Good. Please do. There are always people with time to listen and share thoughts.
Gold mine for new pieces.
-
What stops fighters just killing everything if they can’t be shot at by ground troops?
The Red Baron was shot down by infantry machine-gun fire.
My example was going to be:
A player wants to soften up an enemy held tt. Its defended by 6 inf and 2 fighters. He attacks with a squadron of 5 fighters; in the dogfight he KOs the 2 planes for 1 loss.
Working on the assumption that inf can fire at planes, could the 4 surviving fighters go strait home without undergoing a round of combat versus the inf, (where they’d risk losing expensive fighters for no significant gain?)Shouldn’t they be allowed to go home (with spotting data) immediately the aerial combat ends?
Or, if the inf cannot fire upon them, are they forced to go home rather than massacring the inf?
I suggested Flying boats as an Allied alternative to Zeppelins, used principally in an anti-sub role.
-
What stops fighters just killing everything if they can’t be shot at by ground troops?
Either side may retreat after any combat round, so that would never happen. ( at least more than one round). Oh but we allow fighters to respond to defend adjacent areas, so support is possible.
The Red Baron was shot down by infantry machine-gun fire.
Shooting planes from land was not the norm. Flak artillery was just being developed.
My example was going to be:
A player wants to soften up an enemy held tt. Its defended by 6 inf and 2 fighters. He attacks with a squadron of 5 fighters; in the dogfight he KOs the 2 planes for 1 loss.
Working on the assumption that inf can fire at planes, could the 4 surviving fighters go strait home without undergoing a round of combat versus the inf, (where they’d risk losing expensive fighters for no significant gain?)land units cant fire at air targets. All planes fight each other every round till only one side remains. Surviving fighters can attack infantry, if loses go over the total infantry, those hits are ignored and combat over.
Shouldn’t they be allowed to go home (with spotting data) immediately the aerial combat ends?
The following is possible:
Defender can scramble fighters in adjacent areas
Either side may retreat
If both do not retreat they fight each round and plane loses occur
If one side is cleared from the sky, plane hits can go against land units
At any point, whichever side has more planes than the other, in that round artillery and railway artillery get aerial spotting +1
Planes can retreat separately letting land units to fightOr, if the inf cannot fire upon them, are they forced to go home rather than massacring the inf?
In your example, i assume you mean just planes vs. land units?
The battle is over in any event when one side has killed the other land units or naval units. Remaining planes don’t force combat.I suggested Flying boats as an Allied alternative to Zeppelins, used principally in an anti-sub role.
From advanced rules:
Seaplane Carriers:
Any one Cruiser can be converted into an Aircraft Carrier at the end of your turn. To do this, remove the ship from the board during the purchase phase and then place the carrier in your pool of purchased items. It will be placed along with the other units during the placement phase.
The Carrier has no attack value and a defense of 1. It moves 4 and can carry one fighter, which can be launched on raids, or to intercept other aircraft. If the carrier is attacked the aircraft can be used for defense. However, it may not offensively attack ships unless the English have metal aircraft technology. In addition, the fighter can function as a sub hunter if that technology level is obtained. Furthermore, any fleet with a carrier gets a +1 to any interception roll. The Carrier takes one hit to sink and if it’s sunk another Cruiser can be allocated as the new Seaplane Carrier at no additional cost at the beginning of the next purchase phase. Only Great Britain has Seaplane Carriers. -
ok I’ll bite, you guys are over complacting the crap out of this game. Larry said it will be as complex of a game as Spring '42 and the stuff I’m reading here it sounds like you guys want it way more complacted then G40
-
ok I’ll bite, you guys are over complacting the crap out of this game. Larry said it will be as complex of a game as Spring '42 and the stuff I’m reading here it sounds like you guys want it way more complacted then G40
this
-
I want the most complicated WWI board game of all time.
-
-
The reason I think the politics is essential is this:
When the Germans surrendered, they (and their Austrian allies) not only had not been invaded, but they actually held about twice as much territory as they started with in 1914.
Allied victory conditions defaulting to “capture two enemy capitals” will not do; realistically it is not plausible given the nature of the warfare. Therefore, there has to be a system whereby countries are liable to break down into disorder under certain conditions. Economic blockades and revolutionary violence are essential to the story. Without them its really just a glorified RISK, and we don’t want that, now do we boys?
-
@Imperious:
Tanks: Attack at 3, Defend at 3, Move 1, Cost 6
   Only Britain, France, Italy, Germany and the United States may have tanks. Each tank negates the effects of two entrenched infantry. For example, If you�re attacking with 3 tanks then up to 6 defending entrenched infantry no longer fire preemptively (ignore step 4: defending infantry fire in step 5). In combat, rolling a 6 cause�s one tank to suffer a mechanical breakdown and the unit must retreat from combat. Entrenched infantry are still effected that combat round.What is the reasoning behind the nations allowed? Only France, UK, and Germany had tanks. France and UK built over 2000 each, let’s round down to 4000 (but I think it was closer to 5). As I said at the beginning of this thread, Germany built 20. That’s 0.5% of the allied total. Not really worth mentioning, in terms of quantity.
Also, the German tank was considered an unsuccessful design and did not even appear until the 2nd quarter of 1918, which from an A&A game perspective is the second last turn at best. So it would be more appropriate historically to limit them to France and UK only…
However, that is not what the game is about. Existing A&A games allow completely ahistorical builds that are commonly used by players. Japanese and Italian mech inf jump to mind right away.
It also more then reasonable to assume that other powers had tank designs in the works (Russian Tsar tank, for example) that may well have appeared if production priorities were different. I’m sure several people at the time were more concerned with keeping higher artillery production a priority. I don’t think the capability to manufacture a tank was a problem for any of the powers.
I think we should take precedent from previous A&A titles and keep it simple. If you want a tank, build a tank. :)
-
What is the reasoning behind the nations allowed?
Regardless of how many of X were built, it was only a military priority that decided how many tanks Germany would make. They also took a number of allied tanks. Look at how many planes USA made in WW2. If you want to apply some ratio argument China and Italy would have no air forces. USA built like 130,000 planes so by that argument get rid of the flying tigers. :-(
-
Regardless of how many of X were built, it was only a military priority that decided how many tanks Germany would make
But that’s what I’m saying. :-) It was not a priority for the Centrals/Triple Alliance. I think it’s fair to say if any nation made them a priority they could have pulled off producing them. So my point still stands, if you want a tank, build a tank.
As a side note, it’s true that Germany captured a small amount of allied tanks (Germany had about 50 tanks, including their own throughout the war and probably much less than that number at any given time), but those tanks were deployed in one’s and two’s where ever they were captured and were not often around long. There was never a mass formation.
For another piece option, Germany did develop anti-tank weapons. Maybe that would be a more interesting piece for the Centrals instead.
-
The threshold should be if they made them they could be allowed to make any number of them in the game. Because they made so few should not preclude this.
-
Tanks should be a tech.
Whoever develops the tech can build tanks. Thereafter, they can pass the tech on to their allies. It should then become possible for the enemy to produce the tech, they simply copy the design from a captured model.
So a delay of say 2 rounds before Allies can build, 2 more before Enemies can produce their own (unless they develop it by themselves before this).
All major powers (other than Turkey) had the industrial base necessary to produce any of the techs pertinent to the war. The numbers produced should be entirely up to the player.
-
I think alot of the suggestions on this site make alot of sense but I haven’t read a single one I think will be the game. The game is suppose to be as complacated as '42 and I don’t see '42 as complacated
-
I can tell you that Russia will go into revolution on the specific fixed turn, unless they are defeated in the normal fashion.
America enters on a specific fixed turn unless something like Paris or London falls early.
-
I’m thinking russia is thrown into revolution after lossing a set amount of territories of loss of a set amount of income.
-
I’m thinking russia is thrown into revolution after lossing a set amount of territories of loss of a set amount of income.
That’s a tad predictable. It would be a little more interesting to have a chit draw starting on turn X. Draw a revolution chit and it happens.
-
I’m just thinking something simple and it’s not that far off from lossing one’s capital only this way it’s lossing poland and the ukraine
-
Its the people who revolt. I’m not sure the people were that bothered about losing this or that outlying tt.
They were bothered about:
Not having enough to eat
Their menfolk being killed in an apparently useless war
Their cities being bombed
-
and the loss of thousands and thousands of the nations sons for nothing but lossing the war
-
Just a thought coming from one of the games I linked;
Do we need models for transport ships?
Wouldn’t it be better to have flat card transports the cargo can be physically placed on when at sea?
Or even no pieces at all: cargo is simply placed in the sea zone or moves across, with enemy subs able to intercept. You just pay a fee whenever a piece is “sunk”.
This might free up transport models for use as minelayers/sweepers
Suggested Topics
