My take, imported from the post on LH:
Very much like most of what I’ve read so far, but my comments below are based on reading through just the above posts. Little disappointed no Japan (which had just defeated Russia), but I can understand why. The one round of combat per turn makes perfect sense. Also glad to see no Canada/India/Anzac nonesense. As long as colonies are sensibly limited in production, each empire should be integrated militarily.
My ten cents then:
1. Rail movement (most important of course).
I believe this would be the perfect game to introduce rail movement (that is, unlimited movement for land units along friendly tts during the non-combat phase).
Two main reasons:
This war, more than even WWII, was driven by railway timetables. Its said the Kaizer tried to stop the war, but was told he couldn’t because the timetables wouldn’t allow it.
Since this will be a relatively static game, the system would not be so radical a change as in the WWII versions. Gently does it, once established people will wonder why A&A didn’t always have rail movement.
RM would be of particular benefit to the Central Powers, allowing them to shift forces from front to front as required.
Owing to the scarcity of rail lines in some regions at this period, it may be advantageous to have rails printed on the map where they are available. Personally, I’d prefer this to “stippled” terrain effects, especially if there are no actually game effects of terrain.
Finally, armoured trains would be the coolest A&A pieces ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_t … orld_War_I
2. Italy
I assume Italy join the Allies after a couple of turns. But wait on here, in 1914 it was by no means certain that Italy would not join the CPs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_in_WWI
I would suggest using Italy as a tilting mechanism, forcing the pace of the early game. I seem to remember that Diplomacy has an official variant whereby after X number of turns you toss a coin to decide which side the country joins.
So: after X number of turns, if the CPs have achieved Y, Italy joins them. If they have not attained Y, Italy joins the Allies. Or, if you have 8 players, the Italy player can decide who to join. See also my bid for Italy suggestion posted elsewhere.
It might make sense for Italy to have “Allied” unit sculpts to balance 4 vs 4.
3. Artillery
I very much support the suggestion that artillery should not be able to move during the combat phase. It fires an opening barrage, enemy artillery replies, and then the battle proper is fought normally. Art. on the attacking side are only allowed as casualties from the enemy art reply. They cannot move into the captured tt.
OR, divide into “field” and “heavy/rail” units.
4. Infantry.
I’m intrigued to find out if the sculpts will feature early or late war equipment. One possibility (I know this won’t be included initially) is to have “basic” and “elite/veteran” infantry, with the latter represented by steel helmets, body armor, gasmasks etc.
I would also like infantry “trained” at specific depots rather than “built” in factories. Of course you still have to pay for the training. Something else probably beyond the scope of this production would be each unit keyed to a nationality within its respective empire, with political implications. For example ethnic “German” units in the Austrian army would be more reliable than ethnic Czechs raised in Prague. Perhaps each depot should be limited to a set number of recruits per game, (based broadly on its population), to reflect finite manpower. Also, players should have to recruit in each depot they hold, rather than for example France recruiting all infantry units in Paris.
5. Plastic colours.
My personal preferences:
G - Black
A - White
T - Yellow/Burnt Orange?
I - Grey
B - Tan
F - Blue
U - Green
R - Brown
PSR has these suggestions:
http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Sho … aspx?id=29
However I’m intending to experiment with dying my units with RIT, so I can have whatever colours I like.
6. Navy
Are naval battles fought in the same way as on land, with only one round of combat? Otherwise, aircraft should certainly only participate in the first round.
Another of my old arguments is for coaling stations. That is, a naval unit must refuel in a friendly port each and every turn. In can start and/or end the turn at sea, but must refuel at some point.
Battleships are clearly more powerful with no carriers in the game, so I assume they’ll have the 2 hit points, perhaps even 3 (big war ships were very difficult to sink). Should take 2 (or even 3) turns to build. I might even think about a separate naval battle-board, with tactical movements such as “crossing the T”, but again this might be better suited to a stand alone game.
I’m concerned about the apparent lack of CP convoy zones. It was, after all, a blockade that forced the CP surrender; the German army was not defeated in the field. What incentive will there be for the CP to build a surface fleet rather than just stack inf/art for the drives to Moscow and Paris? (I’m assuming they won’t have to take London or Washington to win).
Destroyers should have a mine-sweeping role, but it looks like this is something else missing.
7. Factories.
Can’t let this go without pulling for my preference for not allowing use of captured factories. Exception: in reference to 4. above, allow use of captured infantry depots, where the nationality is appropriate, e.g Russia can recruit Polish units in captured Cracow/Galicia.
And, obviously, money should be collected at the start of a player’s turn.
Turkey had no heavy industry to speak of, I certainly don’t like the idea of them building aircraft in Ankara. Depends on the turn order - if it’s “All CP play, then all Allies play” no problem - planes built in Berlin/Vienna can be just flown down there. Otherwise, there’d need to be a conversion of A/G units to T.
8. Techs.
Though never a big fan of techs, surely tanks should not be available at the beginning. Moreover, if tanks are in the game, bombers should be too.
Regarding tanks: they actually did breakthrough when used in numbers, effectively they did have “blitzing” ability. They sometimes ended up deep into enemy tt, but without infantry support were sitting ducks. If we assume that they have the same normal movement as other land units (1, or unlimited travel by rail in NCM), allow tanks to “breakthrough”, i.e. if an attack completely eliminates the enemy, surviving attacking tanks can move 1 further land tt (probably only into undefended areas). This actually reflects my preference for BT over BK in WWII A&A, but seems even more appropriate here. Presumably tanks will be 3-1 in combat.
9. Cavalry
I get the point about cavalry seeming to be redundant in the war. But why not let the game reflect this organically?
Cavalry cost more than infantry.
Have the breakthrough ability described above for tanks.
Whereas infantry will presumably be 1-2, cavalry is the reverse (or even 1-1?).
The effect should be that, on the western front, cavalry does indeed become redundant due to the static warfare; their extra movement is useless, they are less effective in defence, take up more transport room than infantry, and are more expensive (horse fodder). But, on the other fronts, cavalry movement can still be an asset, particularly to nations not yet equipped with armour.
Mmmm, already thinking about pressing RISK cavalry units into service…
10. Control markers
The usual roundels? Problem is, all the Allied powers used the same 3 ring roundels, with different colours.
A radical suggestion: there is only one Allied control marker design! The Allies are the good guys, they don’t conquer tt, they liberate it. Therefore, when the Allies capture a CP occupied area, they merely remove the CP control marker. If it started as a neutral, they place a joint Allied marker to show that the liberated tt is now free, but friendly to Allied units. They cannot gain IPCs from the tt, but they can recruit infantry there if there is a depot. Occupied CP tt is treated in the same way, except for the recruitment, which must be of an “oppressed minority” nationality.
The idea here is to balance the industrial inferiority of the CPs.
The CPs each have their own control markers; they can annex and exploit occupied tt in a way the Allies cannot.
As a side issue, does each player still play a turn one after the other, with the possibility of the Allies having 5 turns versus CPs 3?
My preference for WWII A&A is four player, with USSR & Japan as separate powers, taking separate turns from the Western Allies and the Euro Axis. However, with no Japan/Pacific, ILs “All Axis/CP plays; then all Allies play” seems to make a lot of sense here.
Interested to see how the Russian revolution is handled: do the CP get control of the Bolshevik forces?
