Already Looking Forward to 1914 2nd Edition

@GoSanchez6:

I personally don’t want too much detail in these games. I want them to easily playable with a feel of the conflict. They don’t have to be burdened down with 5 different types of infantry or 12 different types of artillery it makes to hard to understand and too hard to explain to new players. KISS theory is a good one. That is why the original AA was so successful. Just my opinion now you can rip me to shreds.

I am not trying to rip you to shreds, but for me personally at this point, Original A&A is so boring for me. Personally I would like the complexity to keep building (in my mind this is progressing), but the flip side is that I can see that since this is the first official WWI game, the first edition should be quite simple.

I can understand that point of view Von and appreciate that. I think there needs to be some sort of Advanced AA. Unit types for each country cost differently, attack differently,etc,etc,. I personally like these games to be playable in 5 to 6 hours. I don’t need some huge campaign that takes 16 hours to play. I have a wife and 2 kids and unfortunately cannot donate that kind of time to these games.Just my 2 cents.

At a retail price of 100 dollar-pounds, I expect something rather more complex. If they wanted an entry level game then produce a “budget” version such as A&A 1941. For all its faults, ILs game looks a much better bet, though of course he may price it at a level only he can afford…

I’m arguing here more for historical accuracy rather than complexity; If you’re going to have shock troops for Germany then the same should apply to anyone else.

20 German tanks is by any standards “not enough to be represented”, yet they’ll be in there. An entire Italian army corps of shock troops can be dismissed only by ignoring the facts. If Turkey can produce mechanical units then so can Liberia & Haiti.

Our game is either $99 or $119 depending on final accounting. Not more or less.

20 German tanks is by any standards “not enough to be represented”, yet they’ll be in there. An entire Italian army corps of shock troops can be dismissed only by ignoring the facts. If Turkey can produce mechanical units then so can Liberia & Haiti.

Throw the non accurate units in the trash can. Problem solved.

@Imperious:

Throw the non accurate units in the trash can. Problem solved.

But won’t that unbalance the game?  I expect this sort of thing to be done by the designers. They should read some books, man.

But won’t that unbalance the game?  I expect this sort of thing to be done by the designers. They should read some books, man.

Accuracy is more important. Like not letting Germany build more than one tank and other arbitrary rules.

Like not letting anyone else train shock troops? Even thought they did, in large numbers.

Yes, yes I see.

Like not letting anyone else train shock troops? Even thought they did, in large numbers.

Or not letting the Allies get Zeppelins because they sell toy balloons in London?

Yea, yes i see

To summarize your timeline, then:

turn 1: Does Turkey start at war, on only on it’s own turn? Do Belgium and Serbia start at war, or only if they’re attacked?

turn 2: Chemical weapons used for the first time (Allies will only use gas if CPS already have done so)

turn 3: Italy joins the Allies

turn 4: Bulgaria joins the CPs

turn 5: Portugal joins the Allies

turn 6: Romania joins the Allies, Arab revolt begins

turn 7: US Election; tanks used for the first time; Romania surrenders

turn 8: USA declares war (but doesn’t join the Allies)

turn 9: Greece joins the Allies

turn 10: Bolshevik revolution warps Russia into alternative universe

turn 11: Treaty of Brest-Litovsk seeds Western Russia to Germany

turn 12: Bulgaria surrenders

turn 13: Allies invade Russia, CPs collapse

turn 14: Russian civil war continues

turn 15: Russian civil war continues

END: count up the number of capitals captured to determine winner

This rather nicely gives an event or tech development each turn

@Imperious:

Like not letting anyone else train shock troops? Even thought they did, in large numbers.

Or not letting the Allies get Zeppelins because they sell toy balloons in London?

Yea, yes i see

The Allies get airships.  Never said otherwise.

You lost this one, get over it.

But YOU said if the allies train one shock troop, they can build armies of them even though they didn’t.

And for the same reason the Germans only build a few tanks, so they cant

Or the allies build an airship, so give them zeppelins.

It’s much easier if you throw out the units you don’t like…

Germany gets shock troops, Turkey can build whatever after the war, and no zeppelins for allies.

Certainly no aircraft carriers and armored cars. AA guns were too infant for this war.

OK, but be consistant.

If the Allies can train shock troops, let them have as many as they’re willing to pay for.

If the Germans have the tank tech, let them build whatever they can afford.

Turkey had no modern industrial base, so shouldn’t be able to build anything; just recruit infantry and cavalry. If their Allies can deliver heavy units to Turkish tt then let them be converted to Turkish units.  This is one of the reasons control of the Straits was so important - it was needed to rail supplies from Germany and Austria to Turkey.

Its not a question of liking units, but of wanting them to be available under accurate conditions, and letting the player decide how much of each to buy or train.
Similarly, let the USA convert units built in Britain and France to their own, as long as there is an American army present, though there needs to be a turn where the units are converted and cannot fight.

@Flashman:

Its not a question of liking units, but of wanting them to be available under accurate conditions, and letting the player decide how much of each to buy or train.

We have a winner.

OK, but be consistant.

Like giving Turkey tanks?  Better to take the second option you proposed. NO units or capabilities that were not in the real war. If the game comes with extra pieces throw them away and balance be dammed.

If the Allies can train shock troops, let them have as many as they’re willing to pay for.

But this is a strategic game and the threshold is too small for them to be represented. Germany had corps sized formations of them, that’s 3-6 divisions each. And they had more than one corps.
Allies just really ( only UK, not USA, Italy, France) had a few divisions of elite troops. They were not really called stormtroops, just good units but too small for representation.

If the Germans have the tank tech, let them build whatever they can afford.

Better they don’t build any as you stated before. I agree.

Turkey had no modern industrial base, so shouldn’t be able to build anything; just recruit infantry and cavalry. If their Allies can deliver heavy units to Turkish tt then let them be converted to Turkish units.  This is one of the reasons control of the Straits was so important - it was needed to rail supplies from Germany and Austria to Turkey.

But they got supplies from the CP. So they could build tanks, which in reality is a hand me down from Germany. See it works.

Its not a question of liking units, but of wanting them to be available under accurate conditions, and letting the player decide how much of each to buy or train.
Similarly, let the USA convert units built in Britain and France to their own, as long as there is an American army present, though there needs to be a turn where the units are converted and cannot fight.

Right the allies could build Zeppelins, so let them. They already built airships, so they just stretch them to 700 feet and start bombing Germany. It works.

Germany only built 20 tanks because Ludendorff was too short sighted to see how important they’d become. The Germany player might decide to give priority to tank production; why should he be limited to Ludendorff’s blinkered view?

The Allies probably had as many shock-trained troops as the CPs, why does it matter what organization they were in, at this scale? And again, the Allied players may decide to give them a higher priority than historically, perhaps in response to German tank developments. As long as it can be demonstrated that they had the capability to put the unit in the field, the player must decide for him/herself how many to produce. Or do you suggest that players MUST produce every single unit in historically correct proportions to each other?

Turkey did not, COULD NOT build tanks or anything else other than basic infantry equipment. They got supplies, in fact they got pretty much everything, from their allies, but every single rivet of it had to be physically transported either by sea or by rail to Turkey. These were not in kit form, but fully assembled mechanical units, right up to battleships and bombers.

This is why the Allies decided to attack the straits; they were vital for CP supplies to Turkey, and for Allied supplies to Russia.

As I said, by all means allow Turkey to convert units built in Europe to their own units in exactly the manner of the Goeben and Breslau. You can have as many Turkish tanks as you like as long as the German and Austrian players are prepared to supply them.

Allied shock troops and Turkish controlled tanks were in the war. However small the numbers historically, it should be up to the players to decide how many they want to pay for. Otherwise, where’s the game?

Germany only built 20 tanks because Ludendorff was too short sighted to see how important they’d become. The Germany player might decide to give priority to tank production; why should he be limited to Ludendorff’s blinkered view?

Germany captured more tanks than it built. Why cant the allies not build Zeppelins and bomb Germany?

The Allies probably had as many shock-trained troops as the CPs, why does it matter what organization they were in, at this scale? And again, the Allied players may decide to give them a higher priority than historically, perhaps in response to German tank developments. As long as it can be demonstrated that they had the capability to put the unit in the field, the player must decide for him/herself how many to produce. Or do you suggest that players MUST produce every single unit in historically correct proportions to each other?

They did not and its not even close. They did not employ them the same way anyhow. They were just elite formations on a small scale.

Turkey did not, COULD NOT build tanks or anything else other than basic infantry equipment. They got supplies, in fact they got pretty much everything, from their allies, but every single rivet of it had to be physically transported either by sea or by rail to Turkey. These were not in kit form, but fully assembled mechanical units, right up to battleships and bombers.

Ottomans got what they needed from other CP members, so in a sense they can build the same things, we assume they got bought and railroaded / deployed.

This is why the Allies decided to attack the straits; they were vital for CP supplies to Turkey, and for Allied supplies to Russia.

They didn’t attack them because they cant build tanks. That was for their own reasons.

As I said, by all means allow Turkey to convert units built in Europe to their own units in exactly the manner of the Goeben and Breslau. You can have as many Turkish tanks as you like as long as the German and Austrian players are prepared to supply them.

yea right.

Allied shock troops and Turkish controlled tanks were in the war. However small the numbers historically, it should be up to the players to decide how many they want to pay for. Otherwise, where’s the game?

Ottomans captured British tanks, so like Germany they can build tanks, the cost is the retrofit and repair of lost British tanks. It all works the same.

No it doesn’t.

Building a complex unit and manning a complex unit obtained from elsewhere are not the same thing.

You might as well allow Liberia to build Dreadnoughts on the basis that they could have bought the parts from Harland and Wolff.

What is this obsession with Zeppelins? I’ve already said that the Allies had airships, what’s the problem?

Shock troops were a tactical innovation; there is absolutely no reason why any power could not have trained troops to fight this way. The idea didn’t even come from Germany. Like I say, allow the players to train up their infantry into shock units if they wish. Why just Germany?

Maybe the Get over it issue will continue on this thread after it was deleted.

No it doesn’t.

Building a complex unit and manning a complex unit obtained from elsewhere are not the same thing.

It is for axis and allies. Case in point: how lend lease was handled in AAE99.

You might as well allow Liberia to build Dreadnoughts on the basis that they could have bought the parts from Harland and Wolff.

What is this obsession with Zeppelins? I’ve already said that the Allies had airships, what’s the problem?

Airships are for observation, not strategic bombing of cities.

Shock troops were a tactical innovation; there is absolutely no reason why any power could not have trained troops to fight this way. The idea didn’t even come from Germany. Like I say, allow the players to train up their infantry into shock units if they wish. Why just Germany?

Because it is not Historical. Germans employed these in 1918 and used them to spearhead an entire offensive. Australians and whatnot had a few decent and much smaller formations, never to the extent even close to the German employment. If the game comes with them for allies, i will throw them away.