Posts made by xxstefanx

@Flashman+WILDBILL
But the A-H-Navy WAS blocked! /at least from Italinan War entry 1915 on!)
It is an artificality that Italiy is already in the game, so maybe some option for the opening move?

@BJCard:

@xxstefanx:

With no diversion into Italy Germany should - at least - 50/50 be able to win with a full G/A-H thrust on France early on!
(like all out India Crush in old Pacific!)
Germany should as well be able to win by gaining considerable additional income in the east forcing Russia out of the game and then swing full industrial and troop power to the west.

As an increased submarine warfare is not possible due to the lack of economic damage the submarines can do it boils down on those 2 strategies.

If neither can be successful then there is a balance problem!

P.S.: Did I already mention that the French Dreadnought at the Western Coast of France ought to be a Cruiser? :-D

A slight variation could be to hit Switzerland as many have prescribed and take Italy out first, but without more play tests, and the rules being in ‘flux’ it is hard to know for sure.

Correct!
But personally I refuse it out of protest!
Switzerland ought to be impassable - end of story!
If the CP tend to choose taking out Italy first - fine - but not via Switzerland!

With no diversion into Italy Germany should - at least - 50/50 be able to win with a full G/A-H thrust on France early on!
(like all out India Crush in old Pacific!)
Germany should as well be able to win by gaining considerable additional income in the east forcing Russia out of the game and then swing full industrial and troop power to the west.

As an increased submarine warfare is not possible due to the lack of economic damage the submarines can do it boils down on those 2 strategies.

If neither can be successful then there is a balance problem!

P.S.: Did I already mention that the French Dreadnought at the Western Coast of France ought to be a Cruiser? :-D

Not  necessarily so!
It is ONE suggestion, no more, no less.
Personally I doubt that solution to be implemented officially as it is far from existing A&A rules and A&A 1914 even is a very streamlined release.
Rails on the other hand would be a totally new feaure.
Thus, I assume, if it can be handled more (existing)A&A-like, it would be done that way.

If you would have been allowed to produce in Ruhr from R1 as well, situation might be different already!

Why are so many players here so obsessed with Munich? You realize it’s WWI we are talking here, right? :wink:
If new rules allowed Germany a second production option it ought to be Ruhr! Krupp was located there.
In fact, Germany could even be allowed to build more units there than in Berlin!
Munich, ridiculous!

@Flashman

Sorry, that I must correct you:
The aircraft at the start of the war 1914 had absolutely no weapons on board! Pure recon planes!
Pilots often even waved at each other as they flew by!

This changed early in the war, but later (1915).

Battles like Marne and Tannenberg were won by observing not fighting aircraft!

Exactly!

Besides in terms of sole time requirement intention was that it should perfectly fit into the A&A accelerated production logic which basically means “instantly”!
Take a BB for instance. 1 BB piece equals 2 to 4 real Battleships. In reality just one of those ships takes YEARS to build. No player wants to start production and then wait for say 10 rounds to get the unit in a boardgame like A&A. Therefore production time is radically cut down by MR Harris to almost an instant for ALL units (1 round = 3 months)…

Same here: ALL units AND structures are mobilized in one round!

As I said, ALL aircraft were UNARMED reconnaissance at the start of the war.

THUS

Start: Recon plane A=0; D=0, M=3 (yes, less than the WWII planes!)
-> basic function: Boosting your artillery +1

then Fghters with whatever.

In terms of scale: One infantry represents roughly 10 divisions (with the exception of Africa)
So the “men” logic hardly applies here.
One infantry digs the trench. If some more men join the digging - fine - but still one infantry.
In your example it would take one infantry more than a year to build a trench system (like in other A&A games one round roughly equals 3 months!). This is far too much. Building just one trench would be halfway through (potential) US War entry. And “hordes” of infantry should not dig. It is a wargame after all!  :wink:

We simply did not want to make things overly (or unnecessarily) complicated with various levels of entrenchment. Or the proposed time requirement.
You build a trench or you don’t - that’s basically it.
And it is enough to confront the player with some difficult decisions.

The IPC cost thus is a very good functional instrument to boil it down to one round and an investment to think about (or not).

@Flashman:

…
Not so for planes, though. I want at least 3 different types of fighter sculpt for each side.

I assume you have the “Fighter Race” in mind when saying this! ;)

I would even say 4 types as ALL aircraft 1914 was unarmed reconnaissance!

@Flashman
Yes, you are right! The Western front/trench line was “iconic” because it moved so little because there were too many men and not enough space to move.
As our game starts October 1914 this iconic line is already printed on the map as a given trench line (with one exception Northern France to Somme area for the Germans the whole front is already trenched. keyword:“Race to the Sea”). Same with Hungary/Bosnia-Herzegowina towards Northern Serbia - trenched already for the Serbs.

But trenches in the west and east cannot be compared for the most part. In the west the systems expanded to vast systems almost impenetrable. There were multiple line systems and various systems like the “Hindenburg Linie” were even fortified/built with concrete almost like a long bunker. In the east they mostly were kind of rudimentary. Breakthroughs were more regular and not the exception. And as the lines weren’t anchored as CWO MArc rightly remarked they were often outflanked! Progress wasn’t measured in yards but miles.

Answers to your questions:

• As I explained defending units do NOT get a boost! The Attacking units face a penalty!
• Yes, if they do not move in noncombat. .
• I am not sure if I understand the 3rd one correctly but 1 infantry cannot dig 10 trenches in one round as 10 infantry can (if you want to build 10! Costs 50 IPC!  :-D )
• NO! Infantry just digs the trench that turn! No attack, no movement!
• A trench stays on the board. The direction is the direction originally built. This can be debated though but it wasn’t an issue in any of our games.
• Trenches cannot be taken as casualties as they are structures not units.

Hope that answers your questions.

If you want to introduce some more historical accuracy as well let Germany produce in Ruhr and Berlin, of course!

And if we are at it: Let Russia produce in Karelia and Moscow. Capitol in St.Petersburg (of course!!!)

Of course!
It is an important aspect if such a big WWI game comes out!

In geek dreamland every power has its own sculpts AND the chosen ones really represent the respective units/classes!

Episode 1: Units & Structures: The Trench

When you think about World War I the first thought that comes to mind is probably “Trench Warfare”!
Rightfully so, as it is the dominant aspect distinguishing WWI from WWII. Whether you personally envision troops defending their position from their well established trenches or storming out of them only to be mowed down shortly afterwards, the Western Front which most people refer to in terms of WWI is all about the trenches and of course stalemate as the trench gives the defender such a big advantage.

But WWI was not everywhere like that!
At the often forgotten Eastern Front the war was far more mobile due to the enormous length of the front compared to the West. It was often simply not possible to dig in everywhere and have enough forces to hold the line. For the most part this was also the case for many other major theatres like Far East, Balcans and Africa.

So what are the implications for a WWI game with the intention to be as realistic and historically accurate as possible then?

1. As the fighting did not happen everywhere in the same way we wanted to have “The Trench” as a physical unit unlike a general combat mechanic as in A&A 1914 in which all combat is resolved equally no matter on which front. A trench should be built if the player feels it is necessary somewhere but it should not be there automatically (which also means for free). This way, the trench being a physical unit, everyone with a slight historical background about WWI would also be able to immediately see: This is WWI!

2. What does a trench do exactly?
It is important to realize that a trench does NOT boost defence! An Infantry in a trench is shooting with the same firepower as one in the field. The real difference is that is far better protected or in other words it is far more difficult to hit for the attacker. A shell exploding close in front of a unit in the field means certain death but in a trench it might have survived.

Thus for our game the rule is as follows:
If a territoy(tt) is attacked over a trench the attack value of certain attacking land forces is reduced.
-> Infantry, Artillery, Heavy Artillery -1;
-> Cavalry has no attack value!

3. How does the trench come into play?
It really takes some time to dig a trench and expand it to a functional trench system.
Therefore Infantry commanded to do so pretty much does nothing else!
Here is the exact rule:
Infantry that neither participated in any attack or displacement in your turn can perform a special noncombat action in digging a trench. In the Mobilization phase place one trench you purchased in the Production phase in the tt the digging infantry is located towards an adjacent tt or seazone(sz).

4. What are the unit stats?
For correct categorization in this game the trench is a structure. And of course it has no attack, defence or move value.
It costs 5 IPCs which is kind of a reflection of the material used like barbed wire and lots of timber. Electricity was also established at various front sections. (they did not have TV though! :lol: )  
Most important is: It does not come for free which raises various tactical questions to the player like:
-> For how many rounds might I hold this (for instance) 2 IPC tt? Will it pay off?
-> What are the tactical consequences on the map if I loose this tt too early if not investing in a trench? (even if it might not pay off!)

So that’s it: Much gameplay potential in such a tiny structure!

I hope it was informative and fun to read!
Next time I will cover another very prominent aspect of WWI: Diplomacy!

If Dreadnought sculpts are indeed SMS Kaiser, HMS Iron Duke and Courbet it would be top spot!
Well, of course Austrian-Hungary’s ought to be Viribus Unitis! 8-)

First game yesterday:

• Too few chips both sides! (chips are sold at HBG already!) +++
• Germany has too few Infantry (and lacked one control marker)
• UK had too few Infantry as well

So, I would be perfectly happy if HBG added:

• Seperate Infantry packs for Germany and UK
• Seperate Control Markers set
• exclusively produced World War I IPCs

Central Powers & Entente

Introduction

We have been playing our WWI game which is simply called Central Powers & Entente (in reference to Axis % Allies) for about 6 years now.

In the middle 2000s our gaming group which is some A&A veterans for almost 30 years felt like having played every strategy and every move so we thought:
What about creating a really fresh scenario ourself and in the process improve various aspects of A&A not well captured/simulated?
So we came up with WWI because the conflict is far more balanced from the outset and “diplomacy” comes to the table as an important additional strategic factor.

In the end the game features the following elemental changes/improvements:
1. Historical Accuracy (as close as possible)
2. Diplomacy as a new step in the turn order
3. Historical Events (Russian Revolution, US War Entry, Hindu-German Conspiracy) 
4. A&A Rule Improvements

Some remarks:
-> 1.
We wanted to really feel like the military leader of the power facing the real questions of the war. Therefore Germany’s First Army exactly is placed where it historically stood when the game begins (October 1914) and not anywhere else. And in the correct strength as well. We did not want the situation of A%A Anniversary for instance in which Japan has 9 fighters (for about 2800 aircraft) and Germany 4 fighters (for about 3000 aircraft) Same with infantry: Japan mobilized 1.4 million men but in the game it gets 18 infantry initial setup whereas Germany attacked Russia with 3.5 million men alone but gets 18 infantry as well. Where the units are placed as even another story. We simply wanted the game to feel authentic!

-> 4.
One Example: We always disliked that casualties can be chosen! General: “How did our offensive go today?” Major:“Well, we lost too many tanks but we sacrificed some infantry instead!” If you think about it, this is simply ridiculous so unit types of casualties are rolled out in a second step after rolling the number of hits.

In short, it’s a fully fledged out WWI game with extremely high historical accuracy, balanced gameplay and various rule additions and improvements!

The only purpose was to generate challenge and fun for our gaming group (and some “guests” to drop by). Just did not feel the urge to publish it officially like stated above. But WWI is immensely interesting therefore I posted the original WWI thread on MR Larry Harris website to push him a bit to create his own version which obviously worked! Wink

–---------------------------------------------

OK, rules are a relative beast when being thrown right into the face, uncommented!
But as an A&A player you should quickly find yourself familiar especially when actually playing the game!

Therefore the rules & setup will be presented periodically starting Monday along with my designer notes why everything is exactly how it is. This includes mostly historical background but some balance changes as well where it was really necessary!

First will be “Units & Structures: The Trench!”

@Old:

Would love to see your rules & set ups 8-)

I will open a new thread called “World War I: Central Powers & Entente” to not spoil this thread.

Here: All honour to IL!

@BJCard:

Not sure you can make the ‘tank’ (in other words one of 3 land units available in the game) as a tech- what if by chance the CPs roll and roll and roll and never get tanks?

I would prefer either a turn or two of having the new tech before the other side copies it -or- you pick your tech you get every 4th, 6th, etc turn.

That’s why we enjoy Cavalry so much in “Central Powers & Entente”! :wink:

But seriously,
if one of the most famous inventions of WWI isn’t represented in the techs, what’s the point of tech anyway?

In fact, it isn’t that you cannot win the game without tanks (as is, the advantage given is relatively small!).
And, as oztea correctly stated, with some progression elements in addition to the original breakthrough complete failure is minimized anyway!

P.S.: Yes, I agree! It IS cool to have tanks on the board (but they weren’t present in numbers before 1917 in the real war!)

Tanks is a must.
They were not available 1914 and were introduced 1916.
Drop one of those vague “I have no better idea”-research techs instead (like Improved Shipyards)

“Stormtrooper Tactics” isn’t a tech but a German National Advantage.