothetical outcome.  Italy entering the war on the side of the Central Powers is one such hypothetical outcome.  I’ve pointed this out by citing sources.  To review: 1. Austria was Italy’s sworn enemy, and Italy’s three prior wars (outside colonial wars) had all been against Austria.  2. Irredentism was a powerful force in Italian politics, because many felt that the goals of the Risorgimento, begun so long before, had not been met until Italy recovered South Tyrol, Fiume, Zara, the Dalmatian coast, etc.  3. No one in the government advocated an alliance with the Central Powers, except Sonnino, who changed his mind after the Marne.  4.  Outside the government, those in Italian society who were not in favor of neutrality were vocally arguing for intervention against Austria, including the socialists, the nationalists and all major papers other than La Stampa (which advocated neutrality), and any attempt at approaching the Central Powers for an alliance would likely have caused the government to collapse.  5.  Italy had only ever signed the alliance with Germany and Austria because Bismarck didn’t like Austria, and Italy saw Bismarck as a counterbalance; once he died and Germany realigned itself, Italy was looking for ways to ditch the alliance.  6.  Italy HAD to remain neutral long enough to see the Germans fail at the Marne, because it didn’t have enough troops or equipment (cf. Montanelli quote from earlier post).  7. The Allies promised Italy so much more than Austria could bring itself to promise that there was no way, in any universe that could be replicated in game play, that Italy would join the Central Powers.

Please provide a source, a credible source, that can refute these points if you want to continue.  Otherwise, all you’re saying is, “Well, it could have happened, so that makes it plausible”.  Plausibility is not equivalent to possibility.  If the Germans had miraculously destroyed the French Army and the Russian Army and the Ottoman Empire driven the British from Egypt, then perhaps Italy would have joined in the free-for-all that followed.  However, that scenario is itself not plausible.  To show something is plausible, you need to generally present evidence that would support that assertion.  I’ve presented evidence to counter it.  I have yet to see evidence for it.

Not only that, but if the Germans have destroyed the French and Russian armies, the Axis & Allies 1914 game has been effectively won, so from a game play perspective it makes even less sense.

Interesting game.  I would like to see how it played out if replayed exactly, because some of those lucky rolls seemed to be in very significant engagements.  Even so, it’s another interesting take on the game.

For the record, when I clicked on this I was hoping perhaps it was Kim Jong-un’s game report.  ;)

@rjpeters70:

@Suvorov:

Okay, guys. � You play whatever crazy alternative reality game you want to. � You can even roll for wormholes, through which AA1940 units can enter the game in a nod to The Final Countdown. � I’m going to play the game with the rules as written, in which Italy is a member of the Allied powers, because no other alternative is plausible. � Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.

You’re making a statement (“Anyone arguing the contrary either lacks enough understanding of the political situation (despite the best efforts of many here to educate them) or is wilfully ignoring history.”) and pretending it is fact.  It is not.  It is simply an analytic assertion.  Others here have offered alternative analyses.  Now, we can argue the validity of the various analyses and arguments, but no one can say “X was the only way things could have played out” and pretend it is a “fact.”  It is at worst an assertion, and at best, an outcome of analysis (which in and of itself is open to dispute).

Well, now that’s starting to sound like the “evolution isn’t proven” sort of arguments.  If you want to get technical, the only thing that can be proven is hard mathematics, and that only because you are working in a system where the rules have been set a priori.  As far as facts can ever exist outside of mathematics, Italy’s antipathy to Austria and the Italian political situation are pretty solid facts.  As Imperious Leader pointed out, Italy might have joined the CPs if the war were already over (a fait accompli), but at that point the game is over anyway.  Anything short of that was as impossible as something can be short of actual physical impossibility.