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 tech
Of 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.
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.
I agree but there’s no point in speculating about stuff we would like to see and suggest stuff we know won’t be in the game only to be “disappointed” when the game is released
Perhaps just make a separate thread for house rules/wish-listing for 1914 to separate it from discussion of the official information, so there is no confusion?
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.
I agree but there’s no point in speculating about stuff we would like to see and suggest stuff we know won’t be in the game only to be “disappointed” when the game is released
That’s inevitable IMO. My main wish is that this game doesn’t need 2 Alpha’s like the last one did.
@The-Janus said in Playable Nations in 1914:
defensive
Actually The King of Greece was married to the Kaiser’s sister and was more inclined to support the central powers. It was only due to a allied supported civil war that pushed Greece over to the Allies.
