Thank you so much!
Germany!
-
Funny how these rules are so much like my game. I am posting this only for prosperity so nobody can say who had the idea first.
Sea Mines: Defend at 1 versus all ships in space, Cost 9
Only one of these units can be built in any originally controlled friendly coastal sea zone that has a friendly naval vessel in it at the beginning of the purchase phase (not in port or contested). To place the mine, any non-transport ship must remain in the area for one turn.
When entered during combat or non-combat movement, the enemy temporarily halts movement and must roll for mines. For each ship a D6 is rolled; on a roll of a 1 the ship is hit and or sunk (Dreadnoughts are marked with a damage marker). Surviving ships may continue their movement. Ships which are stationary in a mined area must only roll for mine damage if it is triggered again by moving any ships into the zone. In this case, it will attack all ship again.
Mines are removed by sweeping. Destroyers that end their combat move in a mined area may, after mine casualties are resolved, attempt to sweep the mines. A sweep is successful one a roll of 12 with two D6 and +1 for each additional destroyer and +1 for each consecutive turn of sweeping. However, these must be from the same nationality unless Offensive Coordination is in play. Only one roll may be performed per turn regardless of the Nations present.
Destroyers that end their move in a combat situation with a sea mine must decide if they will sweep or participate in combat. It is possible to have some fight and others sweep, but only those that choose to sweep may make an attempt to clear the mines, and then only after combat is resolved. Sweeping destroyers are still considered to be in combat and can be taken as casualties. When the combat is over those destroyers that were chosen to sweep may then attempt to do so provided that their fleet drove the enemy off. If the fleet is forced to withdraw or it contests the area, then no attempt may be made. -
So one artillery can only boost one matching infantry, but one single aircraft can boost hundred artillery ?
Again. Another idea which is in my game.
Aerial superiority:
The player who has air superiority can boost his artillery, rail guns, and forts with a combat modifier of +1 for the first round of combat. All planes including Zeppelins fighters alone in the air round by round until one side retreats or is destroyed. Aerial superiority is obtained by clearing the sky of enemy planes after a number of combat rounds. Even if the attacker or defender has just one plane remaining, all artillery, forts and railguns benefit +1 for the first combat round. Aerial superiority combat is only done for land combat. In naval combat, warships and air units are fighting together. -
Looks like I did count he right number of German stacks. So all I’ve had to change on my map facsimile is a couple of names:
Hesse-Hanover (either would be valid)
Swabia-Alsace
Burgundy-Lorraine
Larry has gone for “Holland” over the Netherlands; reluctantly, I’ll have to change that too.
Fighters move at 2 - excellent. Leaves room for the lightly armed but longer ranged reconnaissance plane in my HRs.
P.S. Reading through the last report, there is no mention of Germany having a border with Livonia. Surely “Poland” hasn’t been given access to the sea - in 1914?
Added a couple of the Submarine interdiction zones, but where is the 3rd?
-
P.S. Reading through the last report, there is no mention of Germany having a border with Livonia. Surely “Poland” hasn’t been given access to the sea - in 1914?
I figure we have to wait 2 more months to tell
-
It only takes one aircraft to radio in the enemy positions.
It takes a lot of artillery to smash holes in enemy defences. Actually it might make more sense that an attacking artillery reduces each defending infantry to 2; defending artillery reduces attacking infantry to 1.
Since the rule on naval bases precludes (I assume) there being more than one NB on any SZ, a provisional placement of NBs on the attached map.
Its possible that Kiel could serve both SZs, which would make an NB in Berlin or Prussia possible.
Left out Canada as L didn’t mention the attack on that SZ facing mines.
Placed Russia’s Black Sea fleet at Rostov, since the western Black Sea SZ evidently “belongs” to Turkey.
That stuff about fleets “leaving port” must mean leaving the protection of its mine field zone.
Also, less likely to be in the game, are 5 UK SZs I’ve put in the SW:
Alexandria, Suez, Aden, Mombassa & Bombay.
If they are on there, I just hope Britain can’t build BBs in any of them.
So one artillery can only boost one matching infantry, but one single aircraft can boost hundred artillery ?
-
Hey IL does Larry have your game that you know of? Are you saying what I think you are saying? If so I would be pretty pissed if I were you.
-
A lot of those ideas have been knocking about for ages.
Although, I must say, if I owned the copyright to Diplomacy I’d be having a damned good look at that map…
However the the following rules show that LH & co. have been doing their own research and come to some very intelligent conclusions:
tanks defend at 1
fighters move 2
-
Diplomacy and A&A are both produced by WOTC.
-
Plenty of things are developed independently. It’s not always important what came first. It’s a WWI game, of course there will be similarities with other WWI games.
-
Hey IL does Larry have your game that you know of? Are you saying what I think you are saying? If so I would be pretty pissed if I were you.
I am only protecting the fact that or when somebody says in our game: “did you get this idea from Larry?” i want to be sure who had this idea first so its not me looking like I just got this from Larry. Our game is original.
-
You said you have been playtesting this game for 5 years on another post and I have heard other members talk about playing your game. I didn’t know to what extent your game was already out there IL. That is why I asked. I personally plan on buying your game and this one so no big deal.
-
Ok thanks. But when somebody does say it i can back up my claims. And they will.
-
Again, who knows who had the idea first. No one is doubting that yours was developed independently, but to get into a stink about who had it first is childish at best. For all we know Larry could have had a lot of this on the back burner for years.
-
Oh dear god. It’s not a stink. It is a record for posterity because somebody will mention it in the future. I’ve been around too long.
-
All I’m saying is that it’s one thing to say you thought of it independently, it’s another to say who got it first and to care about who did.
-
It takes a lot of artillery to smash holes in enemy defences. Actually it might make more sense that an attacking artillery reduces each defending infantry to 2; defending artillery reduces attacking infantry to 1.
Nahh, I dont think artillery would reduce the opposing forces combat value. The defending infantry are still protected by minefields and dug-in trenches, and when the barrage is finished, they jump out and start the gatling gun. Thats why the attacker invented the tanks. Actually I think tanks should boost one matching infantry in attack. But for playability and simple battle rules, I figure Larry do it the right way
-
I just don’t want somebody saying i took these ideas, when i had them first. I care about that.
-
Love the mine rules and the unrestricted submarine warfare. Great new stuff Larry! Overall seems cool. One thing I wish would have been represented in the game is why the Germans attacked through Belgium in the first place! The French had a very well fortified frontier with Germany. It would of been great to introduce forts in this game either on the map or as a piece. Probably something ripe for house rules. Also has anyone felt surprised that the attacking infantry/artillery have a higher attack value then their A&A WWII counterparts? Is that to help make up for them only being able to attack one round?
-
I like the rules so far too. I wish there was heavy artillery and Zeppelins. I wish you could build railroads and fortifications unfortunately that doesn’t appear to be a part of this game. I know this was another thread but I can totally see a second and even possibly third edition on this baby.
-
@Imperious:
I just don’t want somebody saying i took these ideas, when i had them first. I care about that.
Again, how do you know you had them first? Plenty of big ideas are developed independently. Think of Newton and Leibniz. What good will it do to say “I had these ideas before Larry,” when all you really know is that you developed the ideas separately. Larry quite likely could have had these ideas or similar ones on the back burner for years, decades even.
No one is saying that you stole the idea, but it’s too much to act like you definitely had the ideas before Larry just because we are seeing him publish them now. We know he’s had a rough cut of a WWI game since at least 2004.
All you got to say is that you developed the idea on you own. It’s too much to claim you had the ideas fist when you really can’t back that up.
Suggested Topics
