Turns:
Each game turn constitutes four months (except the first) of real time outlined as follows:
Turn order:
Turn 1 only: Austro-Hungary, Russia, Germany, France, England and Ottomans.
Turn 2 - till end of game: Russia, Central powers, Allied Powers.
Note: Each nation must perform their turn individually on turn one. On later turns, Russia always moves first and separate from the other Allies. The Central Powers and Allies may move simultaneously when it is their sides turn.
If I had to have 8 separate turns, my order would be:
Germany
Russia
Austria
France
Ottoman Empire
United Kingdom
Italy
USA
Austria shelled Belgrade, but this was hardly a major action. The first big attack came from Germany, then Russia attacked in the East while Austria was dawdling between 2 fronts.
So for a 4 block game, I would have:
1. Germany (& Italy?)
2. Russia (& Italy?)
3. Austria (& Turkey)
4. France (& Britain, & USA)
Turkey joins in round two (or perhaps when a battleship is delivered to the Sublime Porte…)
Britain joins after an attack on any neutral (only the CPs can ever attack neutrals!)
USA really needs a chart to track its attitude to war; its entry certainly shouldn’t be automatic after X turns.
Italy decides who to join in May 1915 (see my timetables attached)
http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/world_war_i_1914.htm
The Russian Civil War cost as least 3 million casualties. Hardly a bar-room brawl.
How do you represent the Russian Revolution? When and how does it happen? What do the Germans do - just stop at the borders? Is Russia declared off-limits (lets leave them alone while they fight among themselves?)
Britain joins after an attack on any neutral (only the CPs can ever attack neutrals!)
USA really needs a chart to track its attitude to war; its entry certainly shouldn’t be automatic after X turns.
The game would be ruined since the Central powers would avoid UK the entire game, A variable entry USA is also a game breaker. It must be fixed because the games balancing would prove impossible. The game must be Historical, not full of nitpicking rules that destroy play balance.
Would Britain have gone to war if Germany had avoided Belgium? Not certain.
What if Germany had not even attacked France?
At the very least, offer a number of scenarios leaving the possibility of unhistorical results.
American entry was based on so many factors that it is ridiculous to make it mandatory on turn X. Instead, each side should be able to influence it in various ways. It will always be likely, but if you make it and its date certain where’s the game?
Would Britain have gone to war if Germany had avoided Belgium? Not certain.
What if Germany had not even attacked France?
At the very least, offer a number of scenarios leaving the possibility of unhistorical results.
American entry was based on so many factors that it is ridiculous to make it mandatory on turn X. Instead, each side should be able to influence it in various ways. It will always be likely, but if you make it and its date certain where’s the game?
The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.
@Imperious:
The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.
I think that “to allow Historical developments at specific times” makes for a predictable game, rather than a balanced game, necessarily. This isn’t a bad thing, as this kind of predictability allows you to create a framework for balance.
I’m broadly of the opinion (usually pertaining to East & West but in all history-based wargames) that the game should only be as historical as it is balanced. If adding something historical ruins balance, edit it out/obfuscate it/whatever. If you can add in something historical to balance out a deficiency in the rules, all the better! I think this is the direction that the A&A franchise is going with National Objectives and such.
@Flashman:
How do you represent the Russian Revolution? When and how does it happen? What do the Germans do - just stop at the borders? Is Russia declared off-limits (lets leave them alone while they fight among themselves?)
I am thinking you could borrow from A&A Europe (1999 version), where the territories that the USSR captured since the start of the war were coloured differently (this is also similar to Chinese territories under control of Japan in A&A Pacific, IIRC).
So, basically take the territory that (historically) was given to Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and colour that separately from the main Russian territory colour; have the rule be that if the CP capture all of those territories (or alternately, Russia’s capitol) then Russia is out of the war. CP units in other Russian territories are moved to the nearest friendly territory, perhaps. Have this as a sort of “Check For Victory†rule at the end of any turn or round.
I’m most curious about the color for each nation
I’d check out the MapView module for The Great War; IMHO they did a great job with the colours for the various countries (granted, there are only 6)
Otherwise, how do you represent a power suddenly just dropping out of the game? The Allies tried to keep Russia going as an anti-German power, Germany supported the Bolsheviks. As the great powers descended into anarchy, civil wars and revolutions were going on all over Europe; if the game just ignores all this its a poor representation of history.
The British television series “The First World War” (based on Hew Strachan’s book of the same name) has an episode on strikes, revolts, mutinies and revolutions. It discusses the concept of revolution as a weapon of war: trying to prevent it on your own side (both in the army and on the home front) while simultaneously trying to encourage it in enemy countries. Germany succeeded in Russia (it helped Lenin get from Switzerland to Russia, ultimately resulting in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian surrender to Germany at Brest-Litovsk), and it had a partial success in Ireland (in the form of the Easter Rising). Britain lost a large number of man-hours to strikes, to which the government responded by ordering its negotiators to give the strikers what they wanted. The French Army mutinied in 1917, and was brought back into line through a mixture of reforms, concessions and executions. The Italian Army responded to excessively harsh policies from its highest officers by surrendering to the Autro-Hungarians in the tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands. The German Navy mutinied in 1918 when its leaders planned a suicidal final sortie against the Royal Navy for the sole purpose of salvaging its honour. Austria-Hungary and Germany both underwent social collapse in the final months of the war. Ultimately, none of the regimes on the losing side survived the war: the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were all destroyed, and the latter two were dismantled into a patchwork of successor states.
Yeah, I know about all that, but I think the only way to represent it is a disorder and revolution chart similar to the IPC income chart. When a nation drops so far it falls into disorder; after another target is falls into revolution.
When all powers of one side are either defeated (occupied) or in revolution, the game ends. Indeed if the game is correctly balanced this is the ONLY way it can end, otherwise the stalemate continues forever. But a nation should always be recoverable, even after revolution; hence I prefer to put revolutionary forces in the game, rather than just placing a country off-limits.
@CWO:
Otherwise, how do you represent a power suddenly just dropping out of the game?� The Allies tried to keep Russia going as an anti-German power, Germany supported the Bolsheviks.� As the great powers descended into anarchy, civil wars and revolutions were going on all over Europe; if the game just ignores all this its a poor representation of history.
The British television series “The First World War” (based on Hew Strachan’s book of the same name) has an episode on strikes, revolts, mutinies and revolutions. It discusses the concept of revolution as a weapon of war: trying to prevent it on your own side (both in the army and on the home front) while simultaneously trying to encourage it in enemy countries. Germany succeeded in Russia (it helped Lenin get from Switzerland to Russia, ultimately resulting in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian surrender to Germany at Brest-Litovsk), and it had a partial success in Ireland (in the form of the Easter Rising). Britain lost a large number of man-hours to strikes, to which the government responded by ordering its negotiators to give the strikers what they wanted. The French Army mutinied in 1917, and was brought back into line through a mixture of reforms, concessions and executions. The Italian Army responded to excessively harsh policies from its highest officers by surrendering to the Autro-Hungarians in the tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands. The German Navy mutinied in 1918 when its leaders planned a suicidal final sortie against the Royal Navy for the sole purpose of salvaging its honour. Austria-Hungary and Germany both underwent social collapse in the final months of the war. Ultimately, none of the regimes on the losing side survived the war: the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were all destroyed, and the latter two were dismantled into a patchwork of successor states.
My preferred scheme:
France - Blue
Britain - Brown(khaki)
USA - Green
Russia - Light Grey
Italy - Light Green
Turkey - Light Tan
Austria - White
Germany - Field Grey
Communists - Red
Nationalists - Black
Japan - Dark Blue
China - Yellow
Neutrals - Orange
Probable Avalon Hill colours:
France - Blue Grey
Britain - Medium Brown
USA - Green Brown
Russia - Dark Brown
Italy - Medium Brown
Turkey - Light Brown
Austria - Light Grey
Germany - Field Grey
Some other schemes:
Great War:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/547029/the-great-war?size=original
Conflict
http://www.legiongaming.com/
Diplomacy(Gibsons)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1050314/diplomacy?size=original
War To End All Wars
http://www.guildofblades.com/WWI_Map.php
I’m most curious about the color for each nation
I love the idea of countries falling into revolution, but how would we perform this? What factors would we use to tell if a country is falling into revolution? Certainly not a dice roll! The only thing I can think of is national objectives with turn limits:
(example: Germany must capture Paris by turn 10 or this will lead to rolling of two dice, the number is the number of revolutionaries that spawn in the capitol territory on the place new units phase and must be dealt with on the countries next combat movement phase, this only happens once in a game).
So instead of making the national objectives purely economy based, we can have a mix of some economy/citizen unrest. And I agree with Imperious that it would be silly to have China and Japan represented, focus on the meat of the conflict.
What say the rest of you about how can we implement the revolution system into the game? Oh, and I actually like making the USA a token power/neutral in the game. Face it, the French and Brits won that war, we were the straw that broke the camels back.
I love the idea of countries falling into revolution, but how would we perform this? What factors would we use to tell if a country is falling into revolution?
Presumably through some kind of chart similar to the income tracking chart. Call it, say, a social stability chart. The marker for each country would move up and down (mostly down) based on various game-event inputs such as the length of the war, the accumulation of casualties, major victories or defeats, etc. The chart’s outputs could take the form of increases or decreases in industrial productivity, army combat morale bonuses or penalties, and so forth. The closer a country gets to the bottom of the social stability chart, the closer it comes to having its war effort collapse through civilian revolution and/or military mutiny.
@Imperious:
Britain joins after an attack on any neutral (only the CPs can ever attack neutrals!)
USA really needs a chart to track its attitude to war; its entry certainly shouldn’t be automatic after X turns.
The game would be ruined since the Central powers would avoid UK the entire game, A variable entry USA is also a game breaker. It must be fixed because the games balancing would prove impossible. The game must be Historical, not full of nitpicking rules that destroy play balance.
How is a fixed entry in any way historical, unless you think that everything that happened HAD to happen as it did? There can be balance without scripting the game (Russian Revolution happens turn Y, Italy enters turn X, USA enters turn K, etc etc etc)
One cool way for USA to enter that my friends and I did for 1939 Europe and for WWI was a provocation system.
For example, it’s 1 pt for every allied DD/TRN that is sunk on a axis/cp turn, 2 pts for battleship/carrier.
2 pts for every IPC germany collects from a neutral territory, 1 for every IPC a Central/axis power collects from an originally french/british territory, plus some for convoys (which changed based on game for us, you get the idea), and MINUS points for every IPC that is SBR’ed out of Germany.
If the points are at a certain total on USA’s turn, they declare war.
This adds a dynamic to the game that is new and interesting for A&A, where wholesale beatdown of the enemy must be balanced with the threat of a sleeping giant. Adds a lot of variety to the game.
There may be some whining about how that makes the game too political, but WWI was a very different war from WWII and to think that the US entry had to happen because it did happen is a disservice to any attempt at studying history and making a game historical.
Will it be harder to make the game balanced for both sides if the US entry is based on actions rather than a preset schedule that ignores the conditions in the game? Probably. But, unless what you like in A&A is the ability to replay the exact same scheduled events over and over again with a little variability in dice to spice it up, it will be a better game if the political situation is decided by factors that would decide it in reality rather than scheduling it based on what already happened in reality, ignoring that differences in events leading up to those key events that you would script would in fact change the script.
@Imperious:
The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.
So Global is not balanced and has no chance of being so? That game has plenty of variable entries, left up to factors determined by player choice.
If Russia is trouncing Germany and is twice as rich as when it started, would it make sense that it’s people be disillusioned with the war and that they revolt?
By the logic quoted above, who cares? Revolution turn X, even though Russian morale is at its highest in decades! Huzzah!
If Germany has pulled back all of its subs and surface fleet to defend its home waters and elects not to violate belgian neutrality, would the UK (not to mention the USA) have been as gung-ho about entering, or even entered?
By the logic quoted above, who cares? USA hasn’t been provoked at all, but, TO WAR!
Scripting the events of the game while completely ignoring the developments in the game is what is truly ahistorical.
Thinking of history as a set sequence of events that couldn’t have happened any other way is dangerous when it comes to analyzing how and why events occurred. A historical game would be one that takes the miliary success into account when determining if a nation will have a revolution, not ignoring all of that to keep a schedule that is based on a succession of events that could very well look nothing like what is happening in the game.
A historical game takes the causes and effects in historical patterns into account, not insisting that events be maintained on a schedule no matter what, no matter how much the previous events deviate from the real-world script.
The central powers being caught between destroying the enemy and avoiding angering the US only adds to the potential for the game to avoid being played the same way over and over again, getting boring in a couple months.
Unless you believe that because of the variable entries in global (not the sheer size of the game), it is impossible to balance, there is no reason to believe that  in WWI variable entry/revolution is an automatic balance killer.
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine this scenario:
The CP are focusing all of their effort on knocking out France, keeping only enough in the East to ensure the safety of their most important territories.
Russia is booming, entirely safe for as long as France can hold out, and Russia is in fact doing well enough that the Central powers may have to divert attention from France to ensure their defenses hold. Conceptually, we would imagine that morale in this scenario would be higher in Russia than it was in the war, as the CP made huge advances into Russia and the situation was looking grim.
But whoops! Turn X came along! Russian Revolution, against all odds! Russia is out of the war or whatever. France stands alone. CP wins.
It’s quite plausible that if Germany knows that the revolution will happen according to a timed script, rather than factors that would logically lead to the revolution, they can ignore russia only enough to keep from taking Vienna or Berlin or whatever, and then once the revolution happens, they are home free.
Is it possible to balance the game with this possibility? Probably. But how bizzare would the game be? France has to be strong enough if Germany decides to ignore russia. But if France is that strong, will Germany have any real coice or motivation to go after Russia?
Similarly, UK and France KNOWING when USA would enter would allow them to do some historically (from a pattern/plausibility point of view) asinine things.
How can the game be historical when both sides know when these huge events will happen when in reality they were much muddier?
Obviously we don’t know all the details of the game, but scripting the game has a very good chance of making balance MORE difficult, especially with the case of Russia. Unless you want to throw out the revolution altogether.
Having a simple system that tracks the US involvement and Russian Revolution presents its own challenges, but if far from impossible to balance, and may be easier to balance than a game where those two are scripted.
I love the idea of countries falling into revolution, but how would we perform this? What factors would we use to tell if a country is falling into revolution?
Have two extra roundels included with the game. One tracks USA provocation, one tracks russian revolution. Track on IPC chart; it’s got numbers. Once total is to X amount, event happens.
USA: Add for convoys attacked, allied ships sunk on axis turn, IPC collected by CP from neutral/french/british.
(can be possibilites for subtraction)
Russia: Add for territories lost, attacks that result in a territory not being taken, subtract for German/Austrian territories taken, etc.
How is a fixed entry in any way historical, unless you think that everything that happened HAD to happen as it did?
Because events occur as they did in History. No atomic bombs in 1914, or tanks. Russia does not fall in 1923, etc.
It is no different from global, you have no choice as to when US or USSR enters ( unless provoked early)
So Global is not balanced and has no chance of being so? That game has plenty of variable entries, left up to factors determined by player choice.
This “choice” is only that the axis can attack early, otherwise these allies automatically enter the game at fixed turns. Where are the rules in global where you roll dice to determine when somebody is at war.?
OK, where I’m at with the revolution chart:
First of all there were revolts, mutinies and revolutions in most participating counties as casualties mounted up, food ran short & everyone got sick of the war. So, ALL major countries have a marker on the Disorder & Revolution chart.
This has 3 zones: Safe; Disorder & Revolution.
Safety would run from say, +20 to -20 with everyone starting at 0.
Between -20 & -30 Disorder sets in. Armies and fleets ordered into attack may mutiny (die roll?). Otherwise the country plays as normal, and with some + scores can drag itself out of Disorder.
Over a certain point Revolution occurs. The model I have for Russia might apply to any country:
You need 2 extra sets of units; “Reds” and “Blacks”.
Roll a die for each tt held by that power. Depending on certain factors the area might stay loyal (leave units in place); turn to the Communists (replace with Red units) or go Nationalist (replace with Black).
Loyal units remain controlled by the original player. They may attack original enemies, Reds or Blacks. They can still place new infantry & cavalry units as long as they have depots. Victories over revolutionaries may move them back up into Disorder.
Reds are more likely to take over industrial areas (i.e. with factories); Nationalists only those areas where their people are the majority (e.g Ukraine, Ireland, Bosnia).
In the case of Russia, Germany controls the Reds/Bolsheviks. They are not permitted to operate outside Russian home tt. Germany/CP is considered to have aided the Red takeover, so how to define their respective areas of control? The German player cannot simply use the Bolsheviks to vacate Reds area for Germany to move into.
The presence of Red units in one country will, make Red takeover in neighboring tts more likely.
So what moves a nation up and down the chart:
Defeats in battle
High casualties in a battle (win or lose)
Loss of convoys/supply routes (food shortages)
Passage of a year (war weariness)
Loss of Victory Cities (defeatism)
Victories in battle and capture of VCs might move a nation up, but of course the trend should always be downward; it becomes a matter of surviving intact rather than defeating the enemy through occupation.
The game ends when all nations of one side are defeated (all factories captured) or in Revolution.
@Imperious:
Because events occur as they did in History. No atomic bombs in 1914, or tanks. Russia does not fall in 1923, etc.
It’s irritating and uncalled for that you insinuate that because I think it should be possible that events vastly different in the game from 1914-1916 than in the actual years 1914-1916 should lead to a different 1917 in the game than in the actual year 1917 is me somehow asking for something as asinine as having atomic bombs in the game when nothing at the time available would have made that possible. Please don’t try to argue if you are about to that the Russian revolution happening how and when it did (or even at all) was already locked into place in August 1914.
Berlin fell in 1945 to the Soviets. Should the next edition of A&A after this (assuming it’s WWII) schedule that approximate time in game terms to be its fall? Why not? What is the major difference between that and the Russian Revolution in terms of one needing to played to and one needing to be scheduled? I am not saying there is not a major difference, I am wondering what it is if it exists and if that difference then means that it should be scheduled.
@Imperious:
It is no different from global, you have no choice as to when US or USSR enters ( unless provoked early)
<sigh>Can you not see how that is a choice? Japan (and Germany or italy I suppose) can choose to have the USA enter on 1, 2, or 3. EuroAxis can choose 1,2,3,4 for Russia. Japan and Russia on the pac map can start anytime, or not at all.
@Imperious:
This “choice” is only that the axis can attack early, otherwise these allies automatically enter the game at fixed turns. Where are the rules in global where you roll dice to determine when somebody is at war.?
Not true at all. Russia can choose to go to war with Japan, and in some circumstances, UK may want to risk going to war early with Japan too. Who said anything about rolling dice to determinine who is at war? I didn’t, unless you want to say that taking of territories and killing ships (which uses dice, sure) is me saying that, in which case I would argue right back that in global the fortunes of Germany on its first turn (which requires rolling dice) has huge consequences on when they go to war with Russia and sometimes even Japan’s plan in the pacific. But I never said that we should do something along the lines of rolling a handful of dice and if we get a Yahtzee, USA enters. That’s what you make it sound like to me. As I have described it, the provocation system would have clear causes and effects, and they would be measured cumulatively until they got to the point that the USA is provoked.
In the end, your argument doesn’t really hold much water because although the fixed turn entries come about eventually, the players can (and often do) CHOOSE to attack before the auto-war conditions are triggered. Unless you want to argue that that itself causes the game to be impossible to balance, and then show that Global is imbalanced because of that you really have no leg to stand on to say that allowing variable entry is automatically a balance doomer. It would be one thing if everyone always waited until the effects resolved automatically, but that is far, FAR from the case. You can’t just ignore that in the VAST majority of games played at least ONE political situation is changed before it would have automatically happened.
Who is to say that if not provoked early, the USA can enter the war at a later turn automatically, but that game circumstances may have Germany wanting to risk USA coming in before that (hence a provocation system)? As for how variable entry is bad for balance, I see it as quite the opposite. In fact, the provocation system for the US could coincide quite nicely with CP success. The better the central powers do (killing ships, taking territories), the more likely the axis is to provoke the USA. The more the allies need help coincides with Germany doing more that would anger the US which coincides with the USA entering earlier. Scheduling it means if Germany is cleaning up then USA will be in too late to be balanced, and if Germany is getting hosed then USA will be in too early to be balanced. What’s really unbalanced is scheduling fixed events that completely ignore the situation at hand, and cannot be prevented because they are scheduled.
It’s understandable that you did not address the most important issue I mentioned, since I wrote so much so here it is:
What will the effects be of having a scheduled Russian Revolution when Russia is doing WELL?
That question in my mind slaughters the possibility of the Russian Revolution as being hard-scheduled as a remotely good option.</sigh>
Those seem like pretty good causes to start a revolution. I think overall it would need to be simplified a lot. One major issue I see is the need for extra pieces and charts.
Also, it might be a lot simpler to get rid of disorder, and just have a point where there is revolution. As for what revolution actually means, well… if it is for more than just russia a possibility that could get complicated.
As for more countries than russia having the possibility of Revolution I see a lot of pros and cons.
Each country could have a different value for when they have a revolution, and a different revolution result.
I would not mind personally if only Russia were able to have a revolution for simplicity’s sake. Tons of ideas all around right now.
