Sorry to hear that, I hope you do too. I really enjoy this game, even though it definitely has its flaws. It’s a completely different game from the WWII editions.
Gold mine for new pieces.
-
@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
-
that would kick ass
-
Suggestion for observation balloons (can be retro-fitted to any game from Napoleonic wars onward):
unit costs 2
gives observation/artillery bonus, that is it can “see” over the border into enemy tt
in combat vs plane balloon is always destroyed, BUT on a roll of 1 the gas explosion destroys the attacking plane
Would anyone risk an expensive fighter just to destroy balloons? Clearly the advantages of observing the enemy must be sufficient to be worth countering. Eventually, large dogfights between several planes represent exactly the same thing at a more advanced level.
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29354.0
I personally would like to talk and read about Axis and Allies 1914 but every conversation turns into a conversation about what’s going to be in the other WW1 game coming out. So would people if they don’t mind talk about the other game here and let everyone else that wants to talk about Axis and Allies 1914 do that in the Axis and Allies 1914 part of the forum.
-
Its only IL that can do that, as he’s the one who knows what the “other” game is called, and just how different its going to be.
-
there’s been alot of people talking rules or units that Larry has already said will not be in the game and IMO it’s a pointless conversation to talk about stuff we could add to the game before we get the game released and have read the rulebook. And it’s really annoying because that kind of stuff seems to over take every conversation about the game and again it’s stuff that’s flat not going to be there and we know that
-
To that extend, its completely pointless anyone saying anything whatsoever until the game has been released. Come back when it is, and you’ll find us more than willing to discuss the official rules. Until then we can only speculate and suggest, not just about your precious OOB, but about how the game might develop and expand. The Global experience ought to tell you that OOB rules are unlikely to be set in stone for long.
-
To that extend, its completely pointless anyone saying anything whatsoever until the game has been released. Come back when it is, and you’ll find us more than willing to discuss the official rules. Until then we can only speculate and suggest, not just about your precious OOB, but about how the game might develop and expand. The Global experience ought to tell you that OOB rules are unlikely to be set in stone for long.
Let me set something straight I hate OOB rules. I just don’t believe in house rules for a game I don’t know how to play and no one else does either.
Suggested Topics
