Posts made by wove100

@BJCard:

Interesting that the US isn’t the ‘great savior’ in this game.  20 IPCs with little growth potential is a weak ally.

True, but being able to unleash at least 80 IPC worth of units on the Western Front (assuming they can make it across the Atlantic) on turn 4/5 is no bad thing. I think in this game the US’ biggest impact will be the arrival of the army it builds over the first 4 turns. The US player needs to use it wisely or the US won’t be much help. In AA1914, the AEF will have to do all its training at home, 'cause when it gets Over There, it’s going directly into battle.

I wonder if declaring Unrestricted Submarine Warfare before turn 4 and then using German submarines to sink the US navy at every opportunity might not put off the US’ effective entry as the US player is forced to buy naval units, thereby starving the army of funds.

Then again, the Royal Navy is also out there and those submarines won’t last forever . . .

Perhaps, for those of us forced to keep it simple in order to keep our gaming partners, something akin to FieldMarshallGames’ Free French rule for AA1940?

@WILD:

Going back to wove100’s post about the British moving into Belgium (which is contested having both French and German units in it). I believe that because the territory is already contested, when the UK moves units into Belgium one of two things could happen.

1. The Brits move in to reinforce the French position (as Larry did), and there isn’t a battle.

2. The Brits make an attack on the German units that are there. If that is the case then the German artillery would get its pre-empt shot.

Is that how you see it  wove100 ?

Possibly. Although, since a contested territory implies well entrenched defenses, it may be that even if the British attack, the Germans get no pre-emptive artillery shots. No pre-emptive shots in contested territories could be Larry’s way of simulating that the British units would land at allied controlled ports, move into the front lines, and then launch their attack.

So, my instinct is that #1 is true whether or not the British attack, but I’ve been oh so wrong before.

Edit: Since the above sentence makes no sense when I reread it, I’ll be clearer: I think there would be no pre-emptive artillery shots if the British launched an attack in Belgium because Belgium was already contested when the British arrived.

@Flashman:

I thought the British units moving into Belgium automatically triggered a battle. Evidently this only occurs if there are no Allies already there.

From Larry’s Austria-Hungary post:

“The rules clearly state that combat occurs when your units share the same space with units belonging to one or more opposing powers and you decide to commit your units to an attack. That’s all fine and good… What this is saying is that you have a choice of attacking or not attacking. In this case, the attack on Serbia, you have no choice. You are required to attack when moving units into territories that have become contested this turn due to your movement of units into them.”

I read the above as saying that combat is only required when a territory initially becomes contested, any future movement of units (whether your own or your ally’s) does not automatically trigger combat.

@Flashman:

So, if Britain had wanted to attack the German in Belgium, would this have constituted an amphibious assault, even though there are French units there contesting the area?

From Larry’s British Empire First Turn Report:

“When you think about it, this artillery unit will actually fire twice during the same battle, once during the pre-emptive strike, and again during the land battle. Just one more comment on pre-emptive strikes… These strikes are not made against reinforcing units that are being offloaded by ship into a contested territory. For example, if Germany had an artillery unit in Belgium it could not make a pre-emptive strike against those British forces that are landing there this turn. Hope I’m not getting too technical here.”

They’re required to withdraw?

or

They’re allowed to stay but collect no income?

or

I didn’t think that far ahead?

My gut feeling is that Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire remain in control of the territories they control when Russia exits and the remaining Russian territories are out of bounds.

From the Talk to Larry A&A WWI forum on HGD, page 41 (posted Jan, 14, 2013):

Hey WB…

1. What are the values for some of the units (attack/def/move/cost)

That depends on the values the battle-board assigns to them. It depends on the influence of some of the combined arms. For example. If you have air superiority all you artillery are promoted up a hit point. For each artillery present one infantry or one armor unit is promoted up a hit point. It�s all about the battle-board.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=93&start=320

Edit: Forgot to add, this was posted by Larry.

We could always swipe the Mandated Offensive Tables from Paths of Glory:

At the start of a round of play, one player from each alliance rolls one die:

Allied Mandated Offensives:

1-2 France
  3 UK
4-5 Italy (Ignored if Italy has not yet entered the war)
  6 Russia (Ignored after the Russian Revolution)

Central Powers Mandated Offensives:

1 Austria-Hungary
  2 Austria-Hungary against Italy (Ignored if Italy has not yet entered the war)
  3 Ottoman Empire
  4 Germany
5-6 None

My guess is that Kostantiniyye will be the captial of the Ottoman Empire, based on the large crescent moon icon obscuring the Bosphorus.

@Flashman:

But I do have to work out where “Burgundy” lies.

Like you, I assume the Burgundy is analogous to the space marked “Champagne” on your map, especially since we can infer from Larry’s post that Picardy is adjacent to Lorraine.

Meanwhile the 6 infantry and 2 artillery in Paris territory are moved to Picardy. With them located there they can assist either the Belgian or the Lorraine front

Edit: Quick work Flashman, your post went up as I was typing this one. (edited again to fix spelling)

It appears there will be Naval Bases pre-printed on the board, allowing powers to place naval units and denoting which sea zones are mined, but so far that seems to be all they do.

Don’t forget that Belgium is a minor allied-aligned power. Unlike minor neutrals, minor aligned powers can be mobilized by their allied nation moving into them (see Larry’s post on Austria-Hungary’s first turn). If you’re going to go for the Alpine Strategy, you’re either going to have to attack Belgium or fortify the Ruhr to withstand a Franco-Belgian attack on turn two.

I know in a few Napoleonic and other World War I games I’ve played, the Ottoman Empire always fizzles, largely because they are either hemmed in by special rules or their territories are worth less than those of other powers.

Since Larry seems not to be a fan of special rules for each nation that constrain their choices, my guess is that the Ottoman Empire will be the poorest of the major powers as a way of limiting its scope for action.

But if the Ottomans can take Egypt, we’ve got ourselves a whole new ballgame. :lol:

I apologize if I come off as some sort of AAO Mary Whitehouse, posting a response everytime I think someone has gone too far in pushing the boundaries of the cardinal directions.

@Flashman:

Turkey seems to be somewhat different, with this weird long tt stretching from Georgia to the Persian Gulf. Can’t really call it “Armenia”, so Western Turkey it is. Again, its one of those I hope I’ve got wrong and the real map is more logical.

But shouldn’t it be Eastern Turkey or is it designed to drive fans of cardinal directions up the wall?

@FieldMarshalGames:

Why is Bulgaria part of the Ottoman Empire?

Bulgaria in A&A1914 is a Central Powers-Aligned Minor Power. I believe Flashman’s taking a lead from the promo flyer where Bulgaria seems very close in color to the Ottoman territories, but there’s a chance it might be German gray instead of Ottoman turkoise [misspelling intentional]. It’s my understanding that the color of the territory, along with a major power icon inside the territory, determine which major power can activate minor aligned powers/which major power’s pieces are used when the minor is attacked by the opposing alliance.

Both miniaturemarket and coolstuffinc have it for pre-order for around $65, last time I checked.

Is there a historical reason for labeling the eastern most province of the Ottoman Empire “Western Turkey” or are you trying to catch us out there Flashman?

The biggest problem would be color matching.

From the promo flyer, it looks like the French, Soviet, and US destroyers would match their WWI counterparts reasonably well.

The British tan destroyers and German black destroyers wouldn’t be crazy out of place with their WWI forces. The Japanese destroyers could be used for the Italians.

I guess we’ll just have to assign the Italian brown and ANZAC gray destroyers to the Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans depending on how we’re feeling.

Unless you give the ANZAC gray to WWI Germany and then give the black to the Ottomans and the brown to the Austro-Hungarians.

Those Russians could turn out to be brown, in which case they get the Italian destroyers and the Soviet destroyers go to the Austro-Hungarians.

One could always put a roundel underneath the destroyer if it gets too confusing.

I’m still all for adding them despite the color clash, since from what I’ve read they were plucky little things, even engaging much larger ships at Jutland. Not sure if they should cost 7 or 8. I’m leaning toward 7.

We all know that destroyers existed at the time of the First World War, so obviously many of us will be adding them in to A&A1914, using destroyers from other A&A games while we wait for IL’s game.

My current assumption is that Larry didn’t include destroyers due to the less advanced anti-submarine warfare of WWI and destroyers in A&A are primarily used in an anti-submarine role (it wasn’t until 1916 that a submarine was destroyed by a depth charge).

Given that tanks are delayed until Turn 4 and the first tank action was September 1916, destroyers should also become available on turn 4 to reflect increasing effective anti-submarine warfare. I say we should use the standard destroyer rules (2/2/2, prevent submarines from moving, submerging, etc.).