Already Looking Forward to 1914 2nd Edition

I couldn’t agree more with you. I said that earlier in a previous post on this site or Larry’s. They can upgrade the pieces,map and rules. Before it is said and done I believe we will have a WW1 game that is the size of global 40. They are just making too much money not to do it. I believe this game might end up with about 3 to 4 revisions before it is all over.

@GoSanchez6:

I couldn’t agree more with you. I said that earlier in a previous post on this site or Larry’s. They can upgrade the pieces,map and rules. Before it is said and done I believe we will have a WW1 game that is the size of global 40. They are just making too much money not to do it. I believe this game might end up with about 3 to 4 revisions before it is all over.

If it is the size of Global, I hope it’s because the Western front becomes broken down a lot. A few German ships in the pac had soe very cool stories to tell, but I am more interested in a big western front. Map being to Scale be darned in this case for me.

I don’t agree that you need to blow the France-Belgium-Germany borders up to super size with dozens of areas to recreate the western front.

Men fought over the same trenches in the same narrow area for 4 years, it doesn’t mean that it needs to be more than 3 or 4 areas.

Its important to contrast the different kind of warfare in such a confined space from that fought over much larger areas.

I would recommend taking a look at the Great War on triplea. I am not saying it will change your mind, but it is an interesting take on the warfare.

It just seems to me that it is strange to have less spaces between Germany and Paris than Germany and Leningrad (this is a guess of what) when progress in the west was measured in yards but in the east movement was much mroe rapid.

It comes down to the ratio of space to soldiers.

In the west a huge number of men fought over a short frontier; once the “race to the sea” had established a continuous frontier both sides could always bring in enough men to shore up their defences.

In the east there were never enough men to do this, so movement was continual as armies tried to outflank each other, something impossible in the west.

The game should reflect this, rather than artificially telescoping the Western Front.

That is why, on one hand, Larry’s mention of limited combat in the west makes more sense if the whole of the western front is just a handful of territories. That might be the thing I am most looking forward to (instead of the things that I am not too confident about, the Russian revolution for one)

@GoSanchez6:

I couldn’t agree more with you. I said that earlier in a previous post on this site or Larry’s. They can upgrade the pieces,map and rules.

Yes, upgrading the equipment sculpts would be especially nice.  The old Milton Bradley edition had nation-specific infantry units but entirely generic equipment pieces shared by all the countries. A&A 1941 had nation-specific infantry units plus two sets of equipment sculpts that were nation-specific designs but which were entirely shared by the countries on the two opposing sides.  It sounds as if A&A 1914 will be following the A&A 1941 method (I’d hate to think that they would use entirely generic equipment designs), so this would create an opportunity for persuading buyers of this year’s edition to also buy a later second edition by sweetening it with a bunch of new nation-specific equipment pieces.

I’m more interested in having more unit types than nation specific sculpts.

I’d much rather have a new generic bomber unit than 8 different sculpts of the same basic fighter units.

Warships all look much the same to this eye; so long as I can distinguish a destroyer from a cruiser at a glance I’m happy.

Even infantry in the late war could be reduced to three types distinguished by helmet, as long as they’re in nation specific colours.

In could even be argued that the M4 tank could serve all armies, since the Germans used more of these than their own production models.

I’d like more types of fighter sculpt, but mainly to distinguish between techs and/or advances in design rather than nationality.

Regarding WWII versions, the effect of having all the new sculpts is spoiled by the Germans still starting off with late war heavy Panthers; I’d rather have had early war medium Panzer IIIs than another type of late war heavy (Tiger).

I want 14 different types of fighters and 36 different types of bombers too.

That makes it really fun.

Psych.

@Flashman:

I’m more interested in having more unit types than nation specific sculpts.

I’d much rather have a new generic bomber unit than 8 different sculpts of the same basic fighter units.

That’s one of the things that disappoints me about 1941, I feel silly using  JS-2’s as some sort of heavy US tank in global house rules. I definitely like the pieces we do have, but if it would have been 2 or 3 extra bucks for more varied models (and even 10 or so more for unique in WWI) I don’t think I would have complained.

One type of bomber will do.

One type of reconnaissance plane.

One type of airship.

One type of observation balloon.

3 types of fighter.

A different sculpt per type for each side is nice, but not needed.

As long as they’re in the correct colours, that’s all I want.

@Imperious:

I want 14 different types of fighters and 36 different types of bombers too.

That makes it really fun.

Psych.

Don’t need that, All planes as they get upgraded by technology are retrofitted with the latest developments. It is not the case that German kept all her planes that didn’t have interrupter gear and just sent them up to fight with pilots shooting pistols, while other planes had the gear. That is not how it works.

When all metal aircraft appeared, they didn’t use the older planes until they got retrofitted.

the note triggered the war get over it.

You’re ignoring the development of the aircraft themselves.

Fighter planes of 1917 were not 1914 planes fitted with updated weapons technology; they were completely redesigned aircraft that could massively outperform those of just a few years before.

Its like starting with tractors and “retrofitting” them as tanks.

What are these “all metal” aircraft? Apart from a minor Junkers model I can find none.

We need three different fighter plane units, get over it.

Right. Fighters of 1917 were not the ones in 1914. The 1914 models were either upgraded, or not in service. When a tech development occured they either upgraded existing planes or withdrew the older planes from service. Thats why you don’t need any more fighters, just the one.

Metal frame aircraft were developed latter, allowing some planes to fly over the ocean with distance and increased control over windy skies.

They were not upgraded, they were withdrawn from combat service and REPLACED WITH NEWER BETTER AIRCRAFT, which had to be designed and built from scratch.

I’m beginning to think that there will be 6 versions of the game:

A&A 1914: With automatic turn 4 US entry (triggered by the note).

A&A 1915: Commemorating the US victory over Haiti.

A&A 1916: Commemorating the Woodrow “he kept out out of the war” Wilson re-election triumph, thus postponing US entry for another 4 months.

A&A 1917: Commemorating the sending of the note that triggered the war.

A&A 1918: Commemorating Uncle Sam finally going on the attack on the western front.

A&A 1914 Deluxe Edition: The game A&A 1914 should have been, with bombers and railways and morale levels and a US entry tracker and infantry training and EVERYTHING.

When I thought there would be second edition I didn’t think they would be adding a whole lot to it. Updated map and maybe a few new unit types. They will throw in a few new sculpts for the piece junkies so they will bite. This game should have been made on a map the size of global 40 or a little smaller with many victory cities or certain objective points to be taken. Granted I am thrilled that this is coming out but I do believe that in a few years we will be looking at 2 or 3 expansions that are way better than this one.

Yea they need a 2nd edition of this game. I wonder what it will have that is new.

This game is and should be but so complated. and 3 different types of fighters is far and away more complainted than it needs to be. The game and the war should be won and lost on the game board. By the men fighting it. Not on the tech chart. I would be horrified to find out that it was possible to put a country on such a high tech level that it’s extremely hard if not impossible to be defeated. Last thing I want to see is someone gets lucky to get heavy tanks and roll over his enemies because they can’t get a lucky roll and get heavy tanks for themselves.

The war should and should always be won and lost on the battle board not the tech chart

Larry says everyone gets to build tanks on turn 4. That looks like it.

For my money, techs are more appropriate for this game than in WWII. However, my implementation would be rather different, that is that the enemy would be able to copy a tech a couple of turns after it is introduced. Techs in this war were innovative, rather than particularly advanced, hence easier to copy than WWII techs such as jet fighters. The copier would still have to pay to develop the tech, but with a guaranteed result, so the advantage would not be so great.

Still, having tanks for just a couple of turns before the enemy produces their own version could lead to an important breakthrough.

Looks like I’m alone in wanting the fighter plane arms race represented. But I do believe the fighters of 1918 were a heck of a lot better than the string bags of 1914. I’d only want this if there are separate sculpts to represent the new fighters, however.

I do agree that techs should not be the decisive factor in the game; this war should still be about attritional infantry and artillery battles above all. But tanks and aircraft did give the edge to attacks in the later years of the war, albeit they still needed artillery and infantry support. Tanks without inf & art were as useless in attack as they were in defence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofSP8NXQXI