A brief outline of a system I would like to see in the game coming out that I think would be cool.
Russian Revolution.
Use the IPC chart and the unrest marker (a roundel included with the game) to track Russian unrest.
Start at 20 on the chart. If, at the start of any Russian turn, the total is equal to or greater than 100 (for example), the Russian Revolution occurs (see details later)
Add to the unrest:
2: Each time an originally Russian territory is conquered by a CP.
1: Each time an originally CP territory under the control of Russia is conquered by a CP
5: Each time an originally Russian IC is captured by a CP.
10: Each time Moscow is captured by a CP.
20: Each time Petrograd is captured by a CP
3: Each time Russia attacks a territory with a land unit but doesn’t capture the territory in that attack.
5: Each Russian TURN that ends with Petrograd under CP control.
Subtract from the unrest:
2: Each time an originally CP territory is conquered by Russia.
1: Each time an originally Russian territory under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia.
5: Each time Moscow under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia
10: Each time Petrograd under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia
10: Each time a CP capital is conquered by Russia.
These can stack. (So losing Petrograd is a disaster, as it should be)
Most of these changes in unrest happen when there are changes in the income, so they can be done at the same time; it’s quite convenient.
Let’s say that the map is about the size of Europe 1940 (which I hear Larry said). It depends on the game, but as you can see, the Revolution could happen in  a few rounds if Russia is tanking the game on purpose, or after many, many rounds or not at all if Russia is doing well. This is a very historical approach because it ties the revolution to the success of the Russian military, which, reading most any history book on the subject will tell you was a huge factor.
As for what the Revolution results in, that can have a lot of cool possibilities. Flashman’s Red/Black idea on post 37 on page 3 seems pretty solid if there is to be some sort of civil war, but Russia being out of the war and the CP gettting some border territories seems good too.
@Imperious:
You can argue to your hearts content. I am only explaining what our playtest group found that worked and didn’t work. If the CP do better, the game is over before the Russians collapse. You don’t need a system that hastens this because then the allies would suffer and have no chance to recover.
*Note: What your playtest group found that worked and didn’t work for your playtest group’s game. Unless you want to insist that your group was able to determine the possibility of such a system for every possible WWI A&A-style game, that has next to no bearing on what is possible for this upcoming game.
If you don’t want a system that collapses russia before the capital falls, why have a revolution at all? How do you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE in this upcoming game that the CP be quite able to take Petrograd before your magical turn? If the CP can just bank on the Revolution happening without taking Petrograd, how does that not create a whole new set of balance issues?
You say they would have no chance to recover if it happened before turn 10. Perhaps that’s true in your game, but who cares? This game is not that game. It’s quite possible to have a game where things happen before a set turn has them happen. How do we know? Global 1940. But you can’t admit that for some psychotic reason.
@Imperious:
You are good at comedy. Perhaps a world tour might be in order? Â Our system allows Russian collapse on an unknown turn, but not before turn 10…so this " If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times" is nonsense. The core beauty of our game is preparing for and against technological developments as they appear in the game, entire strategies are carved out of using gas for example for the first time and making it’s effect known. It’s not much different from global when Germany has to prepare for Russia and clean up the board on turns 1-2.
Please. If the allies know that the Russian Revolution CANNOT happen before turn X, that is just as exploitable, if not more so, than anything I or anyone else has posted.
@Imperious:
In our games, an early Russian collapse busts the game for the CP. WE wanted both sides to have equal chances, with the Entente victories coming in the latter turns, and the CP coming in the early turns ( for the most part)
<facepalm so=“” hard=“” my=“” teeth=“” rattle=“”>Cool, but who gives a darn? Stop imposing your game’s idiosyncracies on how this game that we are talking about MUST be. Your group did not definitively discover the best possible World War I game that could ever be made that could never have any workable alternative.
@Imperious:
Just because it’s an idea that is different from yours doesn’t mean you should use any methods possible to shoot it down. It’s almost as if you feel that the community owes you everything and that you should get your way 100% because you had a signature saying you wanted WWI game and there is no way that a WWI game would have been made without your heroism (but that couldn’t be the case for such a wonderfully humble person as yourself. Of course not.).
But this is what you have done all along here…
No, not at all. I have given reasons why I believe my idea and the ideas similar to them are better for balance and historical reasons. You are making statements about what is POSSIBLE to have and IMPOSSIBLE to have, I am making statements about what I think is optimal. There is a major difference.
It’s one thing if you tell people that your ideas are better for X reasons and give evidence to support X. It’s another thing to tell us that our ideas can’t possibly be implemented and that they are automatically going to ruin any WWI game and that only your ideas are the ones that can possibly be safe for the balance and fun and historical feel of the game.</facepalm>
*Note: What your playtest group found that worked and didn’t work for your playtest group’s game. Unless you want to insist that your group was able to determine the possibility of such a system for every possible WWI A&A-style game, that has next to no bearing on what is possible for this upcoming game.
I never spoke about anything more than our experience. You really need to stop babbling.
If you don’t want a system that collapses russia before the capital falls, why have a revolution at all? How do you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE in this upcoming game that the CP be quite able to take Petrograd before your magical turn? If the CP can just bank on the Revolution happening without taking Petrograd, how does that not create a whole new set of balance issues?
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.
You say they would have no chance to recover if it happened before turn 10. Perhaps that’s true in your game, but who cares? This game is not that game. It’s quite possible to have a game where things happen before a set turn has them happen. How do we know? Global 1940. But you can’t admit that for some psychotic reason.
If you didn’t care your post count would not have gone from 12 to 84 in one thread ( wait that’s 96 now) But who cares? We do know thankfully that Global 40 is more like our game with one side not entering before turn 4 or 3, unless the other side attacks early.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:13:56 am
You are good at comedy. Perhaps a world tour might be in order? � Our system allows Russian collapse on an unknown turn, but not before turn 10…so this " If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times" is nonsense. The core beauty of our game is preparing for and against technological developments as they appear in the game, entire strategies are carved out of using gas for example for the first time and making it’s effect known. It’s not much different from global when Germany has to prepare for Russia and clean up the board on turns 1-2.Please. If the allies know that the Russian Revolution CANNOT happen before turn X, that is just as exploitable, if not more so, than anything I or anyone else has posted.
This “discussion” has entered turn 10, you may now start rolling for argument collapse.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:13:56 am
In our games, an early Russian collapse busts the game for the CP. WE wanted both sides to have equal chances, with the Entente victories coming in the latter turns, and the CP coming in the early turns ( for the most part)<facepalm so=“” hard=“” my=“” teeth=“” rattle=“”>Cool, but who gives a darn? Stop imposing your game’s idiosyncracies on how this game that we are talking about MUST be. Your group did not definitively discover the best possible World War I game that could ever be made that could never have any workable alternative.</facepalm>
One sec another glop of white foam from your mouth just dropped on my persian rug. If the stain does not come out, you will be charged. Can you get any more worked up into a frenzy?
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:13:56 am
Quote
Just because it’s an idea that is different from yours doesn’t mean you should use any methods possible to shoot it down. It’s almost as if you feel that the community owes you everything and that you should get your way 100% because you had a signature saying you wanted WWI game and there is no way that a WWI game would have been made without your heroism (but that couldn’t be the case for such a wonderfully humble person as yourself. Of course not.).But this is what you have done all along here…
No, not at all. I have given reasons why I believe my idea and the ideas similar to them are better for balance and historical reasons. You are making statements about what is POSSIBLE to have and IMPOSSIBLE to have, I am making statements about what I think is optimal. There is a major difference.
LOL. what is really going on is you are imposing these statements into neat little envelopes in your mind. You need to stop arguing with my points. I don’t argue about your points or care too.
It’s one thing if you tell people that your ideas are better for X reasons and give evidence to support X. It’s another thing to tell us that our ideas can’t possibly be implemented and that they are automatically going to ruin any WWI game and that only your ideas are the ones that can possibly be safe for the balance and fun and historical feel of the game.
Then i am calm in the world having proven that. I never told anybody that their ideas cant be implemented. What that is is you moving to new arguments ( that nobody ever brought up but you) after the others got shot down on turn 10. That would be a FIXED ARGUMENT.
If you don’t want a system that collapses russia before the capital falls, why have a revolution at all? How do you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE in this upcoming game that the CP be quite able to take Petrograd before your magical turn? If the CP can just bank on the Revolution happening without taking Petrograd, how does that not create a whole new set of balance issues?
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
@Imperious:
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Â Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.
Bold added. How does it feel to be caught in a lie? (not that you’ll admit it, we will probably get some lame excuse about how you “forgot” about several posts you made saying what can’t be in a WWI game)
Don’t try to tell anyone that this entire time all you have been doing is posting about what you already did in another game and that you never once made any statement about what should or should not be in this game coming out. If all you want to talk about is your game you made, go to house rules.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Â Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.Bold added. How does it feel to be caught in a lie? (not that you’ll admit it, we will probably get some lame excuse about how you “forgot” about several posts you made saying what can’t be in a WWI game)
You are quite honestly the most insane, rabid and hilarious dude on the internet: Read this: should not be any part of this game is an opinion. How bout you respect the opinion of others? It’s not like you can convince even a flea anything so why bother?
Don’t try to tell anyone that this entire time all you have been doing is posting about what you already did in another game and that you never once made any statement about what should or should not be in this game coming out. If all you want to talk about is your game you made, go to house rules.
You have been arguing gibberish since your 13th post on these forums, perhaps you might stop arguing about nonsense? I like other bring our ideas here. If you don’t like them leave. Where were you before Aug 2012? nowhere.
Political Situation - Soviet Union:
The Soviet Union begins the game at war
with no one. When not yet at war with
Japan, in addition to the normal restrictions
(see Powers Not at War with One Another
above), the Soviet Union may not move
units into or through China. The Soviet
Union may not declare war on any
European Axis power before turn four
unless first declared war upon by a
European Axis power or an Axis power
captures London.
looks fixed to me, turn four
Political Situation - United States:
In addition to the normal restrictions (see
Powers Not at War with One Another
above), while it’s not at war with Japan, the
United States may not move units into or
through China or end the movement of its
sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to
Japanese-controlled territories. While not
at war with Germany or Italy, the United
States may end the movement of its sea
units on the Europe map only in sea zones
that are adjacent to US territories, with one
exception - US warships (not transports)
may also conduct long-range patrols into
sea zone 102. If the United States has war
declared on it by an Axis power, an Axis
power captures London or any territory in
North America, or Japan makes an
unprovoked declaration of war on the UK or
ANZAC, the United States may declare war
on any or all Axis powers. However, if it’s
not yet at war by the Collect Income phase
of its third turn, the United States may
declare war on any or all Axis powers at the
beginning of that phase.
looks fixed here too buddy, unless the axis attack early.
If it was variable, US or Russia could enter the war on their own at any time. Now you understand.
@Imperious:
….
looks fixed here too buddy, unless the axis attack early.
If it was variable, US or Russia could enter the war on their own at any time…
How so?
What turn do they enter the war? It varies. It doesn’t matter if they can do it on their own or not. The turn they enter varies.
.
Why does it vary? Because it’s not the same every game.
If they do not enter the same turn every game, it VARIES. You know you are wrong. You only had to admit it pages ago and things would be a lot simpler for you, but the more you keep arguing against the fact that the entry is variable, the more ridiculous you will look once you actually admit that countries can enter the war in different turns each and every game.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. I don’t care if it “looks” fixed to you. Both of those entries have clauses dealing with situation where the counrty is at war on a turn before it would have automatically happened. They can be at war on different turns than a single fixed one. You are wrong. Deal with it.
How so?
What turn do they enter the war? It varies. It doesn’t matter if they can do it on their own or not. The turn they enter varies.
When they enter they cannot effect. It is the decision of others at to when they enter. depending on which nation it is either 3 or 4. But a FIXED TURN is decided if the axis do not act first. One day you will understand.
.
Why does it vary? Because it’s not the same every game.
If they do not enter the same turn every game, it VARIES. You know you are wrong. You only had to admit it pages ago and things would be a lot simpler for you, but the more you keep arguing against the fact that the entry is variable, the more ridiculous you will look once you actually admit that countries can enter the war in different turns each and every game.
If the USA player can attack Germany on turn 1, then you are right. If Russia can attack Germany on turn 1, then you are right. They can’t so your wrong.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. I don’t care if it “looks” fixed to you. Both of those entries have clauses dealing with situation where the counrty is at war on a turn before it would have automatically happened. They can be at war on different turns than a single fixed one. You are wrong. Deal with it.
These “clauses” are not of their doing. They can’t do a damn thing unless the axis decide to “allow” them to enter early. That makes it fixed. Now stop babbling. You’re almost at 100 posts, so keep arguing over garbage.
In our game, Russia cant fall before turn 10 unless the CP conquer them. Otherwise, they still have the revolution as early as turn 10.
USA cannot start helping France on turn 1, if they were allowed to do this the game would be broken and the CP would never win these games. That’s why they arrive on a fixed turn unless the axis attack them early…just like Global 40…gee what a coincidence!
How does the fact that USA and USSR can’t choose mean that Japan and Germany can’t choose? Your whole bogus “point” is that USA and USSR can’t choose. What about the powers who CAN choose? Can they not choose? :roll:
Whether or not they can choose is completely IRRELEVANT to determining whether or not it is fixed, because regardless of who actually makes the choice, the entry is variable.
UK can choose to go to war with Japan on any of its turns. That is a variable situation. Yet you still insist that Global does not have variable entry.
Russia choosing or not has nothing to with the FACT that Russia’s entry to the war is variable, but it doesn’t ALWAYS happen on turn 1, it doesn’t ALWAYS happen on turn 2, it doesn’t ALWAYS happen on turn 3, etc. etc.
@Imperious:
Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. � Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.Bold added. How does it feel to be caught in a lie? (not that you’ll admit it, we will probably get some lame excuse about how you “forgot” about several posts you made saying what can’t be in a WWI game)
You are quite honestly the most insane, rabid and hilarious dude on the internet:Â Read this: should not be any part of this game is an opinion. How bout you respect the opinion of others? It’s not like you can convince even a flea anything so why bother?
How convenient that you leave out the appropriate context before my response. I was clearly responding to this statement by you (below), yet you leave it out to muddy things up and manipulate the truth.
@Imperious:
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.
:roll: Read the sequence.
@Imperious:
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.
I then posted this as a direct response to the above:
@vonLettowVorbeck1914:
:roll: :roll: :roll:
@Imperious:Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Â Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.
I added the bolding to the script.
You say that you made no claims about any game other than yours. I show how you said the bolsheviks idea would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system.”
So you saying that a bolsheviks rule like that would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system” is somehow not a claim about a game other than your own? Seriously? For real?
@Imperious:
Don’t try to tell anyone that this entire time all you have been doing is posting about what you already did in another game and that you never once made any statement about what should or should not be in this game coming out. If all you want to talk about is your game you made, go to house rules.
You have been arguing gibberish since your 13th post on these forums, perhaps you might stop arguing about nonsense? I like other bring our ideas here. If you don’t like them leave. Where were you before Aug 2012? nowhere.
Ah there it is. I haven’t been here as long as you so I am wrong and you are right. :roll:
How does the fact that USA and USSR can’t choose mean that Japan and Germany can’t choose? Your whole bogus “point” is that USA and USSR can’t choose. What about the powers who CAN choose? Can they not choose? rolleyes
If it says not before turn 3 or 4, UNLESS somebody else does something it is FIXED. One day you will understand, but who we kidding?
Whether or not they can choose is completely IRRELEVANT to determining whether or not it is fixed, because regardless of who actually makes the choice, the entry is variable.
UK can choose to go to war with Japan on any of its turns. That is a variable situation. Yet you still insist that Global does not have variable entry.
If both sides can opt into war early without any restriction of a fixed turn like 3 or 4, then it is fixed. Otherwise the rules would not state the fixed entry. You make me laugh as to how stupid this argument can be.
How convenient that you leave out the appropriate context before my response. I was clearly responding to this statement by you (below), yet you leave it out to muddy things up and manipulate the truth.
ok yea sure. Now back in your cage feeding time soon.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 11:43:43 am
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.rolleyes Read the sequence.
Read the script for Groundhog Day.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 11:43:43 am
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.
I then posted this as a direct response to the above:
Quote from: vonLettowVorbeck1914 on Today at 11:58:16 am
rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes
Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. � Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.I added the bolding to the script.
You say that you made no claims about any game other than yours. I show how you said the bolsheviks idea would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system.”
So you saying that a bolsheviks rule like that would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system” is somehow not a claim about a game other than your own? Seriously? For real?
You really need to learn how to read the English language properly. Should not be part of the game is an opinion, we are allowed them here. IN North Korea perhaps not.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 12:38:10 pm
Quote
Don’t try to tell anyone that this entire time all you have been doing is posting about what you already did in another game and that you never once made any statement about what should or should not be in this game coming out. If all� you want to talk about is your game you made, go to house rules.You have been arguing gibberish since your 13th post on these forums, perhaps you might stop arguing about nonsense?� I like other bring our ideas here. If you don’t like them leave. Where were you before Aug 2012? nowhere.
Ah there it is. I haven’t been here as long as you so I am wrong and you are right
And it will continue to be so. The Fuehrer will continue to deny you that responsibility. I alone have the mandate for this task. ( now what movie is that from?)
@Imperious:
USA cannot start helping France on turn 1, if they were allowed to do this the game would be broken and the CP would never win these games. That’s why they arrive on a fixed turn unless the axis attack them early…just like Global 40…gee what a coincidence!
If the game is balanced with setup changes, etc. to account for the ability of the US to enter on turn one, then of course it can be balanced. Obviously if a major rule change is made to an existing game that already has balance, the balance can be disrupted, but no one is talking about changing an established game (unless you are crazy enough to think that the game that will be released is going to be exactly like yours and that anyone who wants anything to be different is violating your rights. That actually would explain a lot.).
But to say that it would be broken in a game THAT ACCOUNTS FOR IT IN THE Â BALANCING PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING is just stupid.
@Imperious:
UK can choose to go to war with Japan on any of its turns. Â That is a variable situation. Yet you still insist that Global does not have variable entry.
If both sides can opt into war early without any restriction of a fixed turn like 3 or 4, then it is fixed. Otherwise the rules would not state the fixed entry. You make me laugh as to how stupid this argument can be.
Hmm. So even though UK and Japan can choose to go to war against each other one any of their respective turns, you would consider that to be fixed?
@Imperious:
How convenient that you leave out the appropriate context before my response. I was clearly responding to this statement by you (below), yet you leave it out to muddy things up and manipulate the truth.
ok yea sure. Now back in your cage feeding time soon.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 11:43:43 am
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.rolleyes Read the sequence.
Read the script for Groundhog Day.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 11:43:43 am
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.I then posted this as a direct response to the above:
Quote from: vonLettowVorbeck1914 on Today at 11:58:16 am
rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes
Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. � Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.I added the bolding to the script.
You say that you made no claims about any game other than yours. I show how you said the bolsheviks idea would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system.”
So you saying that a bolsheviks rule like that would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system” is somehow not a claim about a game other than your own? Seriously? For real?
You really need to learn how to read the English language properly. Should not be part of the game is an opinion, we are allowed them here. IN North Korea perhaps not.
Ah, so when you made the statement “To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system”, you were just stating your “opinion,” you were not making a claim of any sort at all? What a load of you-know-what.
Girls, girls; you can’t fight in here: this is the forum!
If I may make a few more inquiries regarding IL’s system.
So far I’m very pleased to see many of the ideas I’ve been advocating for years being implemented:
Rail movement
Production only in home areas
Infantry not linked to factories
Ships based in ports rather than the open sea
Air superiority phase before general combat
Some more ideas I’m hopeful for:
(1) Collect income at start of turn.
One of the silliest flaws of the standard system; I’ve seen tts such as Moscow and Caucasus change hands 3 or 4 times in a round, thus generating 4 or 5 times the income as normal. If money is calculated at the beginning of a turn, then areas which change hands actually generate less income, which makes a lot more sense.
My preferred turn sequence:
1. Purchase new units
2. Develop weapons (for next turn)
3. Collect income (to spend next turn)
4. Combat Movement (cannot use rail)
5. Non-combat movement (into uncontested areas)
6. Combat
7. Land aircraft (from combat)
8. Place new units
(2) No new factories.
Factories represent an entire industrialized area. It is unrealistic for new industrial bases to be “built” in the course of a few years. The only exception to this is the possibility of the USSR dismantling factories and transporting them to safer areas such as the Urals. Even this example was a titanic effort in the face of extreme needs.
(3) Basic terrain.
Terrain seriously effects the type of warfare that can be fought on it. The only attempt at this in A&A so far is a few impassable areas.
Consider the early tanks of WWI. They had enough difficulty moving on the flat terrain of the North European Plain; its hard to see them being effective in attacking mountains.
So I’d like to see a few basic terrain types: Lowlands, Highlands(impassable to tanks/cars, Mountains(impassable), Marshes(impassable to all but infantry & Cavalry), deserts.
(4) Multiple turns for ship builds.
Took a long time to build a capital ship; certainly it should be a minimum of 2 rounds.
(5) Hidden Submarines. I know this might be a pain to keep track of, as locations have to be written down, but to me sub warfare will only be authentic if surface ships don’t know where enemy subs are when they try to move.
(6) Commerce raiding. I’m assuming that Convoy Zones, or something to the same effect, will be included. Like WWII, the closest the Allies came to defeat in this war was from the U-Boat menace. Germany’s surrender had at least as much to do with food shortages as enemy victories.
My suggestion is that ships from Cruiser up to Dreadnought should be able to bombard land tts regardless of simultaneous land attacks. This might involve firing upon undefended tts far from the front lines simply to reduce income (defender pays IPCs to bank to cover losses.)
This is less relevant in a game not featuring areas outside Europe; without the campaigns of German ships in the South Atlantic, Indian Ocean and Pacific the feature is less important.
(7)Munitions/Supply
Armies (particularly artillery) often ran short of shells and needed supplying with ammunition. Say 10 units of supplies cost 1 IPC. Built in any factory, can be railed or transported where you need them.
I’m toying with using Gibson’s Diplomacy shells: one idea from this is that different colours represent different types, for example HE, smoke, gas.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/371445/diplomacy
Stuff that IL has already rejected:
(1) Sculpts for every tech development.
Always wanted this for WWII, but for 1914-18 its actually much easier, in that only fighter planes had serious development during the war. Other stuff was essentially new items needing new sculpts anyway.
My aircraft development would be:
Recon planes (start)
Eindekker (The Fokker Scourge), countered by Allied Nieuport;
Albatross (Bloody April), countered by Allied Sopwith
Bombers
I would suggest that each of these represents a significant leap forward, justifying new sculpts for all. The 2 fighter developments were about a lot more than fitting machine guns; they were whole new generations of aircraft. And the sculpts would look so cool painted up… I don’t want to have to think “does that country have this tech” - the unit itself should tell me.
I also think that earlier versions of the unit should remain in place with their old abilities and be phased out gradually. An early war plane could not compete with the Albatross just by fitting new armaments. Also, units in outlying areas would be far less likely to get the new units and would have to make do.
(2) Revolutionary forces.
IL believes that Russia, on the Revolution of October 1417, simply drops out of the war to fight its own internal civil conflict - something irrelevant to the Great War itself. He has yet to reveal how this will be implemented, especially in regard to how and what Germany gets in Russian tts.
I think this is oversimplifying the reality, and believe that Bolshevik and Nationalist forces were an inherent part of the conflict. Hence, I would like revolutions in every country to be possible, with relevant forces in red and black used (will have to buy a 2nd copy…)
(3) Open development of when countries enter the war.
This has been discussed “at some length” above, suffice to say my view is that the game should aim to simulate August 1914 exactly, with everything that might have happened thereafter possible in the game. I appreciate that this can make balancing more difficult to achieve.
The USA joining the Allies eventually would still be very likely; but the possibility of it joining the Central Powers should be just feasible; for example if the British Navy blows the German fleet out of the water the Americans might begin to consider the RN as its greatest rival.
Very interesting, collecting at the beginning of the turn.
Could definitely help a TON with the annoying 2 inf 1 ftr vs 1 inf frontier battles that can go on forever in some games.
If the game is balanced with setup changes, etc. to account for the ability of the US to enter on turn one, then of course it can be balanced. Obviously if a major rule change is made to an existing game that already has balance, the balance can be disrupted, but no one is talking about changing an established game (unless you are crazy enough to think that the game that will be released is going to be exactly like yours and that anyone who wants anything to be different is violating your rights. That actually would explain a lot.).
It cant be balanced if USA enters on turn one or never. An early entry destroys the chances for the CP to win on one hand, and on the other the CP will probably win…all resulting on the effect of what and when USA does. IN global at least the axis can control when that happens until the fixed date of entry.
But to say that it would be broken in a game THAT ACCOUNTS FOR IT IN THE � BALANCING PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING is just stupid.
OK you are entitled to being wrong, it happened before many times…countless actually.
Hmm. So even though UK and Japan can choose to go to war against each other one any of their respective turns, you would consider that to be fixed?
Didn’t say anything about Japan. I’m talking about Europe, of which you skip over and never admit to anything because the spoiled brat can never admit anything. Address comments to Europe but we both know that will never happen because it destroys your argument completely.
