@Krieghund Thanks. I don’t play a lot of 1914 so some of the mine rules are pretty wonky for me. The bit about mines halting movement in particular is pretty important.
Playable Nations in 1914
-
Turkey is not mothballed - it just has to obtain its mechanical units from its Allies. If Germany transports tanks to Baghdad Turkey is free to use them.
You can use the same reasoning and allow them to build normally, assume the planes and ships came from her allies. The CP have too many foes and making special rules to limit Ottomans makes them weaker.
Similarly, the USA will probably not build fighters at home (I don’t think they should have the range to fly over the Atlantic anyway), but acquire British and French models in Europe. Furthermore, if F/B/U all play at the same time, it matters little which country the unit belongs to.
Same thing here, whatever planes they build can be assumed to be from elsewhere, make no changes.
-
But… they… didn’t. have. any. industry.
One of the principle strategic goals of the CP must be to keep the supply lines open to Turkey. As long as they do this they can rail/ship/fly the units there, so it isn’t a big handicap.
If the Allies succeed in cutting the supply lines, then Turkey should be in trouble. Otherwise you’re suggesting they just teleport the units from Europe, and the game is just a big killing match with no strategy worth the name.
If the CP intends a major campaign in the middle east, its up to them to build up Turkish supplies while they still can. Is the “Sick Man” worth propping up?
The only thing America needs to build, then, are ships to transport their infantry over the sea. They generally used French and British tanks, machine guns, steel helmets and airplanes; the only snag with this is the limit on production in European factories. The main US contribution was precisely the thing the Allies were running out of - manpower.
-
But… they… didn’t. have. any. industry.
One of the principle strategic goals of the CP must be to keep the supply lines open to Turkey. As long as they do this they can rail/ship/fly the units there, so it isn’t a big handicap.
Thats fine, but they still build any units, assumed they were transported to Ottomans. Of course if they are totally isolated, that cant happen ( would never occur, unless they fell already)
If the Allies succeed in cutting the supply lines, then Turkey should be in trouble. Otherwise you’re suggesting they just teleport the units from Europe, and the game is just a big killing match with no strategy worth the name.
But taking Constantinople is the same as they are defeated, so you don’t need that.
The only thing America needs to build, then, are ships to transport their infantry over the sea. They generally used French and British tanks, machine guns, steel helmets and airplanes; the only snag with this is the limit on production in European factories. The main US contribution was precisely the thing the Allies were running out of - manpower.
But let them build all the units they want, you just assume they were built in France or whatever. People don’t want half the nations gimped over technicalities. This is a game , not flames of war. Planes could be shipped over by boat as well as tanks.
-
I don’t like assumptions - I want it to work convincingly. America is, of course, free to build anything it can since it has the industry to do so. I’m merely pointing out that if European factories have the capacity it makes sense for the units to be built closer to where they’ll be needed (and without the risk of being sunk in the Atlantic).
Or do we simply “assume” that America successfully ships the units over without the CP having the opportunity to intercept?
In order to supply Turkey by rail, the CP need to occupy a couple of Balkan neutrals. I would suggest that Bulgaria automatically joins the CP as soon as Serbia or Romania have been captured.
-
IL and Flashman, why not use the HBG rail and rail station piece for rail movement rules. I’ve used them in a few 1940 games, its more fun than having very abstract “strategic movement rules”. You could even have train pieces that actually transported units along the rails or between rail stations, plus railguns can only move on places with rail(no rail guns in the sahara). That would be so much fun! Plus it could help illustrate the construction of the Berlin-Baghdad railroad. If it had been finished, it could have turned the tide of the war. Image the German Army invading across the Sinai or into India! just an idea.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Air_Force
Regarding tanks for gimped nations like Ottomans, perhaps they might and anybody else get a roll for capture if they win the battle. It appears they took 8 British made tanks and used them in Palestine campaign. For planes they had developed the proper organization to accept transport of planes from their allies and reached the apex of some 90 planes by 1916. IN the naval section, they already did have most ship types, with Germany supplying them.
IN the game they should be allowed to buy any unit, Germany could have sold Pasha a few tanks and transported.
I guess a captured tank roll would be in order rolling a 6 gets the victor one of the defenders dead tanks.
than having very abstract “strategic movement rules”.
Flashman proposed that. MY game has it pretty easy and way easier than HBG:
Railroad transportation:
Rail movement is allowed from anywhere within contiguously controlled and connected land areas, limited as follows:- If you are not in a factory space, rail movement can be to any originally controlled factory (including allied factories) or an original starting home territory. No limit of moves of this type.
- If you are in a factory space, you can rail to either item #1, or any space you control. No limit of moves of this type.
- If you control both sides of the Suez or Dardanelles, you may pass thru these areas.
These moves are valid if:
- You can trace the movement through a continuous line of controlled territories.
- The movement does not cross any sea barriers that are not controlled (such as the English Channel, or a blocked Dardanelles strait).
- The movement is not into a contested area.
- The line is not traced through Russia (unless you are Russia).
- 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.
-
I’m not sure they will have a rule that Ottoman can’t build this or that. The Italian industary wasn’t up to pair but there was no special rules for them
-
Also, fighters could attack in 1914. They had mounted guns above the top wing or machine guns mounted in the back. Interrupter gear made the process easier. WE have them at 1-1-4-7 units
http://www.wwiaviation.com/british1914.html
http://www.wwiaviation.com/german1914.html
http://www.wwiaviation.com/french_2seaters1914.html
http://www.wwiaviation.com/italy1914.html
http://www.wwiaviation.com/russia1915.html -
Italy built pretty good aircraft and ships, and certainly had the capacity to build armoured cars, tanks and rail guns if they wanted. Not as many as B & F, but that’s down to capacity, not capability.
Turkey had none of these.
I have little doubt that LH will ignore this as has IL.
With respect, my rail rules are a lot simpler than ILs:
1. During non-combat movement, any land unit can move anywhere within connected friendly land tts.
2. That’s it.
The only exceptions would be certain areas without railways, but I’d like the rails printed on the map anyway so there’s no need for a rule.
I see no need for railway engines or stations, though I’d like armoured train pieces for both World Wars.
Perhaps railway building might feature; do you have a reliable map of Turkish railways in 1914?
Mmm, if Sinai is a separate tt from Western Egypt, there must be an awful lot of tts on ILs map.
On starting aircraft, my assumption is that all are the 2-seater reconnaissance types. They do have combat ability 1-1-1, but this represents small arms and bombs. They should also have longer ranges (4 spaces) than the purpose-built fighters (2 spaces).
Edit:
O.K. then, say we have these basic types as starting fighter units fighting at 1-1-1.That still leaves 2 upgrades:
Eindekker & Nieuport (2-2-2)
Albatross & Camel (3-3-3)
You still need the 2-seater recon planes with the longer range for observation. Since they need to have a 1-1-1 combat ability, what advantage would the basic fighter give?
UNLESS you upgrade all the fighters to give us:
Reconn (1-1-1-4)
Scout (2-2-2-2)
Airships (3-1-1-8)Techs
Eindekker/Nieuport (3-3-3-2)
Albatross/Camel (4-4-4-2)
Bombers (3-1-2-6)That might work, but it means we now need 5 aircraft sculpts for each side…
-
The rail movement rules I expect in the game is by far the simpliest. There are no rail movement or rail gun won’t be in the game.
-
Its by no means certain that Larry will have rail movement. I’ve been arguing for years that this is the single biggest fault with the A&A system.
Apart from a vague “it might happen one day” there’s been no positive response.
In my view, in a game set in this era above all, without railways the game is broken.
Unless the CP can shift their forces from west to east IN A SINGLE TURN they’re completely screwed.
In fact, if it wasn’t for their reliance on the railways enabling them to do precisely this, they would never have gone to war in the first place.
-
Updated my data with “Scout” planes.
Still not entirely convinced these were armed at the beginning of the war, also the German plane is a copy of a French model.
On the subject of capture, my thinking on techs is that enemy powers get to make their own version of a tech without having to develop one, as long as they’ve faced the original in combat.
So the sequence is:
round 1: Allied Power “A” develops a tech
round 2: A gets to build the new units, places them in factories at end of turn
round 3: A transfers tech to Ally “B”; A uses tech versus Enemy Power “C”
round 4: B can now build the tech; C can now develop its own version
round 5: C can now build the techOf course C may choose to develop the tech earlier at its own expense using the normal method.
-
Too complicated. This is Axis and Allies, not world in flames.
Planes just graduate from 1-1 to 2-2 and 3-3 over series of turns. ( interrupter gear, metal aircraft frames)
-
Updated my data with “Scout” planes.
Still not entirely convinced these were armed at the beginning of the war, also the German plane is a copy of a French model.
On the subject of capture, my thinking on techs is that enemy powers get to make their own version of a tech…
I stopped reading your post right there because I already know nothing like it will be involved in the the atleast in it’s OOB form. Larry said no techs
-
Your loss.
But really, tanks in 1914?
Surely they’ll only be available after a number of turns?
And if you’re only interested in OOB what are ye doing on here?
-
Your loss.
But really, tanks in 1914?
Surely they’ll only be available after a number of turns?
And if you’re only interested in OOB what are ye doing on here?
I’m not interested in only OOB rules. I’m not interested in writing any opitional rules for a game I know nothing about, never seen, not for sale yet, never seen the map, and know nothing about the OOB rules. I’m interested in learning a game before I “improve” the game.
-
I’m not interested in only OOB rules. I’m not interested in writing any opitional rules for a game I know nothing about, never seen, not for sale yet, never seen the map, and know nothing about the OOB rules. I’m interested in learning a game before I “improve” the game.
This.
All these posts about big things that look like house rules, yet we hardly know much about the official game itself. Not to mention that so many of these posts contradict what we actually know (like no tech… or complex rules while we’re already told that the game will be LESS complex than A&A 1942… etc…) If someone were to call all of this speculating… that wouldn’t really be true.I’m not saying we should not be talking about custom house rules and the like, but if this whole sub forum is for talking about what A&A 1914 might be like, why are we talking about things that most likely WILL NOT be in the game?
-
We’re also discussing the game IL is involved in, which might yet be subject to fine tuning.
The official game has been developed in secret, and will probably have serious flaws due to a small pool of playtesters.I will probably buy both (and any others of a similar stamp) and pimp them together. That, to me, is half the enjoyment of historical games - interpreting the history in your own way.
-
We’re also discussing the game IL is involved in, which might yet be subject to fine tuning.
The official game has been developed in secret, and will probably have serious flaws due to a small pool of playtesters.I will probably buy both (and any others of a similar stamp) and pimp them together. That, to me, is half the enjoyment of historical games - interpreting the history in your own way.
my bad I thought I was on the forum for Axis and Allies 1914
-
Until Larry escapes from the Wizard’s dungeon and gives us more info, there’s not a lot we can do but speculate on what we’d like to see.
Suggested Topics
