The Great War 1914-1918: Clash of Empires

@Imperious-Leader Thx, I will wait your link

What about Oil rules? By then oil will be scarce!

Hallo guys, I would like to share something about this topic.

Thank you for reading.

I have created SITREP, The day after… It’s basically Axis and Allies in a modern setting, starting the day after 9/11.

Modern units, a complete redesigned worldmap. It is all there.

In this boardgame, six powers are involved.

United States of America, United Kingdom, NATO at one side. On the other side, there are The Arab league, Russia and China.

I spend lots and lots of time to translate the ‘real’ situation into an Axis and Allies setting and according play style.
So far, I am very pleased and satisfied with the result.

I have recently created a new website to share the details with other players.
The introduction may be Dutch
The game rules however, are written in English.

See my website for some details, and feel free to comment.

sitrep-the-day-after.jouwweb.nl

Hicks

Table Tactics used to have available the Central Powers units, which if you combined them with say the infantry figures and artillery from Attack, you could pretty much have what you needed for a WW1 land game, and the naval units, less carriers, would cover the naval aspect.  You could pretty much eliminate the Asian aspect as that lasted a very short time.  You did have the Emden raiding in the Indian Ocean and Von Spee’s squadron sailing across the Pacific, sinking Cradock’s two cruisers, Good Hope and Monmouth, and then attacking the Falklands, where 4 our of 5 of his cruisers were sunk in December of 1914.  Aside from those naval actions, you do not have much at all.

You would need the Mid East and Africa for those campaigns, and Lettow-Vorbeck was still fighting in November of 1918, and you cannot pass up the Arab Revolt and Allenby’s campaigns in the Mid East, nor Gallipoli.  The current Europe 1940 board would be about right, reset to 1914. Another option for a start would be the basic Attack Game board covering Europe and the Americas, and then redraw the boundaries.

I am talking to Table Tactics about doing some more WW1 tanks besides the Mark II that they have: the French Renault, maybe a British Whippet as a later war tank, the German A7V, and a Rolls-Royce armoured car for the Mid East.  Given the small size of most of your WW1 fighters, you probably would want to use 1/300 scale for the fighters, rather than 1/600.  I am checking with another company on Zeppelins, and they already do a nice blimp.  Get a mix of 1/2400 scale and 1/4800 scale WW1 ships, and you have the basis for a prototype.

For Countries in the Game, you have the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire on one side, and the British Empire, France, Italy, and a Russian/US player.  The US comes in with either the Russian Revolution or the use by Germany of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare.  I have thought of a couple of ways to trigger the Russian Revolution, with the option of preventing it if the Ottomans are knocked out soon enough.  Hard to say how to handle the Balkans, as Serbia has a claim to be in the game somehow, unless they are controlled by the Russian player until knocked out of the war.

There should be some nice naval actions between the German and UK, and the Italians, the Austrians, the French and the UK in the Med, with some chance for action in the Baltic and the Black Sea.  Not sure how to handle the stalemate on the Western Front as yet.  However, it is only 2011, so there is time yet.

I recently got a copy of Conquest Gaming’s “A House Divided The Brothers War”.  It is an area movement game that uses miniatures and, because of the railroad movement in addition to regular movement, 6 distinct theaters (3 per side),general and event cards that modify the fighting troops abilities, is a very interesting game to play.  It is tough for the North to survive the opening rounds because of their relatively weak starting generals and troop levels, but because of the reinforcement advantage, if it can hang on the game becomes winable for it.  Another interesting and historical feature is that many of the South’s generals have good infantry, cavalry and artillery modifiers while many of the North’s generals are lesser, but all the main generals are represented so eventually the North draws Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Grant, etc. But, of course, the South continues to draw generals each turn so Longstreet, Stuart, Pemberton and Lee appear (Beauregard and Jackson start the game in play).  You have to provide your own pieces, the pieces from the Napoleon Risk will work, but I had enough pieces from Battle Cry to play the game.  The game is only $13 and with about $10 shipping is still are good buy for such an interesting game.

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.

Global War 2.0 is available for Triplea.

Download at: http://www.tripleadev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=10246

Not a fan of IB, huh?

I haven’t met many folks who were.

Rob.