The Great War 1914-1918: Clash of Empires

Thanks! Will do.

Very nice rules and map!
What program did you use to create this map?

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.

@eddiem4145:

I have downloaded the rule book from Xeno games before. In fact I printed it out. I would be willing to fax it to you if they do not have the download still.

Incidentally, I have played their online (so to speak) email version. I bought it in 2004 with the promise of a newer more practical version. Yes it has been 6 years. They are still working on it. I never asked for my money back. There last update was october of last year. If they ever get it out, it probabbly will be great.

eddiem4145@yahoo.com

These guys make WOTC look good.

yah, with three diffrent idealogies competing for contol, that would be cool, but i was going for a game that was a little less black and white

leaders of arab countires are more often allied with western powers than with Islam, Russia and China are not on the best terms either, and in this game i am going to make it possible for Russia and China to have full scale war with each other. Also its not like the US, UK, and France are able to agree on eyerthing either. I think it is best if they are seperate powers.

sure their will still be too sides, NATO, headed by the US, and the Warsaw Pact, headed by the Soveits. but the alliances are not set.
In fact at the start of the game all countries should still be at peace. each power can either buy NATO or WARSAW Pact vicotry points with 10 IPCs, of course doing that lowers the effectiveness of their armies the next turn, and so should only do this when they are not expecting attack

THe US and USSR are the only countries that start out active, If  US/UK/France are attack all of those countries can become active, of course I am going to have diplomacy rolling that can weaken or change the NATO alliance

China, and India are different. You can gain control of them diplomaticly or you can attack them to makes them active. if you attack one, the other becomes contoled by your alliance

The diplomacy thing will be clearer later, I also might make diffrent national objectives for each contry so that when you have more than two players, diplomacy can be represented by people instead of dice rolls.

no way. That map is bigger than huge.

What do others think?

thrasher,

@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).