@DessertFox599 said in 1914 Tournament Rules Game Play:
i only play with those rules. They are great.
Nice mate.
What are you finding the CP need for a bid?
Are you playing with the time limit?
Worst part of the game so far
-
I’d like to get my money back for this broken PoS!!!
Harsh … Bid like everybody else.
I like the game. I would have liked to have seen rules for rail. Maybe some more optional rules for gas attacks and other political rules.
-
-
While I admit 1914 is one of the better A&A games I’ve played, I’m still rather disappointed over some of these omissions. Land movement is still too slow, the ground war feels too monotone until tanks get involved, and while the map plays well, it’s irritating to look at Bulgaria or Moscow and think, “That’s not right.” If we get a Second Edition, I think it would be extremely good if it included cavalry, battlecruisers/destroyers, and either rail lines or some other way to get units to the front faster.
And looking back I probably should have named this “Most depressing/annoying oversight” rather than “Worst part of the game”.
-
Land movement is still too slow, the ground war feels too monotone until tanks get involved
That’s actually a pretty good description of how WWI was actually like on the Western Front.
-
@CWO:
Land movement is still too slow, the ground war feels too monotone until tanks get involved
That’s actually a pretty good description of how WWI was actually like on the Western Front.
^this
This war was hallmarked by slow-moving fronts, and the tactics were pretty “monotone” as well…send massive numbers of infantry over the top into the teeth of machine guns and infantry. If you want a fast-moving war, I suggest looking elsewhere.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the war was uninteresting. I personally find it fascinating; the transformation of warfare from line maneuvering and firing to modern tank- and air-based tactics, the obsoletion of cavalry, and the desperate life-and-death struggle between great empires. But it was by no means fast-moving, and expecting the game to simulate it as such is not reasonable.
-
The monotony of the fronts, esp. Western, doesn’t bother me either in this game. I would like to have seen more development of a railroad/strategic movement capability for non-combat movment and forts (i.e. sieges that require a diversion away from the “attack 'o stacks” and control certain elements of attack, movement, etc.). Static front lines are just a characteristic of the time, but countries like Germany should have been able to benefit from a superior rail system (and interior comm lines). Other countries like Russia should not be rewarded for having a comparably inferior one. The Allies, of course, benefit from near total command of the oceans; they go where and when they want to.
But alas, this is where house rules come in, and I’ve seen some pretty creative ones so far. The PTR were a good start.
-
I’m not complaining about the slow pace of battles, I think 1914 got battles absolutely right. I’m annoyed over how slow it is to get units from Point A to Point B; it should not take Germany 3 turns to reach Alsace. Cavalry would help alleviate that a little, and I find it, yes, “monotone” that until T5 at least it’s just infantry, artillery, and the occasional plane slamming each other back and forth. It’s not like the use of cavalry at this time was entirely ahistorical, and the fact that you could have large cavalry armies at the start which slowly lessen as their obsolescence becomes apparent would follow what actually happened pretty well.
-
When people view this game, it should be through the prism of the original Axis and Allies. Remember that first version, with no destroyers, artillery, tac bombers, etc? This is the first iteration of WWI. I’m sure many of the things people feel are missing now will be included in future “revised” or "anniversary edition"s.
My only complaints about the board is how crowded it gets in Europe, even with only two powers in a contested territory, and the lack of pieces for OOB.
-
When people view this game, it should be through the prism of the original Axis and Allies. Remember that first version, with no destroyers, artillery, tac bombers, etc? This is the first iteration of WWI. I’m sure many of the things people feel are missing now will be included in future “revised” or "anniversary edition"s.
My only complaints about the board is how crowded it gets in Europe, even with only two powers in a contested territory, and the lack of pieces for OOB.
I agree with this completely. Remember for years people wanted artillery and destroyers and we got them. Space is an issue and I think the lack of pieces for OOB will well for me be resolved the min. a 2nd edition or revised edition or basically a second WW1 game is released. Just like Revised was skin and bones and Europe and Pacific came out and now we have more than enough pieces the same should happen here. I for one almost always struggled with the number of piece that came in Classic.
-
Heres a pretty good review, highlighting the main problems with the game OOB:
-
When people view this game, it should be through the prism of the original Axis and Allies.� Remember that first version, with no destroyers, artillery, tac bombers, etc?� This is the first iteration of WWI.� I’m sure many of the things people feel are missing now will be included in future “revised” or "anniversary edition"s.
My only complaints about the board is how crowded it gets in Europe, even with only two powers in a contested territory, and the lack of pieces for OOB.
I agree with this completely. Remember for years people wanted artillery and destroyers and we got them. Space is an issue and I think the lack of pieces for OOB will well for me be resolved the min. a 2nd edition or revised edition or basically a second WW1 game is released. Just like Revised was skin and bones and Europe and Pacific came out and now we have more than enough pieces the same should happen here. I for one almost always struggled with the number of piece that came in Classic.
Is Larry even going to do another edition? I know he’s done second editions in the past, but after the negativity he has gotten on this game, he may not do another one. I’m just asking because I don’t know. I heard his next game is possibly a civil war game.
-
Civil War and a rejigged Conquest of the Empire.
1914 remake is unlikley; certainly not with new components. Updated rules incorporating PTR and a proper IPC chart is about all you can hope for.
-
Civil War and a rejigged Conquest of the Empire.
1914 remake is unlikley; certainly not with new components. Updated rules incorporating PTR and a proper IPC chart is about all you can hope for.
Thanks, I figured that was probably what will happen, but you never know.
-
Nice accent you put on for that vid Flash.
I also hope that beard comes off easily.His points/complaints are all ones we have come up with.
That is good to see.
Thanks for finding it for us. @Flashman:Heres a pretty good review, highlighting the main problems with the game OOB:
-
@wittmann:
Nice accent you put on for that vid Flash.
I also hope that beard comes off easily.His points/complaints are all ones we have come up with.
That is good to see.
Thanks for finding it for us. @Flashman:Heres a pretty good review, highlighting the main problems with the game OOB:
Although he said the game was unbalanced…in favor of the Axis…assuming he hadn’t played it through more than once.
-
Thank you . That is right. I have found it impossible to win as the CPs.
-
I agree - house rules will rule this game. Too simplistic, Africa takes up too much board space. But learning to love the game (with our house rules of course).
-
I find the sub rules to be so ineffective, I can’t see why anyone as Germany would bring the US into the war for the sake of destroying a couple of ICs before their subs are destroyed.
-
I’ve been playing this game with mostly the same group for a couple of years now and not once have I seen Germany declare USW. The minor hit to the Allies’ income just isn’t worth the risk.
Suggested Topics
