Posts made by wove100

Let’s hammer out some pre-release railroad movement rules that we can try out when we feel we’ve grasped OOB. Here’s my post from the House Rules forum:

How about stealing from Risk for a KISS version of rail movement (for those attracted to such simplicity):

“Move as many units as you would like from one, and only one, of your territories into another. The two territories (the one you are moving from and the one you are moving to) need not be adjacent but there must be a safe �path� between them. This means that you must be able to travel from the first territory to the last through territories that you control. If you have to pass through an enemy territory or a neutral territory then you cannot use rail movement between the two territories.”

The question of contested territories arises. Like Flashman, I feel players shouldn’t be able to rail move into battle. I would therefore advocate prohibiting a rail move ending in a contested territory or not allowing a player to attack in a contested territory that has received units via rail movement this turn.

Alternatively, as in Risk, the rail move could come after all combat as been resolved, making it more like the fortifying movement it is in Risk. This way, reinforcements could be brought up to fortify contested areas or prepare for an offensive on a future turn, without worrying about rail movement unleashing sudden offensives with troops from the other side of the board.

The other question that remains is whether to allow rail movement through contested territories. I have no problem with rail movement out of contested territories or into contested territories, but through? My first instinct is yes: rail networks existed behind the front lines.

Thoughts?

How about stealing from Risk for a KISS version of rail movement (for those attracted to such simplicity):

“Move as many units as you would like from one, and only one, of your territories into another. The two territories (the one you are moving from and the one you are moving to) need not be adjacent but there must be a safe “path” between them. This means that you must be able to travel from the first territory to the last through territories that you control. If you have to pass through an enemy territory or a neutral territory then you cannot use rail movement between the two territories.”

The question of contested territories arises. Like Flashman, I feel players shouldn’t be able to rail move into battle. I would therefore advocate prohibiting a rail move ending in a contested territory or not allowing a player to attack in a contested territory that has received units via rail movement this turn.

Alternatively, as in Risk, the rail move could come after all combat as been resolved, making it more like the fortifying movement it is in Risk. This way, reinforcements could be brought up to fortify contested areas or prepare for an offensive on a future turn, without worrying about rail movement unleashing sudden offensives with troops from the other side of the board.

The other question that remains is whether to allow rail movement through contested territories. I have no problem with rail movement out of contested territories or into contested territories, but through? My first instinct is yes: rail networks existed behind the front lines.

Thoughts?

@Flashman:

Bulgaria did raise a large army, I think 3 is quite reasonable. This will certainly help protect the Turksih section of the Ostwall (Romania). Much less reasonable is Albania on 2, this was barely a state at all and had no industry or army to speak of.

I’m with Flashman, since Bulgaria is the fourth and final Central Power, I’m perfectly happy with a 3 and giving it to the Ottomans helps make up for their general weakness.

Since Albania on the map includes Montenegro, which, if I recall, had a plucky little army, 2 seems alright by me as well. Likewise, giving it to Italy helps make up a bit for their general weakness, although I wonder which will be more common: Albania brought into the game by Italy or by an Austrian attack.

During the US and British player’s Collect Income phases, the German player will roll one die for each German submarine in certain sea zones (there are 3 of them, and they are sea zones 2, 7, and 8- strategically located, I assure you.). For each roll of 1 or 2, the attacked power will deduct 1 IPC from the income it normally collects during the phase.

I’ll grant you it’s weak, but it happens during the US’ and UK’s Collect Income phase every turn after the declaration of USW and each submarine rolls one die, deducting 1 IPC for each 1 or 2 rolled. So if Germany had 10 submarines in the right sea zones and managed to roll six 1s and four 2s (very unlikely, I know), it would take 10 IPCs from the UK and it could potentially do it again during the US’ turn. I just doubt Germany will ever have enough submarines to make it effective.

Historically, Livonia by and large conformed to the modern states of Estonia and Latvia. If Lithuania has been given to Poland instead of to Livonia, then Poland would have a Baltic coast without being given East Prussia. Given the distorted map (look at the eastern coast of Arabia), I still don’t think we can definitively state that East Prussia has been given to Poland, even though it looks that way at the moment.

P.S.: I assume Larry’s Russian Revolution is the October (November) Revolution since it takes Russia out of the war.

I’ve been thinking about the timescale of the game, note that all the following occur on turn 4:

Tanks (September 1916)
Resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (February 1917)
US Entry (April 1917 declared, June 1917 first troops arrive in France)
Russian Revolution possible according to Larry’s Russia post (March and November 1917 by the Gregorian Calendar)

Taking this as a baseline, turns, if put into an historical context, last roughly from fall to fall:

Turn 1: Fall 1914 to Fall 1915
Turn 2: Fall 1915 to Fall 1916
Turn 3: Fall 1916 to Fall 1917
Turn 4: Fall 1917 to Fall 1918

Obviously this doesn’t work. Given that the Western Front didn’t bog down until the Race to the Sea ended in November 1914 and maneuver returned to the Western Front with the German Spring Offensive in March 1918, perhaps the following:

Turn 1: Fall 1914
Turn 2: Fall 1914 to Fall 1915
Turn 3: Fall 1915 to Fall 1916
Turn 4: Fall 1916 to Fall 1917
Turn 5: Fall 1917 to Spring 1918
Turn 6: Spring 1918 to Fall 1918

This gets the 4 events whose dates and turn we know for sure in the right time frame. So, if this is followed the war should be over on turn 6.

Given the map board, if the US can do nothing until turn 4, then the first US troops would arrive on turn 5, with reinforcements arriving on turn 6 if the US buys additional transports on turn 4.

Or, perhaps, we shouldn’t conceptualize turns as representing a particular timescale (I certainly never do when playing Axis and Allies), but as an arbitrary mechanism that governs when players are allowed to take their turn, with particular turns triggering events for balance or gameplay reasons.

I’m liking the rules Flashman. Perhaps, since Petrograd isn’t its own territory, make Livonia disputed, rolling to see which units become Reds or Whites (provided Russian units are still in Livonia at the time)?

@Flashman:

I would think a transport unloading in an enemy NB area has to undergo the mine roll, but units coming assure still have to face the unreturned artillery fire.

I agree with you Flashman. I meant to refer to Auztria’s proposed house rule that coastal guns would fire on enemy ships before an amphibious landing.

@Flashman:

Perhaps infantry units on transports can be rescued if there is spare transport space; would it be worth taking along an extra transport to pick up survivors?

Interesting notion, I assume no CP player would ever agree to it, though.  :wink:

All we have to go on (so far) is Larry’s Imperial Germany post:

Any enemy ship that moves into or through such a sea zone may strike a mine. One die is rolled for each enemy ship that has moved into such a sea zone. Each ship will be called out one at a time, and one die is rolled. A roll of 1 will mean the removal of the ship (except dreadnoughts, which need two hits). This combination of enemy ships and mine fields can be very intimidating, but it can be overcome. Whether to attempt such an operation will be up to you.

A strict interpretation would mean every ship, including transports and submarines, but perhaps the final wording will limit it to surface ships. If this is true, than there is no need for an extra rule for coastal artillery to fire at transports before they unload (at least for landings against a territory with a naval base).

Have you seen War and Peace by Worthington Games? The price is a little steep and it doesn’t include North America, but it’s a A&A clone.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/120547/war-and-peace

Pre-ordered 2 back in January because:

1. Shipping was free over $100.
2. Axis and Allies never comes with enough units for the way I play the game.
3. Axis and Allies never comes with enough chips to play the game.
4. Axis and Allies never comes with enough roundels for the way I play the game.
5. I am crazy.

@Flashman:

So no contested SZs, then.

Does that meant that, when a player with ships in a SZ that an enemy has just built a new ship into takes his turn, he must either fight the new units to the death or withdraw?

If I remember correctly, ships can avoid battle in previous A&A versions, but perhaps he’s changed it to simulate the necessity of breaking through the blockade?

Flashman’s right. The following is from David’s “Catching up on some reading” post:

Yes, there are optional rules for the Russian Revolution. No National Objectives. No ANZAC but this is an 8 player game, 4 vs 4 so do you really need ANZAC too?

@Flashman:

Just an idea. I think Spain is massively underpowered as a neutral. If it really does have only 1 IPC that makes it half as productive as Albania, which had no industry whatsoever.

I’d certainly give it a few more IPCs and a navy off Cadiz.

And the power to unleash the Spanish Influenza.

Just a little update, I searched the turn reports and could find no mention of the concept of a “contested sea zone.” This leads me to believe that if the attacker calls off a naval battle he or she retreats, just like in other A&A games.

@Flashman:

That is not my interpretation. I believe the map has been so designed that only one NB is adjacent to any given SZ, therefore you cannot build navy into a SZ adjacent to an enemy NB, therefore a hostile SZ must be one containing enemy ships, therefore since there is no combat after such a placement the SZ itself becomes contested.

I may not have worded it well, but I didn’t mean to imply that naval units could be built in a sea zone with an enemy naval base. Say Kiel has a naval base. Germany could build naval units in the adjacent sea zone even if British ships were present. Furthermore, if Kiel was contested, Germany could still build ships in the sea zone adjacent to Kiel. That’s all I was trying to get across. Sorry about the confusion.

From Larry’s Imperial Russia post:

“New sea units can be placed in any sea zone that shares a naval base symbol with a territory that you originally controlled. New units can enter play even in a contested territory or hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the Conduct Combat phase will be long past.”

I read this as follows:

contested territory = land territory with a naval base that has enemy units present (and thus is contested) but where new naval units can still be placed in the adjacent sea zone (note Larry doesn’t say contested sea zone).

hostile sea zone = sea zone adjacent to a land territory with a naval base that is occupied by enemy naval units but where new naval units can still be placed (as in previous versions of A&A).

With the usual caveat that I may be wrong, I can’t recall Larry saying anything about a contested sea zone, but I will search the reports.

From Larry’s Imperial Germany post:

“Unlike a land battle, a sea battle can go on for multiple rounds of combat for as long as the attacker wants to continue. As usual in most A&A games, when it comes to submarines the attacker can roll an attack or can submerge. This is followed by the defender rolling for his or her ships. After both sides have rolled, the casualties are removed. The attacker can either press or break-off the attack.”

When I read this, I assumed it meant that subs have the usual first strike capability.

@Flashman:

I hope attacking navy can retreat from battle, otherwise we’ll see precious little naval combat. Historical, but rather pointless.

From Larry’s Imperial Germany post:

“Unlike a land battle, a sea battle can go on for multiple rounds of combat for as long as the attacker wants to continue. As usual in most A&A games, when it comes to submarines the attacker can roll an attack or can submerge. This is followed by the defender rolling for his or her ships. After both sides have rolled, the casualties are removed. The attacker can either press or break-off the attack.”

From Larry’s Imperial Russia post:

“New sea units can be placed in any sea zone that shares a naval base symbol with a territory that you originally controlled. New units can enter play even in a contested territory or hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the Conduct Combat phase will be long past.”

@DWoodchuck:

If I read Larry’s original announcement thread correctly, the allies have one set of sculpts and the central powers another.  The only unique sculpts are the infantry.  I wonder what models they will use for each respective power?

We all read that too. Unfortunately, from the 3D map rendering in David Jansen’s article on the homepage, it looks like only the infantry sculpts are unique. Since this is only a 3D rendering and not the actual board and pieces there remains a little sliver of hope, but most of us are reconciled to only the infantry sculpts being unique.