The Great War 1914-1918: Clash of Empires

@Tall:

“Coach”,

––As far as the Island Warfare set in your Global Warfare-1939 series sets goes,….Do you have plans for making,…or could you PLEASE include an APD Attack Transport? These were the WW1 era 4-piper Destroyers that were rebuilt into Attack Transports for the Marine Raiders and other units. The Japanese also had simular Attack Transports and both were seen starting in the Guadalcanal campaign.
––My Marine Raiders are anxiously awaiting their rides into battle.

––I’m including a drawing & some pics, below.

“Tall Paul”

100400114.jpg
ban_apd009dent.jpg

@oztea:

Something I considered using in my variant.
Factions
US - Green
UK & NATO - Tan
France - Blue
SEATO- Grey

USSR - Red
China - Orange

Then you use Brown, Light Green, and Black to represent Pro Communist, Neutral, and Pro-Western
BUT here is the twist. You put forces of all 3 colors in countries to represent their leanings.

So for instance, a country like Venezuela would have 4 brown infantry, 2 light green and 2 black

If you try to activate it as the US, the neutrals join the Pro Communists, but you get the 2 black infantry on to your side (represents friendly forces)
Major powers can spend money and buy forces around the world for their proxy wars.

Yep been working on something like this for a long time. Finding all the pieces and color matches has been expensive and somewhat difficult to get I just the way I like it. I love the idea of proxy warfare and superpowers shuffling armies round the globe.

I will have to check that book out, thank you. :-D

there wont be much money in this game. i actually like that better makes a little more cotios(sp?) of loses.

I got a say, though I have never played anything other than AArevised, and earlier addtions, (including expansions), people always did buy all tanks. But when tanks defended on a 2, and cost 3, buying all infantry swamped the tanks. I never bought all men with the guys I used to play regualary with, but just enough not to give it away. I was amazed they never realized the advantage of buying all men versus tanks. I always bought just enough men to not make it obvious. I have been playing for over 25 years. When they made tanks defend at a 3 on revised it became a close battle, but with the addition of artillery, again unless  you had to travel far and fast, infantry and artillery is far superior in strength. It always has been, so I curious what game was it advantageous to do all tanks.

In World at WAr (Expansion), since you can improve factories to produce 2 tanks per turn at a $1 reduce price, those became the only tanks I would ever buy.

Looking at some of the maps like AA40, being so big in terms of spaces it might make sense. But tanks costing now $6, the need for speed really must overcome the advantage of fire power. If I have $42, I would much rather have 6 men and 6 artillery versus 7 tanks. Its a no brainer.

@Toonster:

The rules for World at War says the following about an Axis IPC win:

“Germany and Japan win whenever their combined IPC total is 20 IPCs higher than all of the Allies combined.”

Does this mean directly after Japan has finished his turn, implying Russia and US cannot fight back?

Toonster

I assume (as in orig. A&A), that the Axis must maintain the IPC total at the end on one complete round of play (meaning every player has had a turn).

Hello…

I have the W@W board game; however, I unfortunately haven’t been able to muster up a group of friends to play it yet – although, I have reviewed the rules a bit. Also, I am currently in the process of playing my first PBEM game (A&A), so I’m still learning the ropes a lil’ bit. I’m in if I won’t slow up things any and of course if additional players are still needed.

chadbiggs@hotmail.com