Is Germany screwed?

[lozmoid]

I’m loving everything I’m hearing about this 1914 game and can’t wait to buy it. Got a feeling it will quickly climb to the top of my board gaming pile (well, maybe just underneath Global 1940…)

[GoSanchez6]

I got to agree with Flash’s comment about movement in these games. Too slow. I always fealt you should be able to build railroads for 2 ipcs per territory. Connect them to whatever route you want them to go. I am kind of shocked there are no fortifications in this game. When you think of WW1 what do you think of? Trenches right. Otherwise known as(OK everybody) FORTIFICATIONS. Larry went with naval bases and air bases in global 40 you figure naval bases,fortifications and railroads in this WW1 game. I am very surprised these were not incorporated into this game.

[Flashman]

Probably because they’d slow it down even more?

Combat is understandably weighted in favour of defence, at least until tanks arrive, so they must have decided that there was no need to add forts and entrenchments.

[Gargantua]

@GoSanchez6:

I got to agree with Flash’s comment about movement in these games. Too slow. I always fealt you should be able to build railroads for 2 ipcs per territory. Connect them to whatever route you want them to go. I am kind of shocked there are no fortifications in this game. When you think of WW1 what do you think of? Trenches right. Otherwise known as(OK everybody) FORTIFICATIONS. Larry went with naval bases and air bases in global 40 you figure naval bases,fortifications and railroads in this WW1 game. I am very surprised these were not incorporated into this game.

I’m with flashman on this…

You’re not going to see “Rifles” or “Machine Guns” added to this game.  It’s assumed they are part of the regular combat process.  Same with entrenchments of defense.

[GoSanchez6]

I am really surprised you 2 don’t agree with me on this one you both seem like you are typically craving more realism in these games. Surprised you don’t see it the same as I do on this one.

[Flashman]

There are Naval Bases, and nobody is a more committed advocate of railways in A&A than me.

However, I’ve been seduced by the game mechanics into thinking that maybe more is less and that we only need a few basic unit types. The extra power of defenders deals with trenches/fortifications/barbed wire, with tanks (if they function correctly) breaking the stalemate in favour of attacking.

If we add forts, then maybe we’d need heavy artillery to shell them; and so on and so forth.

I’d still like to see a few more aircraft types, mind.
Consider the present model as the early war reconnaissance type, fighting at 1-1. Successive types add greater firepower until you end up with a 4-4 fighter. Mainly this is restricted within air-to-air combat, so it doesn’t seriously imbalance the ground war. However surviving aircraft still get a single roll at their level vs ground. Don’t know yet if aircraft participate in naval battles.

Would like to find a source for WWI fighter models of the correct scale.

Also vaguely thinking about a light tank (I assume the game will feature the UK M series heavy tanks) alternative; cheaper to build but without the hit cancel ability. Attack! has some tanks that might just do for that.

[oztea]

I don’t think we need more than one aircraft type. However, I do think there should be a tech system in this game instead of just “turn 4 magic missiles”

Not exactly sure how a 1914 tech chart would work but.
1. Tanks - You may now build tanks
2. Advanced Aircraft - Your aircraft become 2/2/3
3. Chemical Warfare - Roll a die when attacking a territory, 1-3: remove that many enemy infantry; 4-6: No effect
4. Observation Balloons - In battles where no aircraft are present, one of your artillery counts as having air support.
5. Advanced Submarines - If you opt to submerge, all enemy ships may only fire at ‘1’ when trying to sink you.
6. Radio Communications - During combats where friendly forces are also in the contested zone, roll a die. That many friendly infantry may also participate in the attack

[Croesus]

Woah. Oz, those are good. But I play OOB. But those ARE good

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Big fan of the Advanced Subs. Germany having only 4 while the French navy is as big as it is is a little underwhelming.

[Old Dwarf]

@oztea:

I don’t think we need more than one aircraft type. However, I do think there should be a tech system in this game instead of just “turn 4 magic missiles”

Not exactly sure how a 1914 tech chart would work but.
1. Tanks - You may now build tanks
2. Advanced Aircraft - Your aircraft become 2/2/3
3. Chemical Warfare - Roll a die when attacking a territory, 1-3: remove that many enemy infantry; 4-6: No effect
4. Observation Balloons - In battles where no aircraft are present, one of your artillery counts as having air support.
5. Advanced Submarines - If you opt to submerge, all enemy ships may only fire at ‘1’ when trying to sink you.
6. Radio Communications - During combats where friendly forces are also in the contested zone, roll a die. That many friendly infantry may also participate in the attack

These are good.The Gas attacks are a tad draconion give the Game scale but I’m keeping these in mind as possible pimps after I see the actual rules.

I’m of mixed feelings on trenches & forts I like the idea but given the Game scale I’ll probably just consider them as built into the defensive .

[Flashman]

If anything, fighter aircraft had less range - they carried machine guns, which were a considerable weight gain for these models.

If we consider starting aircraft as reconaissance planes, they should be 1-1-4, with sucessive fighters 2, 3 & 4 but each having a range of only 2. Fighters were built to intercept and destroy spotter planes, they don’t need range.

Observation balloons were standard in 1914, hardly a tech.

[lozmoid]

I think wiping out Infantry divisions with poison gas might be just a little too strong? How about a successful gas attack renders an enemy Infantry unit(s) unable to move, attack or defend for a turn? (although they could still take hits in combat). That way, it’d be more like a temporary disrupt or something…

[DarthShizNit]

Just have a succesful gas attack reduce the defense of the defender (or x amount of their units)

[oztea]

I did just whip those together. Gas was probably too strong as is.

Ill start a separate tech thread soon.

[Gargantua]

What’s wrong with a little G A S ?

How is killing someone with GAS more distasteful, than killing someone with Bombs, Bayonets, or Bullets?

Hypocrites…

[Gargantua]

@Gargantua:

What’s wrong with a little G A S ?

How is killing someone with GAS more distasteful, than killing someone with Bombs, Bayonets, or Bullets?

Hypocrites…

Or should I say - Guns, Grenades, and General Motors.

[Flashman]

I’d still like to see a few more aircraft types, mind.
Consider the present model as the early war reconnaissance type, fighting at 1-1. Successive types add greater firepower until you end up with a 4-4 fighter. Mainly this is restricted within air-to-air combat, so it doesn’t seriously imbalance the ground war. However surviving aircraft still get a single roll at their level vs ground. Don’t know yet if aircraft participate in naval battles.

Another approach here is to allow aircraft to level up with experience; that is for each kill in air vs air they move up one level to a maximum of 4 in combat value, including strafing vs ground units.

To facilitate this, you’d need to paint a fuselage number from 1-4 on each aircraft, changing a plane for the next number up if it wins a dogfight.

This depends, though, on the exact mechanics for air supremacy combat, and the number of aircraft pieces supplied.

For example, if air combat is a simple case of each plane rolling a die and hitting on a 1, then leveled up planes are likely to shoot each other out of the sky on a regular basis. But perhaps the dogfights are based on the best roll of a round winning the combat, with mutual destruction not possible.

If we only get, say, 4 aircraft per power, then the system would be rather difficult.

So I might need a supply of suitable scale WWI planes; and national roundel decals for this conflict would be a nice touch.

[ossel]

@Flashman:

Another approach here is to allow aircraft to level up with experience; that is for each kill in air vs air they move up one level to a maximum of 4 in combat value, including strafing vs ground units.

To facilitate this, you’d need to paint a fuselage number from 1-4 on each aircraft, changing a plane for the next number up if it wins a dogfight.

This is a cool idea. I like the idea of units leveling up, and the implementation is not as hard as it might seem at first. I’ve got some rules in the same vein for officers that I use with Global 1940. I’ll probably post them on this forum and Larry Harris’ site.

[Razor]

@Gargantua:

What’s wrong with a little G A S ?

How is killing someone with GAS more distasteful, than killing someone with Bombs, Bayonets, or Bullets?

Hypocrites…

Because if the wind change direction, then you kill your own boys, and that are distasteful

[oztea]

Planes leveling up would get very, very complicated.
I want rules players can use with just what comes in the box.