@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.
Already Looking Forward to 1914 2nd Edition
-
Flash I am not sure the way the whole Axis and Allies concept is enough for you. I don’t believe Larry is ever going to build a game with the amount of detail and ruleset you are looking for. He has to keep it to a broad audience for it to sell. The game probably needs to be played in a 3 to 5 hour window. It seems to me you are looking for something on a different level than what you will ever get out of any of these games. Good luck on finding a game to your liking I don’t think one of these is going to be it.
-
Don’t quite know where you’re coming from - I’ve just rejected the idea of adding NAs.
My reasoning may be complicated, but in essence I want the game to be simple, but realistic. I have no interest in moving into “hex and counter” war games.
If I reject “Capture the Capitals” as victory conditions it is because it is unhistorical, and has often resulted in games which are too predictable - everything revolving around Moscow. The search for an alternative may go around the houses, but is intended to reach a solution that is simple to implement.
Just because I suggest “we could do this”, and “what if we did that” doesn’t mean I want everything crammed into the game; essentially I’m throwing ideas around that may make the game better. For example, for years I’ve argued for there to be only one movement phase, partly to simplify and speed things up. The argument for it may be long and complex, but it seems that this has born fruit and the new game will be speedier and better for it.
-
I just read your posts and you seem to always be complaining or lamenting that there is not enough historical detail or you don’t like the rules for some reason. That is why I am making the assumption you are not happy with these games. I guess I stand corrected.
-
I suppose there are two opposite approaches. Some are only concerned with playability and balance, others (with an background in history) are more interested in the game reflecting reality, and consider it a challenge to match the two things together. I belong in the latter camp.
-
I do think Flash that this game could be done more to your theory as I believe this was a 50/50 struggle until the USA got in. It actually may have been more of 60/40 in the centrals favour. They were the ones gaining ground and over time probably would have won.
-
I suppose there are two opposite approaches. Some are only concerned with playability and balance, others (with an background in history) are more interested in the game reflecting reality, and consider it a challenge to match the two things together. I belong in the latter camp.
…and then we have the plastic piece junkies 8-)
-
…and then we have the plastic piece junkiesÂ
Ah yes. Just last weekend, I bought nine new plastic storage trays in anticipation of the new game.
-
What’s the ninth one for?
-
Spring 1942 and Pacific 40 came out in 2009, the second editions of both were released in 2012.
There will be a second Edition of AA1914 maybe in 2016… - seems to be enough time to create a perfect game!Some thoughts about A&A14:
It came to me that we did not bought the lovely pieces and the funny map to play a balanced or finished game. Its more like paying 80 EUR/$ to become a member of a playtesting/developing team for the “real” A&A1914 (second edition). We have spent our money to develop a cool WW1 game together with the designer himself by giving feedback on HGD(feedback LH is willing to hear actually). It will be very exciting to follow the progress, though I can understand the complaining about the broken “first edition”. -
I’m starting to get the impression most of this forum is just one long discussion between Imperious Leader and Flashman.
-
I am sorry if I give you the impression of being bossy or dogmatic Harry…
-
I’m starting to get the impression most of this forum is just one long discussion between Imperious Leader and Flashman.
Well, they do seem among the most prolific and willing to “mix it up,” that’s for sure, but hopefully without any serious rancor involved. Since the game is inherently trying to straddle the fence between balance and historicity without becoming TOO too complicated, the debates here are nearly inevitable. My teaching schedule doesn’t allow me to be able to keep up as regularly as I’d like with these threads, but I do enjoy going back and following them when I can. I personally tend to side with Flash but I realize that this is only a personal preference, mostly, and also a result of how I typically use these games: as a tool to teach kids history tempered with a little logic/ strategy. I’m thus much less concerned with such things as game balance, because I don’t really care who wins, but what everyone learns. I also like them to think about “what-ifs” though, which is why I do like Flash’s basic rule that those who realistically COULD have produced something can in the game. The rest of the argument strikes me as mostly a debate between those who love the game primarily as an HISTORICAL wargame and those who love it as a historical WARGAME. Since we all love the game for our own reasons, the answer is to make the game flexible enough to be “all things to all people” without it becoming too expensive for anybody… admittedly another difficult balance.
The passion in the arguments is really a reflection of how much we all love the game and want it to be EVEN better. With that in mind, I really hope the second edition fixes some of those bone-headed color choices: IL’s upcoming game looks like a big improvement to me in this respect as in many others. Piece-wise, it looks like it might be fairly close to ideal for me! Here’s hoping that IL’s game sells out in no time and that the HasBorg apparatus takes note of its success and uses some of its better ideas in their 2nd ed.!
-
Well Harry Larris is Flashman as well….so you might include a 3rd party proxy accounts in that.
-
Because you’ve never done that IL, especially not to vote your own posts up so you seem more popular, and especially not to post in support of your own arguments after your arguments are shot down by actual evidence. No, you would never have done that. :roll:
-
Because you’ve never done that IL, especially not to vote your own posts up so you seem more popular, and especially not to post in support of your own arguments after your arguments are shot down by actual evidence. No, you would never have done that. rolleyes
Another troll post! LOLOL I guess that’s what you do…follow me around and try to pick fights. I don’t argue with children, sorry.
-
You probably have spent too much time switching back and forth between “Imperious Leader” and “Lucas McCain” to notice that there is a “show new replies to your posts” button, which I check up on every now and then.
Your ignorance has reached new levels of hilarity. I posted in this thread 3 times before your first post in it and you accuse me of following you around!
Once again, the evidence and facts expose your incompetence.
You accuse someone of having a second account, but when someone points out you have done the same thing, all of a sudden it is trolling?
It’s only trolling when somebody else does it, right?
L O L
-
No, its a sign of high intelligence.
I’m starting to get the impression most of this forum is just one long discussion between Imperious Leader and Flashman.
I personally tend to side with Flash but I realize that this is only a personal preference.
-
Embarrassing!
On topic.
- The Russian capitol shoul NEVER EVER be Moscow again in a WWI game! EVER!
- USA should never EVER enter the war that early! FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAr too early!
- Italy should not be at war from the start but has to be influenced diplomatically towards war entry!
-
Embarrassing!
On topic.
- The Russian capitol shoul NEVER EVER be Moscow again in a WWI game! EVER!
- USA should never EVER enter the war that early! FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAr too early!
- Italy should not be at war from the start but has to be influenced diplomatically towards war entry!
Even if they can’t be swung to join the CP, a system I would like (keep in mind I am not often a K.I.S.S. person) is something along the lines of
1. Set a Provocation Value at which Italy will enter the war. (30, perhaps)
2. At the end of each round, roll 1 die and add it to the total for Italy’s Provocation Value
3. The Allied powers (individually or sharing), can spend 1 IPC to add 1 to the total each turn, up to a total of 3 added each turn.
4. The Central powers (individually or sharing), can spend 2 IPC to subtract 1 from the total each turn, up to a total of 3 subtracted each turn.If, at the end of any round, the total is 30 or greater, Italy enters the war on the Allied side.
Other possibilities include subtracting 6 from the total for each Allied capital, the first time the CP contests it, adding 6 in similar fashion for CP capitals, subtracting 10 when CP controls a capital, etc.
This could be adapted to allow a CP Italy, if desired (Join CP if total is -30 or less), although it would be really hard to accomplish since the CP would be fighting a roll.
-
I agree on a lot of you guys points but the issue of Belgium hasn’t been brought up. Belgium was never completely conquered in this conflict and should be given a larger standing army than they have. Also Bulgaria and Romania should be in that vain as well. I know it would be hard to carve Belgium up into 3 territories but I believe that is what should be done to mirror how it was real tough going for the Germans.
Suggested Topics
