Thank you so much!
National Objectives
-
Another factor is the 3 vs 1 lineup on the western front; that is France, Britain and later America each having a turn in succession between German turns. To be fair there’d have to be a way for Germany to reinforce its stack between turns.
-
Another factor is the 3 vs 1 lineup on the western front; that is France, Britain and later America each having a turn in succession between German turns. To be fair there’d have to be a way for Germany to reinforce its stack between turns.
Perhaps Germany could play separate turns for the eastern and western fronts, allowing them to transfer reinforcements from one front to the other during NCM.
-
Another factor is the 3 vs 1 lineup on the western front; that is France, Britain and later America each having a turn in succession between German turns. To be fair there’d have to be a way for Germany to reinforce its stack between turns.
Perhaps I am not understanding the stacking limit (only played D-Day once and that was years ago); would it be the case that the allies COMBINED are limited? If that were the case, I don’t think Germany would need a special rule.
-
Sadly I think, from what he’s been saying on HGD, that Larry is very reluctant to change anything about A&A other than battle board mechanics. His refusal to seriously consider rail movement will severely handicap the Central Powers, who’ll be unable to shift forces from front to front as they did in the war.
The Allies are much less affected as they rely largely on sea transport for troop movement.His solution will probably be to simply give Germany more infantry to hold the areas. The best solution would be that all the western Allies play at the same time, but again this is too radical for Larry.
-
but again this is too radical for Larry.
And that is why we use house rules. :-)
I’m starting to look forward to the ideas that come once the game is out.
-
Flashman, you are not the only one that dislikes NOs. I would prefer them being optional or not part of A&A games. They are super clumsy to keep track of and, from our experiences, detract from the enjoyment instead of adding. Now, if each nation had one NO that would be great.
-
Yea, one NO or two at the most. Not six each.
-
Its to do with limited war aims; in WWII version the aim is nothing less than occupying the enemy’s home tt. In WWI, where this is much less likely, its a case of more and smaller objectives, hence NOs like the 2 African examples. I’m concerned that otherwise player will just sit tight and let the enemy burn himself out.
-
One of the nice things about NO’s is that they can make the game about something other than building up a big enough infantry stack to take a capital. They give incentive to have more fighting more places.
-
On the other hand, perhaps National Objectives and Victory Conditions could be one and the same thing?
That is, if we take my example of 12 per side, if at any time one side fulfills X* number of NOs, then they win the game.
*Players deciding on the number needed for victory.
Perhaps this steers things a little too much towards historical battle fronts, but you can still decide to leave a couple out if, say, the VC is ten NOs.
Even so, its got to be better than the old “capture 2 enemy capitals” rule that made some old versions of Axis and Allies so predictable.
-
Yea but when the Capitals of France, England, Austro-Hungary, Germany, Ottomans, Italy, and probably Russia are occupied…they surrender.
France surrendered when Germany too Sedan in 1870, they definitely surrender if Paris falls. Actually they surrender as soon as they get shipment of white flags to be honest.
They in some cases surrender earlier where the rules could cover.
-
Not one of those capitals was captured in WWI despite over four years of mass slaughter.
If it happens on a regular basis in the game then isn’t the game broken as a depiction of WWI conditions?
Also, my experience of A&A is that if the rule is used whereby a country surrenders or loses all money/production when the capital falls, then the entire game becomes all about capturing the capitals. That is not WWI.
-
Not one of those capitals was captured in WWI despite over four years of mass slaughter.
Thats correct but if they did, the nation would fall. It just happened that they fell before.
-
Right, because in this war a nation would collapse internally before the enemy was likely to get near to the capital.
Hence my suggestions for alternative victory conditions.
-
Well not for France. The goal was Paris and the French would collapse only if it falls.
Some nations have to have the capital fall, others probable loss of substantial income.
-
@Imperious:
Well not for France. The goal was Paris and the French would collapse only if it falls.
Are you sure that’s what you wanted to say?
-
It is an opinion, not subject to you trying to make it my de facto argument because you lost the last three of those, requiring 200+ posts of post gibberish….again.
-
Was the goal really Paris?
Or did the Germans know all along they were in for a long war of attrition?
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Schlieffen-Plan-Planning-1871-1914/dp/0199250162
http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-German-Plan-1904-14/dp/0752456644/ref=pd_sim_b_1/191-8076342-3952441
-
Since Kenya was the goal and Britain would only have fallen if Kenya was taken and there was no other way, we need the rules to reflect this.
-
Oh no, more gibberish.
Don’t know I’ve done to deserve it.
Suggested Topics
