Posts made by The Janus

West Germany
Attacker: 5 inf, 4 arm, 2 hrm, 3 ftr
Rolls: 5@1 7@3 2@4; Total Hits: 45@1: (4, 1, 1, 2, 6)7@3: (6, 2, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5)2@4: (6, 4)

Defender: 1 inf, 4 arm, 2 ftr
Rolls: 5@2 2@4; Total Hits: 65@2: (2, 2, 2, 3, 1)2@4: (4, 4)

West Germany
Attacker: 13 inf, 4 arm, 2 hrm, 3 ftr
Rolls: 13@1 7@3 2@4; Total Hits: 813@1: (5, 3, 5, 6, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 2, 6, 6)7@3: (1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4)2@4: (6, 2)

Defender: 8 inf, 4 arm, 2 ftr, 1 bmb
Rolls: 1@1 12@2 2@4; Total Hits: 81@1: (6)12@2: (6, 2, 2, 1, 6, 3, 4, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1)2@4: (5, 2)

USSR 0

Purchase: [20 IPCs]
10 inf [20 IPCs]
Save [0 IPCs]

Placement: [10 inf]
3 inf – Poland
2 inf – Romania
3 inf – Georgia
2 inf – North Korea

USSR 1

Technology:
1 free @ Nuclear Weapons
Rolling 1d6:
(4)

Purchase: [52 IPCs]
26 inf [52 IPCs]
Save [0 IPCs]

Combat Movement:
West Germany [8 inf, 4 arm, 2 ftr, 1 bmb]
• 10 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr, 1 hrm – East Germany
• 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, 1 hrm – Poland
• 1 arm, 1 ftr – Yugoslavia
Total: 13 inf, 4 arm, 2 hrm, 3 ftr vs. 8 inf, 4 arm, 2 ftr, 1 bmb

Greece [4 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr]
• 6 inf, 2 arm – Romania
• 1 inf – Yugoslavia
• 1 ftr – Ukraine
Total: 7 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr vs. 4 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr

Turkey [6 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr]
• 7 inf – Georgia
• 2 inf – Ukraine via 1 trn Black Sea
• 1 crz – Black Sea
• 2 arm, 1 ftr, 1 hrm – Russia
Total: 9 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr, 1 hrm, 1 crz vs. 6 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr

North Sea [2 trn, 1 crz]
• 1 trn, 2 sub, 1 crz – Komi SZ
• 1 sub – Baltic Sea
• 1 bmb – Russia
Total: 1 trn, 3 sub, 1 crz, 1 bmb vs. 2 trn, 1 crz

Japan SZ [1 sub, 1 crz, 1 BB]
• 1 ftr – Kamchatka
• 2 trn, 2 sub, 2 crz – East Siberia
Total: 2 trn, 2 sub, 2 crz, 1 ftr vs. 1 sub, 1 crz, 1 BB

South Korea [4 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr]
• 7 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr – North Korea
Total: 7 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr vs. 4 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr

Here are some of the possible drawbacks of this strategy:

• Relatively weak positioning in Turkey (possible deadzone?)

• Not many places left to attack/expand income after turn 1

• Large amounts of placement in Asia may leave Europe vulnerable

• Extremely reliant upon Chinese support, with little or no “Plan B”

Attached is a map of the basic Soviet “supply chain” I’ll be using. If things go bad, I may shift production to Turkey and Georgia, to push through Iran onto India. This isn’t really the objective though; I want to threaten India to keep the British turtled there (and not expanding out) but the Soviet thrust will be towards Indochina and Burma.

I developed these opening moves for the USSR, and I figured I would test them out on these boards. Check the Imp Games website for info and a link to the map :) If you have questions about the game, feel free to post, or PM me.

Here are the objectives I had in mind with this strategy:

• Destroy as much NATO equipment as possible on turn 1

• Throw as many offensive units as possible into the attacks

• Position aircraft to aid in potential naval attacks on turn 2; start shifting heavy armor towards China

• Eliminate NATO footholds, limiting their ability to strike back

• Keep constant pressure on Italy

• Funnel troops towards Indochina to circumvent the India stack

• Divert US attention from Siberia to SE Asia

• Tech for Nuclear Weapons to counter NATO naval supremacy

I’m going to play NATO specifically to try and counter this strategy; while the “element of surprise” could work in practicality (and I will play the Soviets to that effect) I really want to stress test the strategy to see how well it holds up.

I could see Italy as sort of like… a “sponsor state” of the Allies.

Maybe have some sort of rule that requires Austria to keep units on their border territories or else Italian units can attack (aided by other Allied units). This would require the CP to invest resources in that direction, but they would only widen the war and stretch themselves thin if they were to actually invade.

I’m not sure “historically” Italy needs to see any major combat; perhaps the war between them and Austria could just be “assumed” to be going on, but small enough territory is trading hands as to not be depicted on the map, due to scale.

I’d check out the MapView module for The Great War; IMHO they did a great job with the colours for the various countries (granted, there are only 6)

@Imperious:

The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.

I think that “to allow Historical developments at specific times” makes for a predictable game, rather than a balanced game, necessarily. This isn’t a bad thing, as this kind of predictability allows you to create a framework for balance.

I’m broadly of the opinion (usually pertaining to East & West but in all history-based wargames) that the game should only be as historical as it is balanced. If adding something historical ruins balance, edit it out/obfuscate it/whatever. If you can add in something historical to balance out a deficiency in the rules, all the better! I think this is the direction that the A&A franchise is going with National Objectives and such.
@Flashman:

How do you represent the Russian Revolution? When and how does it happen? What do the Germans do - just stop at the borders? Is Russia declared off-limits (lets leave them alone while they fight among themselves?)

I am thinking you could borrow from A&A Europe (1999 version), where the territories that the USSR captured since the start of the war were coloured differently (this is also similar to Chinese territories under control of Japan in A&A Pacific, IIRC).
So, basically take the territory that (historically) was given to Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and colour that separately from the main Russian territory colour; have the rule be that if the CP capture all of those territories (or alternately, Russia’s capitol) then Russia is out of the war. CP units in other Russian territories are moved to the nearest friendly territory, perhaps. Have this as a sort of “Check For Victory” rule at the end of any turn or round.

I remember TGW originally had turn order as:

• Germany

• France

• Austria

• Russia

• Ottoman

• UK

The problem was that Russia was quickly "1-2 punch"ed and taken out of the game by Germany and Austria.
The solution was a more “historical” turn order

• Austria (attacks Serbia, thus starting the war)

• Russia (counters by declaring war on Austria, in support of Serbia)

• Germany (declares war on Russia in support of Austria)

• France (declares war on Germany because, damnit, they hate Germany)

• Ottoman

• UK

This seemed to work a lot better, and maintained the original “back-and-forth” of the original turn order. But if the objective is to allow for a bit more team coordination, you could easily switch the Ottoman and UK turns, allowing Austria and Ottoman to collaborate in the Balkans, and the UK and France to coordinate their moves on the western front.

Here’s a little “mini-game” I developed years ago, so I figured I would post it here. It plays pretty well in my experience. Let me know your results if you decide to play it. Also, feel free to ask me about anything you need clarification on.

It is based off of E&W, but as the title suggests, you can use Imp Games’ East & West map or Xeno Games’ World at War; the territories, IPC values, and SZs used in the game are identical on both maps, you just need to swap ownership.

Enjoy!

Jihad.doc

@Flashman:

Would really like railway lines printed on the map, these would nicely emphasize the importance of certain tts as transport hubs.

The way (IIRC) that this was handled in TGW was that you could rail infantry to and from any friendly industrial complexes, so long as there was an unbroken land connection in between. IC’s were printed on the map and were in most major European cities.

@Flashman:

I would say that machine-guns were a part of every infantry unit; we can assume that the defensive ability of infantry includes their MGs.

One mechanic that was used in TGW was that infantry normally defend on a ‘1’; however, if they spend a turn to “entrench” instead of moving, their defense becomes ‘2’. There were also Stormtroopers which broke entrenchment and provided better defenses against poison gas.
I just think since machine guns were a such a game-changing new weapon, it would be interesting to give them some love and have them represented in the game; the WWII equivalent would probably be the advent of aircraft carriers (or nukes, I guess?)

@Flashman:

Regarding aircraft, in 1914 there were no fighter aircraft, just observation planes. These should have a low combat ability of 1-1 (movement 4) against any target. Their main use is for giving artillery more accurate targeting.

The way it worked in TGW was that the aircraft would first have a “dogfight” against any defending aircraft in the territory (in WWI, this was a very clunky affair at first, with pilots trying to shoot each other with pistols, hurl bricks at one another, etc.) and then when the dogfight is concluded (IIRC) the side with any aircraft remaining granted a “spotting” bonus to their attacking infantry in the ground battle. As I mentioned, it was fairly imbalanced and eventually revised out.

@Flashman:

Later, techs will make fighter aircraft available, my suggestion is for two developments: forward firing MGS (2-2-2) and
twin synchronized MGs (3-3-2).  Bombers also need to be a tech at 4-1-6.

TGW has Interruptor Gears as an aircraft tech; for those unfamiliar, this is the timing mechanism that allowed for “synchronized MGs” that would fire in between the blades of their own plane’s propellers (rather than shoot them to pieces and make you crash-land).

@Flashman:

Do you have a link to TGW rules anywhere?

I do not, as it is a commercial product rather than something that is freely distributed.

The game does not exist in any physical format (although it has a MapView module).
Hmmm… If you go to the Imp Games -> Products page, and click on Order Now, it seems you can only get the TGW rules on CD-ROM or as part of a purchase package with E&W (if i am reading the descriptions correctly). I think you used to be able to purchase an electronic copy of the rules separately (as you still can for E&W); I placed an order to purchase a replacement rulebook for E&W and they emailed back, offering to send me an electronic copy instead. So maybe that would work, if you are interested in purchasing just the rules?

I haven’t had any luck with their email address recently though, so maybe try their forums…?

Here are some of my thoughts on some of the major/minor nations.
A lot of these are drawn from Imp Game’s The Great War, so I will reference that game a lot.

Italy: had a defensive treaty with the Central Powers/Triple Alliance but went over to the Allies/Entente when the CP turned out to be the aggressors in the war. Spent most of the war fighting the Austrians and eventually gained some territory from them. I would like to see Italy as an “Entente” power, possibly with some special rules, and have some optional rules for Italy entering the war on either side.
TGW status: Major Neutral (mostly to preserve the 3v3 setup of the game, IMHO), supporting either Germany or France

USA: tipped the scales of war against the Germans; by that time, the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were in collapse, and the outcome was basically a foregone conclusion, despite the Brest-Litovsk Treaty which granted Germany a great deal of territory in the east (later undone by the Treaty of Versailles)
TGW status: Major Neutral, represented only by convoy zones, supporting the UK

Bulgaria: History identifies Bulgaria as the 4th of 4 Central Powers, after Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. In TGW, it is often more tactically useful (so i am told) for the CP to invade Bulgaria, even if they are supporting the CP. Bulgaria and the Ottomans actually fought on opposite sides of several Balkan wars in the 1800s; as I recall, the alliances against the Turks often broke down into self-interests and backstabbing between Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece.
TGW status: Major Neutral, supporting either the Ottoman Empire or Russia

Serbia: historically the fighting between Austria and Serbia went on for a long time; in TGW it is usually over by Turn 1. The rules of TGW state that if attacked and not conquered, Serbia joins Russia; I always thought it should just be a Russian territory from the get-go to avoid the need for this special ruling.
TGW status: Minor Neutral (special)

The Balkans: From my understanding of history, Greece was pro-UK, Montenegro was pro-Serbia, and Romania was pro-Russian (or at least anti-Hungarian).
TGW status: Minor Neutrals; can be influenced by Austria, Ottomans, or Russia (Imperious Leader can probably correct me if I am misremembering this)

Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were neutral in WWI, and were not invaded (unlike WWII where Denmark and Norway were invaded by the Germans, and Sweden supplied Germany with iron ore). Also of note, Finland was under the control of Tsarist Russia during this era. I feel like Sweden and Norway could be left off the map in A&A:1914
TGW status: Minor Neutrals; can be influenced by UK, Germany, or Russia

Western Europe: Since Britain were guarantors of Belgium’s neutrality, their invasion by Germany in WWI during the Schlieffen plan was cited as Britain’s reason for entering the European war. In WWII, the Netherlands were invaded by Germany in order to draw Allied forces further north into Belgium, allowing the main German force to slip past them through the Ardennes, further to the south. I seem to recall reading that Portugal was also a hub for intelligence and espionage during the war.
TGW status: Minor Neutrals, can be influenced by UK, Germany, or France

Spain: I seem to recall in the years between German unification and WWI, that there were overtures made, trying to arrange a royal marriage between the German and Spanish monarchies, thus creating a threat to France from both sides. Spain remained neutral through the First World War, as well as WWII.
TGW status: Major Neutral, supporting either UK or Austria

Here is the latest revision (yet to be tested) of my house rule set for E&W.
If anyone is familiar with the game and would like to test it, any feedback would be appreciated.
New to east & west? Check the Imp Games website, or ask me here on in a PM! :-)

=====

Round Zero

Breakthroughs:
Diplomacy -> shift China 1 step toward the USSR, or shift the other Neutral Alliances any combination of 2 steps towards the USSR
Technology -> USSR gains 2 full-steps at Submarines, or a total of 2 half-steps at any other technology trees
Counter-Intelligence -> the USSR may make 1 free attempt, which carries over to Round 1 if successful

Purchase Units: (choose one of the following options)
a) Spend up to 48 IPCs on naval units only. Any remaining IPCs cannot be saved for use in later rounds.
b) Save 24 IPCs

Combat Movement: (choose one of the following options)
a) Conduct combat movement using infantry, armor, and heavy armor only
b) Conduct combat movement using aircraft and naval units only

Resolve Combat:
The attack value of all aircraft and naval units is increased by 2, for Round Zero combat only.

Non-Combat Movement:
You may not move infantry, armor, or heavy armor in this phase.

Place Units:
Your Industrial Complexes can each produce 2 additional units, on Round Zero only.

Collect Income:
The USSR collects 48 IPCs at the end of Round Zero.

Breakthroughs

This phase replaces the Spying and Technology phases of the turn.
Each country can make a number of free Breakthrough rolls per turn, as follows:
• USSR: 3
• WE: 1
• UK: 1
• USA: 2

Each country may also purchase a number of additional Breakthrough rolls up to double their number of free attempts, each round on the Breakthrough phase of their turn. Free Breakthroughs may be rolled before deciding to purchase additional Breakthroughs; you may also purchase and then roll extra Breakthroughs one at a time, up to your country’s maximum. Each additional breakthrough roll costs the same number of IPCs as an infantry; 2 for the USSR or 3 for NATO countries.

On a Breakthrough roll of 1, you may choose to gain either a Diplomatic Breakthrough with a Neutral Alliance, or a full-step in any technology tree. On a Breakthrough roll of 2, you may choose to gain either a Diplomatic Breakthrough with a Minor Neutral, or a half-step in any technology tree. You cannot gain more than one full-step in each technology tree on a single Breakthrough phase; Neutral Alliances can be influenced a maximum 1 step on each Breakthrough phase.

Faction-specific Breakthrough Rules:
The USSR may make 1 free Counter-Intelligence roll during their Breakthrough phase; a roll of 1 or 2 foils a NATO Breakthrough roll of 1 or 2 (respectively) on that round only. The USSR may choose which Breakthrough roll to affect with their Counter-Intelligence roll, however successful rolls do not carry over to later rounds if saved and not used. The USSR may purchase up to 2 additional Counter-Intelligence rolls on their Breakthrough phase, for 2 IPCs each.

When a NATO country uses a Breakthrough roll of 1 to gain a technology, they may choose to grant any other NATO countries (who are at the same point or lower down on that technology tree) a free half-step in that tree.

Optional Rules:
• NATO countries cannot gain the benefit of shared advancement in the Nuclear Weapons technology tree.
• The USSR may influence China using a Breakthrough roll of 2.

As a huge fan of Imp Games’ East & West, these kinds of games always intrigue me. It’s set in 1948, so there are some similarities to the '46 scenario.

IMHO, 1948 is sort of the high-water mark for NATO (i.e. the European empires) however, East & West is a bit non-historical in this sense.

• NATO was not formed until 1949
• Turkey and Greece did not join NATO until 1952, but are part of the Alliance in-game
• Pakistan, India, and Burma were all independent of Britain in 1948; in E&W they are still part of the empire, and a huge thorn in the side of the USSR
• The breakdown of Indonesia between Dutch-controlled areas and independent(ish) ones is not in line with history

The other high-water mark of the Cold War (based on my research) is around 1975-76. Off the top of my head:

• The Vietnam War was over; Cuba, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia were all ruled by communist regimes. The USSR (or Warsaw Pact) was at the height of its influence
• The Arab League had expanded across all of north Africa; the Islamic Conference also greatly increased its membership around this time
• The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) including Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, as well as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand were still in existence, supported by the major NATO powers of the US, UK, and France
• China had annexed Tibet and fought a small war with India

I’ve done work on 1975-76 scenarios for both the Original A&A as well as E&W and have done a fair bit of study on the cold war era “map” so to speak. If anyone wants to discuss the subject/games here or in a PM, I’d be very happy to respond. :-)

@oztea:

Units would be:
Artillery 2/2/1 4 IPCs
Special Rules

• Fire Support: Supports Infantry at a 1:1 basis, boosting their attack to ‘2’

Cavalry 2/1/2 6 IPCs
Special Rules

• Withdrawal: Cavalry units may remove themselves from combat after all dice have been rolled and retreat to a friendly territory

Aircraft 2/3/3 10 IPCs
Special Rules

• Dog Fight: If enemy air units are present, roll all air units as a separate combat
• Air Reconnaissance: For each air unit you have in combat, raise the attack power of an adjacent strategic artillery unit to ‘3’

I’m gonna comment on a couple of these, so bear with me:

• Cavalry: these units are not represented in Imp Games’ The Great War, with the explanation that they so quickly became outdated by the early days of the war that they never saw much action
• Artillery: I can’t see these functioning the same way as in WWII because, well… they didn’t
• Aircraft: TGW tried this and it didn’t work; it was too easy for “the side that goes first” to mass their aircraft and destroy the enemy’s air force early in the game, and have air supremacy throughout. The rules were later changed to be almost identical to typical A&A
• Navy: It’s disappointing that 1914 is going to be using d6; a d12 would provide the granularity to allow for more types of ships, and do justice to a war that was really the twilight of the “Big Ship” fleet engagement.
• Machine Guns: generally regarded as the most deadly new invention of the war (although artillery caused the most casualties, but was really just an upgrade on older field cannons) I would like to see machine guns/bunkers/pillboxes represented in a way similar to AA guns or D-Day fighters.
• Tunnel mines/Flame cannons: I’ve seen documentaries on these, and in almost every case, they completely reversed the status quo of trench warfare and broke enemy lines wide open, almost akin to a Heavy Bombers tech. I would like to see some mention/representation of these in the game.

I wanted to start a thread to speculate about which countries or major powers will be represented in this game. Any analysis on this?

I’d like to see some of your opinions, and then I will post my own thoughts.

@LHoffman:

Axis & Allies: 1914 has a much better ring than Central Powers and Allies or anything related to it.

I just think of it like Command & Conquer vs. Command & Conquer: Red Alert; the time period is different, the factions are different, the history/timeline is different, but the game engine is almost identical.

Rolls: 1@2 2@1 1@3; Total Hits: 01@2: (6)2@1: (4, 2)1@3: (5)

Rolls: 4@2 1@3; Total Hits: 34@2: (3, 2, 1, 4)1@3: (2)

Anyone from Cowtown here?

I’m in the SW right near the LRT line.

I have played the original A&A as well as Imp Games’ East & West extensively. I also have Revised, AA50, D-Day, and Battle of the Bulge (but I haven’t played any of these much/at all)

Hit me up!  :-)