Now don’t get me wrong, I know these games can’t be 100% historically accurate all the time, but other Axis&Allies games have gotten much closer then this one and it seems like they didn’t really even try.
WW2 Axis & Allies games have been more historically accurate? Most of the time, Japan’s already allowed to be at war with the Soviet Union, and usually goes through China in order to get to Moscow! The East Indies and Borneo are worth more than India (!), and Germany’s economy is on more-or-less equal footing with the United States, among other things.
Some historical accuracy must always be sacrificed for gameplay; the objective is not to preserve our history, but to present an entertaining board game.
I think I’ll make a few changes of my own to the American rules:
1.United States cannot move from USA and SZ1 until at war, and income is halved.
2.United States cannot go to war until either Central Powers attack American fleet, declare unrestricted submarine warfare, or Russian Revolution happens.
3.If United States is not at war by the time turn 4 rolls around, cannot build tanks until actually at war.
These should go well with my Rail Lines and Gas Attack house rules.
WW2 Axis & Allies games have been more historically accurate? Most of the time, Japan’s already allowed to be at war with the Soviet Union, and usually goes through China in order to get to Moscow! The East Indies and Borneo are worth more than India (!), and Germany’s economy is on more-or-less equal footing with the United States, among other things.
Yeah, thats my point, none of that is 100% historically accurate but it fits in a WW2 setting and makes sense in terms of game play. Also, in just about each and every one of your examples, it shows an instance where players are allowed to take a historical setting and go eight ways bananas with it, which in my opinion is a good thing with a game. That said none of it is too outside the realm of what could have possibly happened. But explain to me the logic that states the US can have forces in France, or possibly defending Paris, on the turn BEFORE they are able to declare war without being provoked? That’s not just historically inaccurate, that absolutely absurd. This is a case where the argument “sacrificed for games mechanics” simply dose not work as an excuse.
Some historical accuracy must always be sacrificed for gameplay; the objective is not to preserve our history, but to present an entertaining board game.
Why is it that am I reminded of the theist cop-out argument “God moves in mysterious ways” whenever I see statements like this. I hope the game is fun, but why should we sacrifice a possible learning tool in the name of having fun, can’t it do both? If the first decade of the 21st century has shown me anything it’s the games have the potential to do way more then merely be fun .I think hoping for a game like this to simply be entertaining is limiting its potential somewhat, especially given what a critical period in human history this game is purporting to be about. A game like this could be useful in generating interest in World War 1 that the newer generations decidedly lack. This game had the chance to be fun and entertaining while helping start a conversation on an often overlooked period in warfare, instead, we get a game that’s way wide of the mark historically but is maybe fun to play.
If Mr. Harris wanted to make a game with the only goal being that it’s entertaining, then why not just ditch all this historical time period malarkey and just make a game with, idunno, goblins and barbarians, or spacemen and aliens or something?
While I agree with much of what you say, I think you’re being a little harsh.
This version has a new combat system and the contested areas idea will make us think about the game in a completely different way. I think it could still turn out to be a reasonably accurate depiction of the warfare of the time.
Of course I’ll be houseruling to deal with the problems you list; certainly a map with East Prussia in Germany, strategic rail movement, morale levels rather than capture the capital, variable US entry based on European player actions; but I believe at the heart of it there is still a good game system that can have the inaccuaracies ironed out and still be balanced and enjoyable.
The house rule: US can’t move until its at war.
Short, sweet, simple. We should see if Larry would endorse this, or if he intended it to be this way bust some kind of oversight on his part left it out of the rulebook. Another problem is that if the US sits still for 4 turns and adds 80 IPCs of units to it’s army.
Perhaps instead of collecting IPCs as normal the US should collect 4 National Control Markers each turn (each representing 5 IPCs) that can be loaded into transports and sent to the allies.
Sounds like you may be jumping off the band wagon a bit early (too bad). Things like the US being in Europe before a DOW sounds kinda fishy to me. I was one of the first to point that out by the info we were given, but at this point I don’t think it is conclusive (needs clarification, or addressed in a FAQ). I also think that there is a bit more to the Russian Rev rules (same as above to be clarified), because of the new contested territories mechanic. When the Revolution is activated I wouldn’t be surprised to see territories outside of orig Russian lands revert back to previous owner, or be given to the friend/foe who has units in them once Russian units are removed from them (or be up for grabs if left empty). I think there’s more to come on both of these issues (and may even come in the form of rules changes later TBD).
As far as Russian unit placement goes, you have a good point, the game very well could have allowed for Russians units to mobilize in both Petro, and Moscow (UK can mobilize in two places). I’m not sure of where the bulk of the Russian industry was at the time, but I’m sure the region around Moscow was an industrial hub. Much of Pertograd was abandoned at the time of the Revolution as the Germans advanced. I know that Petrograd was the capital when the war started, but preparations were made in 1917 for the government to move (capital), and was moved to Moscow a few months after Lenin seized power in the early part of 1918. The Revolution didn’t happen over night, it lasted for years. I think the “option” of the Russian Revolution in the game accounts for the period of about 1 year, and if Petro was seized (as it can be in the game), then Moscow would have become the capital, and continued to be one of Russia’s centers of industry.
Yes Russia could have been handled differently, but keep in mind that it is an optional rule (that I think most will use). This game is introducing some new mechanics, and I think it is also more of a beginner, or mid level game so simplicity was an issue IMO (hence why the R Rev is an option). As far as The Great War Era, I think this game will help get the focus of many people (young and old) to this nearly forgotten time. They will be googling, and reading for some time (I know I have). Larry’s game designer notes that will be on the first page of the rule book alone gives you some great insight IMO.
The house rule: US can’t move until its at war.
Short, sweet, simple. We should see if Larry would endorse this, or if he intended it to be this way bust some kind of oversight on his part left it out of the rulebook. Another problem is that if the US sits still for 4 turns and adds 80 IPCs of units to it’s army.
Perhaps instead of collecting IPCs as normal the US should collect 4 National Control Markers each turn (each representing 5 IPCs) that can be loaded into transports and sent to the allies.
That would definitely change the game balance. You have to think about playability vs. historical accuracy. Did the Germans blow up ALL of the British boats in 1914? But you have to do that in order to give the Central Powers a fighting chance.
Did the Germans blow up ALL of the British boats in 1914? But you have to do that in order to give the Central Powers a fighting chance.
I’m beginning to wonder; it only seems to delay the British funneling units into France by one turn. The Allies simply build another fleet in SZ8 and calmly go about bridging them over to Picardy. Would Germany be better off keeping it’s subs to hunt down shipping on the open seas?
Unless Germany commits to a huge naval build (which the Allies will be able to at least equal) they have no chance of winning the war at sea,; there needs to be a much bigger incentive for Germany’s U-boats to survive than the rather putrid USW rule.
Did the Germans blow up ALL of the British boats in 1914? But you have to do that in order to give the Central Powers a fighting chance.
I’m beginning to wonder; it only seems to delay the British funneling units into France by one turn. The Allies simply build another fleet in SZ8 and calmly go about bridging them over to Picardy. Would Germany be better off keeping it’s subs to hunt down shipping on the open seas?
Unless Germany commits to a huge naval build (which the Allies will be able to at least equal) they have no chance of winning the war at sea,; there needs to be a much bigger incentive for Germany’s U-boats to survive than the rather putrid USW rule.
I liked your IPC bombardment and convoy raider ideas.
Well there seems little reason to not got for unrestricted sub warfare right off the bat, which is something they probably should have started off doing to be honest. Send the fleet in to take out the British home fleet, take the surface ships as casualties, and then send the subs forth to raid and pillage. Or hit the Americans or turn 2 or three as they build up transports.
Exactly how did the convoy rules work in Axis Allies Europe?
Weren’t there convoy boxes all over the North Atlantic?
Couldn’t we apply them here?
Exactly how did the convoy rules work in Axis Allies Europe?
Weren’t there convoy boxes all over the North Atlantic?
Couldn’t we apply them here?
There were “Convoy territories” for lack of a better term that could be denied by German Subs that went through them.
