Even were that the case, and it isn’t, then the Allied players could build all-shock troops armies if they wanted.
Just as the Germans could build all-tank armies if they wish.
Remember, anything other than a German surrender on 11/11/18 is unhistorical. The only history that matters is August 1914 - everything after that is the game.
All of these games are not real versions of what happened. Think about what game have you had where the Russians outproduced the Germans in armour by 5 to 1. I would bet none. The reality was actually more than that. I still believe that is the genius of these games. It gives you the player to decide where to place your countries resources. If you want to build a bunch of tanks for Germany in the WW1 game after a certain turn you should be allowed to do so. As long as you have the resources. Embrace the historical period in this case 1914-1919. Don’t be a prisoner to it.
Yes, as long as it is plausible.
Allies training 20,000 shock troops is plausible.
Germany building 200 tanks is plausible.
Turkey building anything more formidable than an elastic band powered soap box racer is implausible.
Was it plausible Flash that Germany almost always outproduces Russia in tanks? I say not but I really don’t have a problem with the way the game works. I completely understand you want the game to mirror history to a certain extent the only problem with that is that the Axis would never win. Historically the Central powers had a better chance at victory than the Axis did. In that case a more historically accurate WW1 game is plausible for game play since I know that is what you are looking for. I am in no means saying you are right or wrong I am just giving you my opinion.
Well, Hitler thought so, but like most people he grossly underestimated Soviet industry.
I’m not against certain “balancing” techniques to produce a more uncertain outcome. Generally this does mean exaggerating the starting units & industrial capacity of the Axis, but this is rather different from allowing nations to build types of units they were just not able to produce.
One method I’ve recommended for WWI is that only the CPs can exploit (collect income from) occupied tt, and only they are permitted to invade neutrals. Or at the very least invading a neutral influences the USA against the invader.
I also want to see:
Strategic rail movement
No new factories
No use of occupied factories
Ships able to remain in port
Separate infantry recruitment rules
Terrain types
I.L. at least has listened to my arguments over the years, and it seems most of these will be implemented in his game; I’m not optimistic for the official version.
I.L. at least has listened to my arguments over the years, and it seems most of these will be implemented in his game; I’m not optimistic for the official version.
That is 100%, though i do like to make sarcastic comments on your ideas if extrapolated to conclusion. Our game does not end based on when Germany Historically falls. We apply a fixed limit that makes the game finished in a more or less fixed time.
The representation of units for some nations and not others is due to making the basic fact pattern of what Historically did occur in the scale and gimping Turkey makes the CP too weak. The other problem is these “Nation fans” who whine about not getting this or that. We understand people will make house rules, so for the most part that’s why they got tanks and armored cars, etc.
I do think when Larry in revised had the optional rules that were generated on a per country basis was totally awesome. Unfortunately I don’t think we will get those in any of these games any time soon. I think this WW1 game would be better had he included some of these do be used by who wants to use them. It wouldn’t ruin the game and it would give players a more realistic feal on a per country basis. I kind of think Flash that would even satisfy you. I think, maybe not.
Remind me of what they were and I’ll tell you if I’d be satisfied. Like you say, probably not.
I do think when Larry in revised had the optional rules that were generated on a per country basis was totally awesome. Unfortunately I don’t think we will get those in any of these games any time soon. I think this WW1 game would be better had he included some of these do be used by who wants to use them. It wouldn’t ruin the game and it would give players a more realistic feal on a per country basis. I kind of think Flash that would even satisfy you. I think, maybe not.
Remind me of what they were and I’ll tell you if I’d be satisfied. Like you say, probably not.
I think these were they:
Ahh, you mean National Advantages!
Trans-Siberian Railway: Your infantry , AA guns, artillery may move 1 space among Russia, Novosibirsk, Yakut & Buryatia.
Don’t quite see the point of that one.
No, don’t like these. Rather abstract, and more stuff to remember that isn’t on the board.
Since My chronology is based on a 4 turn year, I have some winter effects, but they’re mainly to do with certain SZs becoming frozen over and impassable (ships have to spend the winter in port).
Maybe all units attack at -1 in Winter. In Arabia/North Africa it might be -1 to attackers in Summer.
But since Larry’s chronology is nuts (America enters on turn 4!) it’ll probably be impossible to implement these.
Tank salvage is something that could be imported to 1914, but for every power. If we do get different sculpts for tanks we can repaint a few in enemy colours for salvage units. Fight at -1 (untrained crews?)
With so few unit types its difficult to suggest anything more; if there were a bomber tech then Italy and Russia would start with it.
Maybe Q Ships (UK) - transports that can fire in defence. But I prefer this sort of thing to be handled with event cards for an element of surprise.
Pretty sure the 1 space thing was a typo. I don’t have the physical rulebook readily available, but I am 99% it was two spaces.
If you don’t like those, then you probably won’t like these :-D:
Meh, the night bombers one is quite neat.
Flash I am not sure the way the whole Axis and Allies concept is enough for you. I don’t believe Larry is ever going to build a game with the amount of detail and ruleset you are looking for. He has to keep it to a broad audience for it to sell. The game probably needs to be played in a 3 to 5 hour window. It seems to me you are looking for something on a different level than what you will ever get out of any of these games. Good luck on finding a game to your liking I don’t think one of these is going to be it.
Don’t quite know where you’re coming from - I’ve just rejected the idea of adding NAs.
My reasoning may be complicated, but in essence I want the game to be simple, but realistic. I have no interest in moving into “hex and counter” war games.
If I reject “Capture the Capitals” as victory conditions it is because it is unhistorical, and has often resulted in games which are too predictable - everything revolving around Moscow. The search for an alternative may go around the houses, but is intended to reach a solution that is simple to implement.
Just because I suggest “we could do this”, and “what if we did that” doesn’t mean I want everything crammed into the game; essentially I’m throwing ideas around that may make the game better. For example, for years I’ve argued for there to be only one movement phase, partly to simplify and speed things up. The argument for it may be long and complex, but it seems that this has born fruit and the new game will be speedier and better for it.
I just read your posts and you seem to always be complaining or lamenting that there is not enough historical detail or you don’t like the rules for some reason. That is why I am making the assumption you are not happy with these games. I guess I stand corrected.
I suppose there are two opposite approaches. Some are only concerned with playability and balance, others (with an background in history) are more interested in the game reflecting reality, and consider it a challenge to match the two things together. I belong in the latter camp.
I do think Flash that this game could be done more to your theory as I believe this was a 50/50 struggle until the USA got in. It actually may have been more of 60/40 in the centrals favour. They were the ones gaining ground and over time probably would have won.
I suppose there are two opposite approaches. Some are only concerned with playability and balance, others (with an background in history) are more interested in the game reflecting reality, and consider it a challenge to match the two things together. I belong in the latter camp.
…and then we have the plastic piece junkies 8-)
…and then we have the plastic piece junkiesÂ
Ah yes. Just last weekend, I bought nine new plastic storage trays in anticipation of the new game.
What’s the ninth one for?
