@Flashman:

No allied surface vessels (other than Russia) may enter the Baltic.

I do not like arbitrary rules such as this. The Germans should have to do something to prevent Allied ships moving into the Baltic. If the game is correctly balanced, they should have the means to do this. However, if the German player chooses to, for example, use the fleet to support an invasion of Russia, then the Allies might be strong enough to force the Skagerrak.

I agree. The more you base rules on what happened instead of what could have reasonably happened, the more you are acting out the same old tired thing every game.

@Athlim:

Contested territories and Air supremacy we should See incorporated into the next WW2 A&A Game!

Maybe someone could send Larry a note and start an AA WWII Revolution

The way Larry described it ALL countries are the same - new units come into play in the capital. Ships are built in naval bases.

For that reason, I do not see the large NBs at Oran, Alexandria or Tripoli being represented. Either that, or overseas tts are not considered as “home”. It would be the silliest thing ever in A&A if Britain was able to build battleships in Egypt, but not be able to build tanks or recruit infantry in northern England.

Also, if Austria has only one Naval Base, can it build only one ship per turn, or as many as it can afford?

Canada is an odd one out, in that it may be possible to build ships there, but then again to transport what?

Doesn’t look like Anzacs will be represented at all, while India just gets its starting units.

Anyhoo, I’m beginning to think about a completely different system for bringing infantry units into play, based on an ordered draft of units at regular stages. They still have to be payed for (training and equipment), but only so many are available and only on certain turns and in certain tts. Its on a use 'em or lose 'em basis - if you pass on a scheduled draft (to buy a dreadnought for example) you miss out on the units permanently. Eventually the numbers available will decline, as indeed the number of new recruits inevitably did in the war. It also ensures that you recruit units from all over your empire, and from each reasonably well populated tt.

The UK is slightly different in having no conscription. It will have to reply on volunteers at first. But passing the Conscription Bill will rope in the slackers, at the coast of a few morale points…

The USA is similar in having no initial conscription. However (assuming America goes to war in c1917) numbers available when the draft is introduced will be high through lack of early war attrition.

I bought my Euro 1940 and Pac 1940 2nd ed from starlit citadel
great price and awesome custumer service
http://www.starlitcitadel.com/games/

They dont have 1914 for pre order yet but i think they will have it soon ( or cantact them to see if they will sell it)

The best place to buy board games in Canada

A satisfied customer

CP should be able to project their power straight away, allies need to consolidate and that takes time. I bet its not unlike any other game with the ‘baddies’ poised to make a killing early on.

In the US it will be around $60

It looks like an infantry and artillery grind.  I am already wondering how my purchase patterns will have to shift; Also, this style of long, fairly indecisive engagement could work well with the naval battles.  I wonder if things there will be similar.  It would make a “Battle of Jutland” type of thing almost inevitable.

Too Damn Cute IMO :-P

No Dreadnoughts should ever be built in the game since it takes 3+ years from start to finish. I understand it makes the game unplayable, but accuracy and not fun must be part of the game.

Extrapolating this further all other naval units take 6-8 turns to build. I understand this means that half the game will have empty oceans, but oh well. Accuracy and not fun is whats important.

Limits on how many of one type of unit get built would also presumably be part of Larry’s rules.

If one thing we know is Axis and Allies is a perfect representation of Historical accuracy, and not fun anymore.

Enjoy the game.

Global and 1942 were not limited but they sold out and the price went up huge. Buy 6 each minimum.

I’m coming down in favour of a 4 player game. Since the four principal nations: were

Germany

Russia

Austria

France

They would be the starting element for each player, in turn order.

With other nations joining in, we should end up with:

Germany, [Bolsheviks]

Russia, (Serbia)

Austria, Turkey, (Bulgaria)

France, UK, Italy, USA, (Belgium), (Portugal), (Greece), (Romania), (Arabia)

All nations within each group moving and fighting together.

One possibility is that, at a certain stage, Allies can be placed under an overall command and after that they all play together.

Ref: Supreme War Council and Unified Command

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68445/general-von-kuhl/unity-of-command-among-the-central-powers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_War_Council

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vWLoU9HVBeEC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=central+powers+unified+command&source=bl&ots=6BEE-CvHEp&sig=1ARJ-Cd3I-IAtUc93BZrS7XZO8g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9hX7UPqjE8eZ0QWd7YGADQ&sqi=2&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=central powers unified command&f=false

Slightly revised VC list:

Included a couple of neutrals.

London
Paris
Rome
Petrograd
Kiev
Tiflis
Cairo
Brazzaville
New Delhi

Brussels
Belgrade

Berlin
Cologne
Konigsburg
Vienna
Lemberg
Constantinople
Damascus
Baghdad
Dar-es-Salaam

Wouldn’t have southern Africa on my map (or I’d go the whole hog and have Asia and the Pacific as well), but if it is on there it might as well have tts worth fighting over.

By and large, the above list pairs up VCs across the main fronts vel:

London-Berlin (North Sea)
Paris-Essen (Western Front)
Rome-Vienna (Alpine Front/Adriatic)
Konigsburg-Petrograd (Baltic)
Lemberg-Kiev (Ukraine)
Brazzaville-Dar-es-Salaam (Central Africa)
Cairo-Damascus (Middle East)
Delhi-Baghdad (Mesopotamia)
Tiflis-Erzerum (Caucasus/Black Sea)
New York-Mexico City (Rio Grande Front)
Moscow-Constantinople (The Straits)

Yeah, will likely be one of the more common Krupp guns for the CP. But I hope they go for the Tri-Plane for the CP fighter, for no other reason than it would look awesome  :-D.

That link is common knowledge.  Hurray for it!

@Flashman:

piles and piles of dead infantry.

Many years ago, prior to WotC’s involvement with the Avalon Hill brand, I saw a magazine advertisement for Avalon Hill products which showed a disorderly pile of plastic infantry miniatures of many different colours and types, over which the historical quote “Let God sort them out” was printed as a caption.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Bombadill10:

I have read much of this thread, but not all of it I will admit this right away.�  I have a question then everyone can get back to the Historical point in which the US should enter into the game.

I have always wondered what incentive the US player has for NOT entering the war.�  From an “in game” perspective the US stands to gain much from being declared war upon and entering into conflict with an Axis Power.�  They can assist the Allies with their ecomony (which blossoms when at war) and the US player finally gets to join in the fun, rather than being a spectator.

SO…. If your the US, why wouldn’t you be chomping at the bit to get into the action?�  Has anyone considered a victory condition involving the US never entering the war?�  I know it seems ridiculous, sure laugh, but what if the US never entered the war.�  Just a thought I figured I would throw at the collective for an opinion.�Â

I understand that this would require an almost rebuild of many aspects of the game, but I was curoius if anyone had thought, heard, or condidered in the past.

I think it has a chance at being pretty cool. It can also be quite historical if the German player is VERY conservative with how he or she uses his or her submarines. Would it be a little hard to balance and require a lot of other changes? Sure. But one factor that helps the balance is that if Germany does not provoke the US, they are also most likely not strangling Britain. So a US-less war would have a stronger UK.

It would be a cool balance challenge to make a more historical game.

Yea I thought so too.  Intresting game with a stronger UK and no US.  Thanks for the input.

I have often felt that WotC has lacked a strong plan for the Axis & Allies brand. There’s SO much more that they could do to market (at low cost too). Consider the way they’ve invested D&D Encounter and the Game Finder webpage. A similar investment in the A&A brand could do wonders for insuring a healthy A&A market for the future.

The pathetic official webpage is a dismal representation of any business plan that they have at WotC/Hasbro for developing the brand.

@Flashman:

Germany did a lot of trade with adjacent neutrals, especially the Netherlands and Sweden, so maybe Germany gets a certain ammount of IPCs from these without having to invade.Â

That will be interesting. It seems like a Norway-Denmark NO-type rule would be good, except supposedly the game was said not to be complex enough for NO’s. Maybe to avoid confusion one of the German seaside territories will have a larger than expected income. I’m not sure if the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare phase will be for more than just Germany, but if it were, then the allies could take out the “convoy” between Scandinavia and Germany.

Hey Flashman, you are well informed and have good ideas BUT I can assure you that these thoughts will lead to complex rules which Larry would like to prevent especially for this initial release which is supposed to bring some numbers in!

I am curious how he avoids some of your described problems but we will see.

In an advanced game/collector’s editon whatsoever things might be different!

The thing is $65 bucks, just order on preorder. That price is not bad.