Table Tactics New Product Release

We want FRENCH units!
We want FRENCH units!
We want FRENCH units!
We want FRENCH units!
:-D

You are the man!

Keep us updated!

We want WW1 units too:

Zepplins, bi-wings, Gotha bombers, trenches, gas weapons, Mark V and AV7 tanks etc

any chance of those?

I want a playable WW1 Axis Allies game in time for the 2014 anniversary date.

I want a playable WW1 Axis Allies game in time for the 2014 anniversary date.

jack, if you can do this i already got the game to support it.

When your ready to make some really nice WW1 units, let us know.

I wish you went in this direction in the first place. You wont be competing with anybody.

@Imperious:

I want a playable WW1 Axis Allies game in time for the 2014 anniversary date.

jack, if you can do this i already got the game to support it.

When your ready to make some really nice WW1 units, let us know.

I wish you went in this direction in the first place. You wont be competing with anybody.

Two things to add to this Jack.

First, I too would love a more expanded line of your WWI line to include much of the above (mostly  needed is  the Zeppelins, balloons, bi-planes, and bombers). You could end up with a lot more of my money if you do this…

Second, I have built IL’s game for myself and love it. It’s very complete and fun. I did end up doing a bit of a re-write to simplify some things to bring it a bit more inline with A&A. However, many people could enjoy either version with these additional pieces making it affordable to build ( I spent a lot on minis from you and elsewhere).

Wouldn’t a game based on WW 1 be kind of boring with the stagnation of trench warfare?  At least on the Western front after the initial German advance and then the Allied repulse, the front lines were nearly static for nearly 4 years until the British and French introduced the first tanks in large numbers and achieved a breakthrough.
Now, on the Eastern front, things were much more mobile.

With the scope of IL’s game including many of the British territories in Africa and the Middle East, and the variety of units involved, there is plenty to keep everyone entertained until tanks are brought it to wreak havoc (and break down). Naval battles are epic and Zeppelins with bombs are killer.

Jack, almost forgot, we need cavalry too. What would the French and Russians do without them?

Oh yeah, I forgot about the great naval clash of the Battle of Jutland.  And the African colonies and Middle-East.  Plus there was some action in Turkey.  They fought against both the Western Allies and the Russians.  There was even naval action in the South Pacific and South Atlantic.  There was a German squadron disrupting shipping in the South Pacific and was eventually stopped by British Cruisers based in the Falklands.
So, I stand corrected.  A WW 1 game like that would be pretty fun if it wasn’t just focused on the Western front.

I think that you could be ahead of the curve, Jack, if you produce a WWI grand strategy game. I believe that we will see a glut of games covering WWI as the 100th anniversary of opening hostilities is in 2014. Unfortunately, too many people do not understand the significance of this conflict and how the repercussions have affected WWII.  Many people think that WWII is far more interesting than WWI, but they don’t understand that you had to have WWI before you could even have WWII.

You hit it right on the head C_Strabala.  Italy was very upset that they weren’t allowed to increase their African colonial possessions at Germany’s expense at the end of WW1.  That and economic woes led to Musolini’s popularity.  Also, the harsh terms of Versailles and the “stab in the back” notion were directly responsible for Hitler’s popularity.  With both of these two rising to power, and both being ruthless dictators, they felt the only way to fix their respective countries’ economic woes was military expansionism.

All of this was compounded by the Allied powers desire to avoid war at all costs due to memories of the carnage of WW1.  Italy raped Ethiopia with no more than a strong “No No” from the League of Nations.  Germany absorbed Austria and Czechoslovakia without even raising a rifle because Britain and France wanted so much to appease Hitler in the hopes of avoiding war.  Of course, we all know now that was all in vain.

@knp7765:

You hit it right on the head C_Strabala.  Italy was very upset that they weren’t allowed to increase their African colonial possessions at Germany’s expense at the end of WW1.  That and economic woes led to Musolini’s popularity.  Also, the harsh terms of Versailles and the “stab in the back” notion were directly responsible for Hitler’s popularity.  With both of these two rising to power, and both being ruthless dictators, they felt the only way to fix their respective countries’ economic woes was military expansionism.

Britain and France didn’t just offend Italy, but Japan as well. The Japanese (who had allied with the entente and had neutralized some of the German Pacific fleet and taken German colonial pacific possessions, asked to be recognized as ‘equals’ with the Europeans. This was denied. The Japanese deemed this so offensive, they decided to ‘go their own way’ setting them on course for Pearl Harbor and so on. It was Versailles Treaty and also the legacy of their one sided ‘Trafalgar-esque’ naval victory in the 1904-5 war (battle of Tsushima) against Russia that set Japan on course.

@13thguardsriflediv:

@knp7765:

You hit it right on the head C_Strabala.  Italy was very upset that they weren’t allowed to increase their African colonial possessions at Germany’s expense at the end of WW1.  That and economic woes led to Musolini’s popularity.  Also, the harsh terms of Versailles and the “stab in the back” notion were directly responsible for Hitler’s popularity.  With both of these two rising to power, and both being ruthless dictators, they felt the only way to fix their respective countries’ economic woes was military expansionism.

Britain and France didn’t just offend Italy, but Japan as well. The Japanese (who had allied with the entente and had neutralized some of the German Pacific fleet and taken German colonial pacific possessions, asked to be recognized as ‘equals’ with the Europeans. This was denied. The Japanese deemed this so offensive, they decided to ‘go their own way’ setting them on course for Pearl Harbor and so on. It was Versailles Treaty and also the legacy of their one sided ‘Trafalgar-esque’ naval victory in the 1904-5 war (battle of Tsushima) against Russia that set Japan on course.

I didn’t know that about Japan.  I knew they were allied with England and took out the German colony in China, Tsingtao I think it was called, but I didn’t know that the European allies snubbed the Japanese so.  Thanks for the info.

Yeah, read about the Washington Naval Conference of 1921. Japan was given the shaft by the Brits & Americans.

Well, that was the Japanese military’s perspective on it at the time, anyway.  The bottom line is that the Japanese were insisting on full numerical parity with the US and the UK, whereas the US and UK insisted that this was unrealistic, since Japan had only one ocean to defend rather than 2 (the US) or 3 (the UK).  Whatever you think about the arguments on either side, the bottom line is that trying to achieve naval parity with the US and UK would have bankrupted Japan; there was no way that they could realistically afford to keep up with the building pace that their brass was insisting on, and many of the Japanese politicians were actually happy to end the growing dreadnought arms race.  (Which, it must be noted, really just ended up saving the world’s great powers from spending astronomical sums on weapons systems that would be obsolete in 20 years.)

ok stay on topic please.