Great, sounds good to me.
Germany!
-
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.
-
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 was thinking the same thing with inf and art. With only 1 round of combat this will help ensure a little more action.
-
…and because they hit on 2 and 3, its less dice rolling
-
…and because they hit on 2 and 3, its less dice rolling
You mean 'cause there will be less around each successive battle? Took me a while to get what you meant there. :-)
-
…and because they hit on 2 and 3, its less dice rolling
You mean 'cause there will be less around each successive battle? Took me a while to get what you meant there. :-)
Correct, you know the big battle in Moscow, when Germany attack with 100 inf that need a roll of 1 to kill. This just goes on and on for ever. But when most of your units kill on 3 or less, I figure half the units got killed in the first, and only round, so less dicerolling
-
Belgium’s frontier was more heavily fortified than that of France. It was more to do with outflanking the French army and sweeping round to attack it from the west.
-
Again, how do you know you had them first?
Because they were posted on this site a long time ago and Larry often listens to ideas from people who post here and on his site. Pictures of the original game were posted on his site ( the map has dramatically changed since 2005-6)
-
@Imperious:
I just don’t want somebody saying i took these ideas, when i had them first. I care about that.
The Crux of the problem here?
Always trying to control other people.
I suppose it was your idea for a WWI A&A game too? Wow. lol.
Did you also invent the Zepplin?
-
Belgium’s frontier was more heavily fortified than that of France. It was more to do with outflanking the French army and sweeping round to attack it from the west.
But didn’t they want to outflank them because attacking the French head on through their forts would of been two slow and costly and they needed to defeat the French quickly? I could be wrong of course, but just watched a documentary on WWI yesterday that indicated that Schlieffen’s solution to France’s fortifications was to go around them.
Also Larry comments on invading Holland in the game. I’m all for having the option to invade Holland, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, ect. when Germany didn’t in the war, but shouldn’t there be some reasons not too? I mean why not invade Holland? It feels just like a quick cash grab for the German’s every game.
Suggested Topics
