@phd_angel This is not the expansion set for Global War, but a stand alone game. You get the rules and setup charts when you purchase the map.
AA14 - Let's make it happen!
-
Nations that will have all or mostly unique units, US well be a mixture of French and UK peices
Entente:
UK - khaki
Russia - white
France - blueCentrals:
Germany - grey
Austria - brown
Ottoman Empire- olive greenIn addition these nations will have their own unique infantry pieces
Australia
Canada
Italy
Japan( If we want it to cover the pacfic)
Also what about having a generic colonial soldier that would show up in the British, French, and German armies.Units:
Infantry
Cavalry
Tanks
ArtilleryBi-planes
ZepplinsDreadnoughts( this term refers to both battleships and battlecrusiers)
Light Cruisers
Destroyers
Trannies
subs
Sea Mines( AA guns were not a very important part of WW1, but perhaps sea mines which were an important part could be added and work in a simailr way)How does this look?
I will write up some stats for these units soon
-
Given this early history, it is perhaps not surprising that it was only in Germany that development of anti-aircraft guns continued. In 1909, a number of Krupp’s designs were shown, including adaptations of their 65 mm 9-pounder, a 75 mm 12-pounder, and even a 105 mm gun. By the start of World War I, the 75 mm had become the standard German weapon, and came mounted on a large traverse that could be easily picked up on a wagon for movement.
Other countries seem to have largely ignored the possibility of aircraft being an important part of hostilities, but this soon changed when German spotter aircraft started calling down increasingly accurate artillery fire. All armies soon deployed a number of guns based on their smaller field pieces, notably the French 75 mm and Russian 76.2 mm, typically simply propped up on some sort of embankment to get the muzzle pointed skyward. The British Army decided on an entirely new weapon, and deployed a 3-inch (76 mm) gun, the QF 3 inch 20 cwt, that was perhaps the best of all the designs at that time. The German Army also adapted a revolving-cannon that came to be known to Allied fliers as the “flaming onion” from the shells in flight. This gun had five barrels that quickly launched a series of 37 mm artillery shells.[5]
In general, these ad-hoc solutions proved largely useless. With little experience in the role, and no ability to spot the “fall” of their rounds with any accuracy, gunners proved unable to get the altitude correct and most rounds fell well below their targets (discovering this, British fliers gave German anti-aircraft fire the mocking nickname, “Archie”). The exception to this rule were the guns protecting spotting balloons, in which case the altitude could be accurately measured from the length of the cable holding the balloon. The Krupp 75 mm guns were later supplied with an optical sighting system that improved their capabilities, but these sorts of systems were not deployed by other forces.
As aircraft started to be used in tactical roles against ground targets, these larger weapons proved too ponderous to aim at the quickly traversing targets. Soon the forces were adding various machine gun based weapons mounted on poles. The British introduced a heavier weapon — their QF 1 pounder “pom-pom” (a 37 mm version of the Maxim Gun) on an elevated mounting. These short-range weapons proved more deadly, and the Red Baron arguably fell victim to an anti-aircraft Vickers machine gun.
When the war ended, it was clear that the increasing capabilities of aircraft would require a more serious attempt at downing them. Nevertheless the pattern had been set: anti-aircraft weapons would be based around heavy weapons attacking high-altitude targets and lighter weapons for use when they came to lower altitudes
Are you sure tha anti-aircraft guns should be excluded?
Tell that to the Red Baron.
-
the article largerly describes AA’s ineffectiveness as a new weapon, and it certainly says nothing about them defending against stratigic bombing, because they didnt. Vickers machine gun is infantry weapon attached to infantry, not for heavy AA implacements of world war 2 that the A&A AAgun represents. And the .303 round was also used in the Lee-Enflied rifle, so perhaps the red baron wasnt even shot down my a AA modded Vickers.
-
Well I think a 1 out of 6 chance is pretty ineffective anyway.
-
@Brain:
Well I think a 1 out of 6 chance is pretty ineffective anyway.
lol :-D, well i think they should be even less than that in World War 1,
-
Well without anti-aircraft in the game we would have to have some kind of escort/intercept rule. we couldn’t allow there to be no risk when performing a strategic bombing raid. Maybe we could say that factories had their own air defense and hit on 1 out of 8 or 10. We could use dice other than 6-sided.
-
@Brain:
Well without anti-aircraft in the game we would have to have some kind of escort/intercept rule. we couldn’t allow there to be no risk when performing a strategic bombing raid. Maybe we could say that factories had their own air defense and hit on 1 out of 8 or 10. We could use dice other than 6-sided.
Well Zepplins are not very effective stratgic bombers, so I would first include a lot of IPCs and make the units cost alot. And yes there should be interceptor and escourt rules, zepplins were very vulnerable to fighters
-
Okay so it sounds like anti-aircraft is definitely out and you feel that the game should include escort/interceptor rules. I could live with that.
Maybe we could include anti-aircraft as a tech piece, it seems that they were very close to making them effective towards the end of the war.
Should we create a new topic called designing a WWI game?
-
Yes, tanks, AA-guns and carriers must be tech’s
-
I like the new topic name. I am with you lets make it happen.
-
My input here will remain simple.
For the map:
Lets do Europe with a special section for the western front. If we change the scale for the front, it eliminates the need for special trenching rules unless that’s what everyone wants. Then we need North Africa and the Middle East. Obviously, we need to include all of Turkey and the rest of the Ottoman empire that borders Russia. Lets skip the US and Pacific, as I don’t feel its necessary for game play. We can put a generic box on the map for US involvement or have transports show up on turn X. Think AAEurope map expanded out a bit further to the East and South.For the pieces, here’s what we have so far. I changed the colors to match A&A because you never know what other variants we will want to make. Also, we can use current A&A pieces for techs. Remember, think simple, think budget:
Entente:
UK - tan
Russia - maroon
France - blue
Italy - brownCentrals:
Germany - grey
Austria - olive green
Ottoman Empire- orangeUnits:
Infantry
Cavalry
Tanks
ArtilleryBi-planes
ZepplinsDreadnoughts( this term refers to both battleships and battlecrusiers)
Light Cruisers
Destroyers
Trannies
subs
Sea Mines( AA guns were not a very important part of WW1, but perhaps sea mines which were an important part could be added and work in a simailr way) -
We could come up with a simple set of rules based on Triple A
Okay I looked at the TripleA site and this is what they had:
Infantry 1-2-1-3
Cavalry 1-1-2-4
Artillery 2-2-1-4
Fighter 3-3-3-8
Zeppelin 1-1-6-10
Transport 0-1-2-12
Submarine 2-2-2-7
Destroyer 2-2-2-6
Cruiser 3-3-2-9
BattleCruiser 4-4-2-12
Battleship 4-4-2-18
AAGun 0-0-1-5
Factory 0-0-0-12We could start with these numbers and make modifications after some debating, as well as discuss each pieces individual characteristics.
There is no mention of sea mines or tanks.
I think tanks,aircraft carriers, and AA guns should be tech.
I am not sure about orange for the Ottoman Empire what does their control marker look like, I guess we would need a national control marker for them as well as Ausria.
-
@Brain:
We could come up with a simple set of rules based on Triple A
Okay I looked at the TripleA site and this is what they had:
Infantry 1-2-1-3
Cavalry 1-1-2-4
Artillery 2-2-1-4
Fighter 3-3-3-8
Zeppelin 1-1-6-10
Transport 0-1-2-12
Submarine 2-2-2-7
Destroyer 2-2-2-6
Cruiser 3-3-2-9
BattleCruiser 4-4-2-12
Battleship 4-4-2-18
AAGun 0-0-1-5
Factory 0-0-0-12We could start with these numbers and make modifications after some debating, as well as discuss each pieces individual characteristics.
There is no mention of sea mines or tanks.
I think tanks,aircraft carriers, and AA guns should be tech.
I am not sure about orange for the Ottoman Empire what does their control marker look like, I guess we would need a national control marker for them as well as Ausria.
No one is going to buy cavalry if they cost 4. they should cost 3.
Artillery should become really important weapons. They should cost 5 and attack and defend like subs with pre-combat attack roles.
Fighters, i think either there attack or defence should be reduced to 2, just to show how they were not that decisive early on. The movement should be interesting. THey should have a spoting ability for artillery
Zepplins had huge range, i would say increase it to eight. THey should also have a spoting ability for ships
Subs and trans should be as per AA50, except make transports cost 10 too show how hard amphibious assualt were.I like the stats for destroyers and crusiers, though the crusier peice should have its named changed to light crusier.
Get rid of the battleship and battlecrusier piece. Replace it with the Dreadnaught unit which is exactly like a regular battleship, except it costs 18.I dont like the AAgun, and factories should be printed on the map.
Sea mines should cost 6 and can be placed on the border of a sea zone by a destroyer, if enemy ships cross it it, the sea mine works like an defends like an AA gun normally would. an enemy destroyer can disable sea mines on a roll of 1.
I also dont like the idea of the western front blow up box, its problamatic to have different scales with the same rules governing them. Like AA50 enlarges Europe, the western front should just be enlarged in this game. I think each turn is going to represent 6+ months, so the western front blowup box in tripleA is too detailed.
Tanks should attack at 4, defened at 1, and have 1 movement, cost 5.
Aircraft carries should just be an tech upgrade for light crusiers.
We also need rules for Chemical Warfare, storm troopers, and really all the other tech developments.
-
Emperor_Taiki you made some good points there.
I think we need to discuss this game project one aspect at a time or else we will be all over the place and will not get things accomplished as fast as if we do it in a more organized fashion.
Since the actual forces(game pieces) are what seems to be on everybody’s mind, let’s start with those.
And to further narrow down the discussion, let’s start with land pieces:
Infantry 1-2-1-3 and behaves basically like any other AA game.
Cavalry 1-1-2-4 and has blitzing capabilities. I know that you disagree with the cost but I think with the blitzing capability and faster movement other people, at least I would, will be willing to pay the extra cost.
Artillery 2-2-1-4, makes infantry more powerful like AA, I think if we raise the cost to 5, then tanks would have to cost 6
Tanks 4-1-1-5 do we want this to be a tech or a regular unit.
AAGun 0-0-1-5 this could be a tech roll, or we could eliminate it, if it is eliminatedwe will definitely need an intercept/escort rule in my opinion.We can discuss air and naval pieces after we get these issues hammered out.
We need to get as many opinions on this as possible because we are trying to design a game that most people will enjoy not just a few of us. Notice I said most because we wont be able to please everyone all the time not even ourselves.
-
Infantry 1-2-1-3
Cavalry 1-1-2-4 - Lets take out the blitz, but still have 2mp. I would like to promote a balanced force. Have them attack at a 2 for the first round to simulate a charge. 1 after that.
Artillery 2-2-1-5 - Lets go with Emperor Taiki’s idea of 5IPC. They should get special opening fire (no return fire), but normal on 2nd round etc.
Fighter 3-3-3-8 - Lets keep this and eliminate “spotting”. The higher att/def values should simply reflect this. Keep it simple.
Zeppelin 1-1-6-10- 8 seems too far for the scale. -
If we take away the blitz property and yet still allow a movement of 2. Are you saying that the cavalry can move through 2 friendly territories, but cannot move through 2 unoccupied enemy territories and would instead have to stop to occupy the first territory even though there are no enemy forces present?
-
Interesting thread.
An Axis and Allies-style “Dr. Pepper and Dorritos” World War I game would be great!
The key thing to remember, as was mentioned before, is to keep the game simple and not too time-consuming.I have 2 proposed land/air units charts for consideration.
Chart 1 - a little cheaper IPC cost
Infantry 1-1-1-2 - Infantry troops were the main units of the war, I believe even more so than in World War II, so this justifies their reduced cost. The infantry were not extremely effective though, so I dropped their defense to 1.
Cavalry 1-1-2-3 - No blitzing and no special attack rules for simplicity’s sake.
Artillery 2-2-1-4 - Use the “Surprise Strike” rule from AA50, they get preemptive shots every round, but this can be nullified by the enemy having a fighter in the battle. They do not increase infantry units attack.
Fighter 2-2-3-6 - No special rules other than that they nullify the artillery’s preemptive shot. After a map is made up, then we can decide if 3 movement is too little.
Zeppelin 1-1-6-10- No special rules. Actually I don’t know a lot about Zeppelins, so I bow to y’alls knowledge in this area.
Chart 2 - a more comparable to regular Axis and Allies IPC cost
Infantry 1-2-1-3 - No special rules.
Cavalry 2-1-2-4 - No blitzing and no special attack rules for simplicity’s sake.
Artillery 2-2-1-5 - Use the “Surprise Strike” rule from AA50, they get preemptive shots every round, but this can be nullified by the enemy having a fighter in the battle. They do not increase infantry units attack.
Fighter 3-3-3-8 - No special rules other than that they nullify the artillery’s preemptive shot. After a map is made up, then we can decide if 3 movement is too little.
Zeppelin 1-1-6-10- No special rules. Actually I don’t know a lot about Zeppelins, so I bow to y’alls knowledge in this area.
For aa and tanks, I agree with the majority that they should both be technological advances.
-
@Brain:
If we take away the blitz property and yet still allow a movement of 2. Are you saying that the cavalry can move through 2 friendly territories, but cannot move through 2 unoccupied enemy territories and would instead have to stop to occupy the first territory even though there are no enemy forces present?
Correct. Simulates mobility but keeps them cheap.
-
Interesting thread.
An Axis and Allies-style “Dr. Pepper and Dorritos” World War I game would be great!
The key thing to remember, as was mentioned before, is to keep the game simple and not too time-consuming.I have 2 proposed land/air units charts for consideration.
Chart 1 - a little cheaper IPC cost
Infantry 1-1-1-2 - Infantry troops were the main units of the war, I believe even more so than in World War II, so this justifies their reduced cost. The infantry were not extremely effective though, so I dropped their defense to 1.
Cavalry 1-1-2-3 - No blitzing and no special attack rules for simplicity’s sake.
Artillery 2-2-1-4 - Use the “Surprise Strike” rule from AA50, they get preemptive shots every round, but this can be nullified by the enemy having a fighter in the battle. They do not increase infantry units attack.
Fighter 2-2-3-6 - No special rules other than that they nullify the artillery’s preemptive shot. After a map is made up, then we can decide if 3 movement is too little.
Zeppelin 1-1-6-10- No special rules. Actually I don’t know a lot about Zeppelins, so I bow to y’alls knowledge in this area.
Chart 2 - a more comparable to regular Axis and Allies IPC cost
Infantry 1-2-1-3 - No special rules.
Cavalry 2-1-2-4 - No blitzing and no special attack rules for simplicity’s sake.
Artillery 2-2-1-5 - Use the “Surprise Strike” rule from AA50, they get preemptive shots every round, but this can be nullified by the enemy having a fighter in the battle. They do not increase infantry units attack.
Fighter 3-3-3-8 - No special rules other than that they nullify the artillery’s preemptive shot. After a map is made up, then we can decide if 3 movement is too little.
Zeppelin 1-1-6-10- No special rules. Actually I don’t know a lot about Zeppelins, so I bow to y’alls knowledge in this area.
For aa and tanks, I agree with the majority that they should both be technological advances.
WOW! You’ve made it really hard to choose… I think I actually like the cheaper version so we can have bigger battles. Maybe limit battles to two rounds simulating bog down? We can discuss specific combat rules later.
On the cheaper chart, I think we should still go 4-1-1-6 for tanks as they were expensive to produce even after the tech was achieved.
-
I believe Zeppelins were used for bombing and spotting, thus the zeppelin could take on the strategic bombing role and perhaps if we ant a spotting rule they could increase the comat value of artillery or AAguns if they are used.
Suggested Topics
