In my opinion it is impossible for the CPs to win without the Russian Revolution rules (still super hard with them). Be sure however, to allow the Central Powers to decline the armistice if they wish, as detailed in the errata.
Opening the door for more World War One based games? Your opinion
-
Sometimes Flashman likes to read his own text (hear himself ‘talk’)
-
You know Flashman, though I do agree with you on the point, you don’t have to bring in railroads on every thread :-P
What’s this about Underground Railroads?
The US can move troops from washington to France WITHOUT SHIPS?!? :P
-
“Harriet Tubman: Unsung Hero of World War 1”
-
What about a set of older games? 7 Years War, Napoleonic War, US Civil War? Each board game would have a different market, with the 7 years war being the most ‘global’ of the 3. I cant imagine the US would want to see a Napoleanic War any more than Europe would be interested in a US Civil War. Maybe an game for the Asian market also but my knowledge of vast Asian conflicts is sadly lacking. Moving further into the past (which to a certain extent includes WWI) will only make the games more and more regional, so a set to cater for all markets.
All 3 conflicts listed here however, were fought over vast areas and could have good strategic possibilities, and all 3 could use ‘similar’ styles considering the the methods of warfare probably changed less between mid-1700’s and mid-1800s than they did between 1914 and 1945. -
I’m up for a good Civil War game.
Knowing the designers though, they’ll use a blue star, or grey roundels, instead of the confederate flag for the south.
Don’t want to “offend” anyone.
-
Age of Imperialism c1870
Yes, i know about the Eagle Games attempt.
-
Are you kidding me? I live in the US and would love a Napoleon war- You could actually have North America in it for a sideshow (war of 1812).
-
I think Napoleon would be cool AA style. Also would like to see 100 years war game. Have up to 6 players play. Each player has a noble or lord for France or England. Pieces would be awesome. Have your castle be your capital once it is lost that player is eliminated.
-
Capture the castle, eh?
Medieval history was nothing like that. An accurate game of the middle ages would be mainly about arranging marriages.
I have such a design, but strangely nobody seems interested in developing it.
-
Got to simplify it Flash. Whats funner wiping out you opponent and his castle or arranging a marriage? At least in a board game I would have to say taking someones castle.
-
Ah, but how did Sir Someone get that castle in the first place?
Because his Grandpappy married an heiress, that’s how. You cannot hold a castle without first having legal title to it.
Gaining more lands/titles/wealth/power was far more about who you married than slinging some big rocks at a castle wall.
Trust me, it would be terrific.
-
Capture the castle, eh?
Medieval history was nothing like that. An accurate game of the middle ages would be mainly about arranging marriages.
I have such a design, but strangely nobody seems interested in developing it.
Not to mention that, as most medieval strategy games seem to forget, THERE WERE NO STANDING ARMIES. Everyone just went home at the end of the campaign season, and harvested their crops. Get ready to remove all your units from the board at the end of each turn.
I actually have a game design for a medieval strategy game I made. It involves seasonal armies, noble lineages, supplies, and yes, arranged marriages. I’d like to compare notes Flashman. PM me if you’re interested.
-
You cannot hold a castle without first having legal title to it.
Uhmm…
I’m going to dispute this ludicrous claim.
Unless you agree, that ‘legal title’ is a synonym for ‘claimed by force’.
-
You cannot hold a castle without first having legal title to it.
Uhmm…
I’m going to dispute this ludicrous claim.
Unless you agree, that ‘legal title’ is a synonym for ‘claimed by force’.
Sure, to a certain extent. But it’s a lot easier to become the Queen of England by marrying the King of England than by invading it.
-
Medieval society had law and order just like today. You couldn’t just march into your neighbour’s estates and take his castle by force - you’d become an outlaw.
Examples:
The Hundred Years War (France vs England)
Dispute between the Capetians and Angevins over who had the best claim to the Crown of France.
Wars of the Roses (York vs Lancaster)
Dispute between two cadet branches of the Angevins over who had the best right to succeed the extinct senior branch on the throne of England.
Battle of Nibley Green (between a couple of minor nobles)
Dispute between the Talbots and Berkeleys over who had the right to succeed to the Lisle inheritance.
This continued up till the modern era, with the War of the Spanish succession and so forth. Before the French Revolution, this is what wars tended to be about. Whether its about claiming an entire kingdom, or just a few local manors, people fought over exactly the same thing on the scale of their social status.
Taking possession of important estates, therefore, was much more about physically eliminating rival bloodlines than besieging castles.
-
Not to mention that, as most medieval strategy games seem to forget, THERE WERE NO STANDING ARMIES. Everyone just went home at the end of the campaign season, and harvested their crops. Get ready to remove all your units from the board at the end of each turn.
Depends on what part of Europe you’re talking about :wink:.
I’m fine with capture the castle, I’d rather not discuss marriage with my buddies over a board game :-P
-
Believe me, you’d be fighting over the heiresses when you saw what huge tracts of land they have, as well as the odd castle, a ship or two and even a title if you’re especially fortunate.
Basically, heiresses become wards of Parliament, so giving them in marriage to your nobles is a privilege of political power, which is gained by land ownership, which is gained by marrying heiresses, on so on and so forth.
Ultimately, with the right marriages and by backing the winning side in battle you may just get your family of in-bred county gentry onto the throne itself.
-
It’s hard to tell if A&A WWI 1914 will open the door to more WWI-based games, but here’s another thought on the subject. With WWI about to be covered by the new game, and with WWII well covered by the previous ones, could this open the door to future games based on conflicts during the inter-war period? The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 would be one possibility. So would the Japanese incursions into China which began in 1931 with the annexation of Manchuria and culminated in the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937. There’s also the Russo-Japanese border conflicts of 1938 and 1939, thought these were fairly limited affairs. Closer to WWI, there’s the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922 and the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921, which could be rolled into a single game – perhaps even with the Turkish War of Independence of 1919-1923 tossed in at the margins. Personally, I don’t think it’s very likely that we’ll see any A&A games based on these wars: they were on a much smaller scale than WWI, and look at how many decades it took Larry to designing a game around that conflict. But it would be nice to have a chain of games spanning the period from 1914 to 1945. Playing them consecutively at a weekend gaming convention would be an interesting exercise.
-
@CWO:
It’s hard to tell if A&A WWI 1914 will open the door to more WWI-based games, but here’s another thought on the subject. With WWI about to be covered by the new game, and with WWII well covered by the previous ones, could this open the door to future games based on conflicts during the inter-war period? The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 would be one possibility. So would the Japanese incursions into China which began in 1931 with the annexation of Manchuria and culminated in the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937. There’s also the Russo-Japanese border conflicts of 1938 and 1939, thought these were fairly limited affairs. Closer to WWI, there’s the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922 and the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921, which could be rolled into a single game – perhaps even with the Turkish War of Independence of 1919-1923 tossed in at the margins. Personally, I don’t think it’s very likely that we’ll see any A&A games based on these wars: they were on a much smaller scale than WWI, and look at how many decades it took Larry to designing a game around that conflict. But it would be nice to have a chain of games spanning the period from 1914 to 1945. Playing them consecutively at a weekend gaming convention would be an interesting exercise.
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that Larry Harris will produce an “Axis & Allies” based game without the USA in it. He hasn’t yet, not even a small scale game like battle of the bulge or Guadalcanal. Which, on one hand, I can understand since the US is probably their biggest market for these games. How many people here would buy a “Spanish Civil War game”? Probably not many.
I was intrigued by the Singapore game on FMGs, but I haven’t jumped the gun because I’m not sure I can get anyone to play- I have a hard enough time to get people to play Axis & Allies WITH the US as it is.
-
Shogun is a considerable seller without the U.S. in it.
Suggested Topics
