Any new rules? any big changes to how the game is played?

[Veqryn]

I’m looking forward to the game, to say the least.

However, I think that it will not feel like World War 1 if it has the same rules as current A&A games.

In A&A games, there is no reason to have many small stacks, so everyone just moves everything into 1 giant stack.  This is because of how the dice battles work, where having a numbers/attack advantage in the first round causes the next round of battle to be even more weighted in your favor.
Why is this bad?  Assuming that the front is greater than 3 territories wide (i’d like to see a 10+ territory wide front), it will not feel like WW1.  All your units will be in 1 territory, and all the other territories will have just a single unit or 2.
Possible Solution: limit battles to a single round, or something.

In A&A games, there is no reason to let a large stack die.  If your opponent has more than 60% chance to kill it, generally speaking you retreat your giant stack.  When you add the fact that you are producing a stupidly high number of units every turn, for infinity, and you end up having a situation where only a couple units are dying in combat every turn, while 2 major stacks are just staring each other down.
Why is this bad?  Because WW1 was a meat grinder, like LH said.  There needs to be a lot of units dying every turn, and the stacks should staying about the same size overall or only getting a little bigger (after you account for casualties).  People need more incentive to attack and throw away units, especially infantry.
Possible Solutions: some kind of manpower resource pool (that gets used up as you produce new units, and gets bigger again when they die), or an upkeep cost for units, or something.

Without Tanks, and possibly without effective aircraft, this is going to be a very defensive game.  But if we just use A&A rules, there won’t be any fighting at all.  Why would I take my stack of 20 inf and attack your stack of 18 infantry?  No thanks, I’ll wait till I have better odds.  And when I do have better odds, you will just retreat 1 space out of the way.  So in the end, there is no “fighting”, no “meat grinder”.

I hope LH introduces some new gameplay mechanism to address this.  And I also hope the european theater has more territories than all of Global did, otherwise its not going to feel like trench warfare.

[WILD BILL]

Taken from Larry’s site:
Q
How will the Western Front be simulated in the game?

A (Larry)
I don’t want to get too deep into this. I will say, that there is only one round of combat dice rolling per turn per battle. The game, IMHO, feels very Western Front as you play it. It’s very cool and interesting how this system works and plays out. I like how it feels.

[knp7765]

With just 1 round of combat, it sounds like it’s going to be very similar to the D-Day game, where units from both sides can occupy the same territory(s).

I’ve seen a lot of guys here wanting a WW1 game, but it seems to me like there will be mostly static fronts, very little movement and it will start to get somewhat boring. From a strategic standpoint, that’s pretty much how the real war went. There were some break throughs but they were few and far between and oftentimes the momentum could not be sustained and an enemy counterattack ended up erasing what gains were made.

[CWO Marc]

@knp7765:

I’ve seen a lot of guys here wanting a WW1 game, but it seems to me like there will be mostly static fronts, very little movement and it will start to get somewhat boring. From a strategic standpoint, that’s pretty much how the real war went.

The Western Front was indeed static for most of the war, but there was a lot more movement on the Eastern Front, where the larger amounts of available space prevented the fighting from bogging down into trench warfare.  The situation in the West largely arose from the relatively small distance between the English Channel and the mountainous (and neutral) Swiss frontier, the two unflankable extremities which anchored the trench line.  Hypothetically, Larry’s game could have slightly different rules for the left and right sides of the continent to reflect these two different situations.

[DarthShizNit]

I think artillery needs to take on a life of it’s own as well. This is an Infantry and Artillery game, or so he says, so lets get the art. doing some ww1 things. Lets get some bombardments going on, let planes spot for artillery (as was suggested in another thread).

[oztea]

There should have been 2 types of artillery.

Normal - normal artillery
Strategic Artillery - Can sit in the territory behind where the battle is going on and fire into it.

[Noll]

I think Larry is going to make a simple game for starters. Not in the 1941 style, but more in the single scenario style (or maybe 1942)

[Yavid]

IMHO I think this game will be '42 done in WW1 era with D-Day combat system

[Clyde85]

The more I hear about this game the less I like. Given it size and dimensions already told to us the hope that the western front will be anymore then 1 maybe two spaces is very unlikely. While I am glad to hear that this WW1 game will actually include Africa, the reduction in the focus on Europe dose not bode well in my mind. The talk of only one round of combat during each turn is also worrying. I understand the thinking behind it, given that battles during this period didn’t usually involve huge sweeping offensives and would, like Verdun, last for months at a time. However I feel that this mechanic is more of a gimmick then an accurate representation of trench warfare. Also given the movement in places like the Balkans, Africa, and on the eastern front, I feel that this “slogging match” style of play will miss-represent these critical theaters. If this play style also involves naval combat then were going to get some very a-historical situations from the word go and the threat of submarine warfare is going to become non-existent pretty quick.

I can understand the approach being taken, that of high-sited Field Marshall seeing the whole war on a giant map and moving little flags around. In fact that image of an aloof chateau-bound general is very indicative of the stero-type from WW1. I could set this game up, put on a fancy uniform, pour myself a glass of brandy, and go sit in another room while a runner goes back and forth moving pieces and rolling the dice for me on my orders and that would probably be the most accurate portrayal of a war game ever. Now, as much as I like brandy and fancy uniforms, I just don’t think that will make for a very interesting game. I don’t understand how things will progress and how much strategy there will be beyond endlessly stacking troops, which isnt strategy but a lack there of. What makes this worse is that there won’t be any research option to improve your troops or other units at your disposal. Given that this war saw some of the biggest developments in technology in human history up to that point, it makes no sense to leave it out. Knowing this and that tanks will be in the game means players will be able to buy them from turn 1. Is no one else concerned by this massive miscarriage of history?

When you think of WW1 what are some images that come to mind? Germans in pointy helmets, trenches, gas attacks, airplanes made out of papier-mache, trenches, tanks that were just as likely to explode because of internal mechanical failure as from enemy fire, and trenches. While i’m not prepared to condemn this game just yet and am willing to give it a fair chance to surprise me, I have to say from what i’ve heard so far it dose not look encouraging.

[Imperious Leader]

You got to wear that “pointed helmet” to even get the idea of playing the game. I think you will be shocked how much more fun it is when you see it.

[Clyde85]

@Imperious:

You got to wear that “pointed helmet” to even get the idea of playing the game. I think you will be shocked how much more fun it is when you see it.

Oh I own pointy helmet and Imperial German officers uniform (purchased here; http://www.hessenantique.com/Imperial_German_Militaria_s/8.htm ) and the more I think on the idea of setting this up and sitting in another room with a glass of brandy while other people implement my plans and orders, the more I like it. Still, I don’t know how much fun this will be on a strategic wargame level from what i’m seeing.

It almost seems to me like what we’re going to get is not so much a World War 1 game as an Axis&Allies “infantry and Artillery” edition.

[Imperious Leader]

I think you will be shocked how much more fun it is when you see it.

I meant the helmet, not the game.

JK

[Flashman]

I share some of your concerns, but I’m happy for the game to be, in the right places, a slogging match along a static frontier because that’s what I expect from a WWI game. There is plenty of scope for movement on other fronts.

As Churchill said, “in the West there were too many troops for the front, and in the East there was too much front for the troops”.

I just hope that there’s been some intensive playtesting, the usual wall of silence suggests there may turn out to be serious flaws which could have been ironed out by involving forums such as this one.

My main concerns:

1. Lack of rail movement.

Any war from 1861 to 1945 was driven by the movement of land units by rail. If it doesn’t happen in this version it’ll never happen in A&A, and the game system’s most serious flaw will remain forever.
Without it, the Central Powers will be seriously (and unhistorically) handicapped.

2. Lack of convoy zones.

The blockade of the Central Powers was the #1 factor in forcing them to surrender. It was also, like in WWII, the best chance the Germans had to win the war by starving out Britain. The failure to press ahead with unrestricted U-boat attacks (for fear of American intervention) was the biggest mistake the CPs made.

If there are no CZs, what incentive do the CPs have to invest in a fleet? They can use subs to attack Allied shipping, but since they have a virtually continuous block of land tt, a surface fleet is practically useless to them.

3. Unrealistic placement and use of factories.

There should be no factories outside Europe and North America. Other regions should be able to place infantry (and cavalry) only. Powers should not be able to build units at captured factories.
USA capturing Constantinople and using it to churn out American tanks? No thanks.

4. Capture the Capital.

Always hated this as a victory condition, especially the attacker getting all the money, and the defender just dropping out of the war. Virtually directs players to target the 2/3 most easily attainable capitals and ignore everything else, when there should be a broad front towards capturing ALL the enemies industrial capacity. Only when a power has lost all its factories should it be prevented from continuing the fight and building units.

Some stuff I’d like to see (in addition to the above points)

An Official Expansion pack, featuring units not included in the basic game. Specifically:

Bombers
Cavalry
Zeppelins
Flying boats
Armoured trains
Heavy Artillery/Rail guns
Destroyers
Elite/Veteran infantry/Stormtroopers

Separate recruitment for infantry units. They can be placed in any area with an an income value in home tt, up to the value of the tt. Factories are irrelevant. They still have to be bought (trained), but are not “built” as per mechanical units. Each unit should be of a specific nationality, effecting sometimes their loyalty.
Possibly, UK & US infantry cost more than soldiers in continental armies due to their lack of national service training.

Ship re-fueling. Ships could not remain at sea indefinitely, therefore each naval unit must stay within range of a friendly (or neutral?) land tt to reflect the need to take on coal. Hence, small islands and enclaves can become important irrespective of IPC value.

A Pacific expansion, with Japan as a major power. The German East Asian fleet was a major headache for the Allies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Emden_(1906)

Official rules for more open scenarios. Certainly Italy with the possibility of joining either side, and American neutrality not automatically ended so early.
Maybe even a full “Diplomacy” scenario with 7 players all out for themselves and making & breaking alliances as they go.

[Flashman]

@Imperious:

I think you will be shocked how much more fun it is when you see it.

I meant the helmet, not the game.

JK

Seeing your helmet doesn’t sound like much fun to me. I just hope you have the decency to cover it with a cloth.

[Imperious Leader]

1. Lack of rail movement.

Any war from 1861 to 1945 was driven by the movement of land units by rail. If it doesn’t happen in this version it’ll never happen in A&A, and the game system’s most serious flaw will remain forever.
Without it, the Central Powers will be seriously (and unhistorically) handicapped.

Special  moves:

Strategic movement:
Ships may make a strategic non-combat move from any originally controlled port to port, subject to the following:

1. The move must begin and end in a friendly port.
2. The move may not move into or pass through any enemy ships.  However, submerged subs are ignored.
3. The quantity of ships transferred is limited by the printed economic value of the attached land area where the port is connected too.
4. Ships are subject to mine and coastal fortress pass-through attacks.

Railroad transportation:
Rail movement is allowed from anywhere within contiguously controlled and connected land areas, limited as follows:

1. If you are not in a factory space, rail movement must be to the nearest starting factory that your side started the game with or an original home factory. No limit of moves of this type.
2. If you are in a factory space, you can only rail to either item #1, or any space you control limited by the printed economic value of the area.
3. If you control both sides of the Suez or Dardanelles, you may pass thru these areas.

These moves are valid if:

1. You can trace the movement through a continuous line of controlled territories.
2. The movement does not cross any sea barriers that are not controlled (such as the English Channel, or a blocked Dardanelles strait).
3. The movement is not into a contested area.
4. The line is not traced through Russia (unless you are Russia).
5. The territory is not newly captured (exception: Belgium).

Russia may only use rail movement within their own Nation.  Until Russia surrenders, nobody may use her rail lines.

[Imperious Leader]

3. Unrealistic placement and use of factories.

There should be no factories outside Europe and North America. Other regions should be able to place infantry (and cavalry) only. Powers should not be able to build units at captured factories.
USA capturing Constantinople and using it to churn out American tanks? No thanks.

Step 11 – Unit Placement:
Units that were purchased are placed on the map at this time subject to the following conditions:

1. Infantry, storm troops and cavalry may be placed in any territory you control with a value; Total number of units can be built to the value of the territory.
2. Mechanized units, with the exception of subs at Zeebrugge, may only be built in original friendly areas that have a factory.  Total number of units can be built up to the value of the territory.
3. Ships that are purchased may be placed in any home port or in the sea zone adjacent to that territory.
4. Mines may be placed in any friendly sea zone which was controlled at the beginning of their turn.  To do so a warship must remain in the area.
5. Contested areas may build and place half (rounded down) of their normal level.
6. Corfu, Osel/Dago, Gibraltar, Fao, Gallipoli and Rhodes all have a white one value inside a black circle.  This may be used to recruit a single infantry, cavalry, or storm troop by the side that originally owned the territory.  However, only upon the collapse of Serbia does Corfu’s value come in play (see fall of Serbia).

Placements may never be made into newly captured areas.

[Flashman]

The Gallipoli campaign was fought primarily to open up a southern route to supply Russia.

http://maps.omniatlas.com/europe/19150426/

Would this involve landing units in, say, Crimea; then Russia railing them internally within Russia?

I’m in favour of “no Allies on Russian soil” for WWII games, but does the same principle really apply to WWI?

To what extent should units be transferable between allies? Turkey relied entirely on imports for ships, land vehicles and aircraft:

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

1)  If you are not in a factory space, rail movement must be to the nearest starting factory that your side started the game with or an original home factory. No limit of moves of this type.

Don’t quite understand this; it would make it a disadvantage to possess factories close by each other, as this limits the range of rail movement. Also, why not use captured factories for rail movement?
Wouldn’t it be fairer (and simpler) to limit rail moves to X spaces?

Personally, given that a turn represents several months, I’m in favour of unlimited rail transport. If you control Portugal and Siberia travel the whole length in one turn if you like. It’s up to the enemy to disrupt your communications by capturing territories in between.
It could even be possible to combine rail and sea transport during non-combat movement.

[Imperious Leader]

Would this involve landing units in, say, Crimea; then Russia railing them internally within Russia?

Placing them yes, only Russia can use the rails in her Empire.

I’m in favour of “no Allies on Russian soil” for WWII games, but does the same principle really apply to WWI?

Or you get some glitching in the game where the allies try to “save” Russia or kill Ottomans from northern direction. Not really realistic.

To what extent should units be transferable between allies? Turkey relied entirely on imports for ships, land vehicles and aircraft:

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

They are as long as the land areas are connected.

1)  If you are not in a factory space, rail movement must be to the nearest starting factory that your side started the game with or an original home factory. No limit of moves of this type.

Don’t quite understand this; it would make it a disadvantage to possess factories close by each other, as this limits the range of rail movement. Also, why not use captured factories for rail movement?
Wouldn’t it be fairer (and simpler) to limit rail moves to X spaces?

The transfer of rail within allied nations forces some restrictions, no restrictions to your factories that you began the game with. We didn’t want it to be possible to just send a huge army from a non-factory space ( meaning an area where no rail exists) to any other area en masse. SO the rule protects against glitching. You can move from any space you control to a home factory, but not a non factory space to another non factory space. Allowing that would be too much.

Personally, given that a turn represents several months, I’m in favour of unlimited rail transport. If you control Portugal and Siberia travel the whole length in one turn if you like. It’s up to the enemy to disrupt your communications by capturing territories in between.
It could even be possible to combine rail and sea transport during non-combat movement.

It is unlimited but only to home factory areas. Otherwise limited by production value as cap.
Well it is but only to a factory ( rail hub): choice is only to nearest factory, or home factory. Too much ‘teleport’ is not good for the game and it is a game. Fixed numbers of redeployment’s without restrictions is just as bad.

[Flashman]

I would prefer simply to print available rail lines on the map. This would involve avoiding mountainous areas, marshes, and underdeveloped areas such as central Africa.

[Imperious Leader]

This would involve avoiding mountainous areas, marshes, and underdeveloped areas such as central Africa.

The game does not have central Africa and in any event water straights block railway movement, except Turkish straights and to have a connection to say some faraway place is limited by production value, which those places have not therefore the problem is solved by other means ( no factories so no rail, no production value so no rails)