Is Mexico even on there - can’t see myself.
The diamond shape is the only way to fit in Africa. I think it will grow on people, but I do wish they’d give higher priority to making a big enough map instead of squashing things in. The biggest problem with the approach taken is that Europe is so small.
no Mexico as far as i can tell.
Things i dont like
-Ottaman are teal
-Austria hungary is light green
-Diamond map
-Italy is orange
I’m loving it all and can’t wait to buy it! :-)
Things i dont like
-Ottaman are teal
-Austria hungary is light green
-Diamond map
-Italy is orange
I second all of this. Too many bright non-military colours, even though AA Global proved that scheme could cover a very diverse palette without going “clown car.” Also, while previous maps have warped geography, never have landmasses been warped so much. At least lately.
In the game’s defence, though: the geographical space they had to fit in was awkward, and I’m sure they agonized over the diamond design for a long time. And who knows how much pressure they felt from Hasbro overlords to attract younger players with wilder, brighter, colours.
Just my two cents. I hope they sell a lot of copies and find that younger fan base, too.
Yrs.,
R.
Do wilder, brighter, colors REALLY draw in younger players?
I don’t think so…
That said, wasn’t looking like a totally goof kind of the thing to do in 1914? LOL I mean, the Archduke died because he was sown into his clothes…
I would have chosen for colors-
USA- Dark Green
UK- Tan
France- Blue
Russia- Brown
Austria-Hungary- Dark Yellow
Italy- Light Brown
Ottaman- Dark red
Do wilder, brighter, colors REALLY draw in younger players? I don’t think so…
Whether it’s true or not, the idea is accepted as true by a lot of designers. I’m an illustrator that works with packagers every once in a while, and they certainly like asking for things to be brighter and bolder when dealing with a younger market.
Yrs.,
R.
I like the non 1940 colors. Gives me a whole new selection of colors to use for powers like Spain, Finland, Communist China, Poland, etc. in 1940 setups
I bet most people prefer the French infantry from Global to the ones in this. Uniform is virtually the same.
OK here it is - my best guess for the map. Certain areas remain in darkness (Barents sea, sea borders of Belgium/Netherlands).
I’d forgotten that Albania is an Italian satellite; the historical grounds are very dubious.
Still needs IPC values and Naval Bases. The latter could be added to virtually any area with a coastline, but some candidates are more obvious than others.
But, for example, does the “Kiel” area have a NB on both SZs? Also, if there is no Skagerrak SZ, the Kiel canal is redundant. Conversely, if the Mediterranean SZs are correct, the Corinthian canal could allow direct movement from the Adriatic to the Aegean.
Edit: I think a Kiel NV could cover both sea zones simultaneously.
Some of the distortion is weird; I had to move Corsica and Sardinia westwards to make the SZ border work.
Doesn’t look like Rio de Oro is on the map… so I got rid of it.
Don’t think I’ll ever believe in a map which has just one space between Romania and Persia; there should be 3 minimum.
On the Diplomacy theme, does anyone think a “simultaneous orders” version of this game is viable? Putting aside the politics, is it mechanically doable?
What happens when two opposing forces both attack over the same border?
Either fight the battle on the assumption that it takes place on border tt (no man’s land?) or
The larger force is assumed to push the smaller back, so the battle takes place in the starting tt of the smaller army.
It seems weird that Italy and England would have almost as many territories as Russia (not counting africa/middle east)
Yea, I’m not a huge fan of how Russia has so few territories in Diplomacy, or….what will probably be a similar situation in A&A 1914
I agree maybe they should have divided Sevastopol and Ukraine.
If this is how Russia is divided I’m a little disapointed. Why can’t they divide the territories so they all equal about the same amount of distance? It’s so weird where one space represents a few hundred miles and another a thousand or more. One of Russia’s biggest advantages is it’s size and how far you have to travel across it to get anywhere. So few spaces negates that and could easily be represented and more historical with a few more territories. I don’t want a map with a million spaces that takes just as many years to play, but more then this for Russia. I do like that there are conditions for Russia’s revolution and it doesn’t just automatically happen like some thought maybe it would for simplicity. I also find it interesting that it is an optional rule. Do you think people will want to use it most of the time or not?
I do like that there are conditions for Russia’s revolution and it doesn’t just automatically happen like some thought maybe it would for simplicity. I also find it interesting that it is an optional rule. Do you think people will want to use it most of the time or not?
Not sure why it’s “optional” One of the highlights of any WWI Stragetic Game is getting Russia into Revolution (well from the CP
perspective :evil: ).So for us it will NOT be optional (although we may fool around a bit between the Fall of the Tsar & the Red’s
taking over :wink: .
OD
I would guess that Russia is drawn this way purely to facilitate ye olde “capture the capitals” victory conditions, which are in my view as obsolete as game objectives are they are historically anachronistic for the 20th century.
Petrograd was evidently considered too close to Germany, but Moscow is artificially made closer and attainable by having huge tts in between.
Been thinking about where naval bases may be placed. The difficulty is in defining “home tts with a naval base”. If, for example, Germany has a NB in Dar-es-Salaam, it might be able to build dreadnoughts in East Africa, but nothing in Munich. My guess, therefore, is that naval bases will only be in European homelands and the USA.
Russia is drawn this way I believe to make the Russian revolution more plausible according to Larry’s rule on it. It makes the central powers try to knock it out. If Russia had say 3 to 4 spaces from Germany to Russia according to Larry’s rule it would never have the revolution. I am not disagreeing with you guys I am simply pointing out I believe this is why it is what it is. To think that England has as many territories as Russia is nuts but that also may be an advantage to Germany. England can’t possibly defend all of that coastline and mount a solid offensive with the French. Can anybody say Sealion 1914 style?
I’m surprised I haven’t seen the typical complainers going hard at this.
“Oh just another KGF game! wtf”
But its unhistorical anyway because Moscow wasn’t the capital of Russia until after the Revolution, when it was moved there as the Allies were getting rather close to Petrograd.
And doesn’t the fact that historically Russia collapsed with the enemy nowhere near Moscow demonstrate that there were many other factors involved? Further, that many other powers came close to revolution for similar reasons, again with no threat to their capitals, showing that factors other than capturing the capitals should be considered as victory conditions? The Germans got (and presumably in the game will get) much closer to Paris than they ever got to Moscow without France losing its government.
Couldn’t revolution have been based on:
Number of home tts lost (regardless of proximity to Moscow)
Number of battles lost
Number of casualties
All contributing towards a morale decrease which at a certain point triggers rebellion.
Revolution could have occurred anywhere by 1917; if (and only if) the game allowed this to happen to any power, it might make sense for Moscow to be a similar distance to the enemy as other capitals.
I’m not saying this makes it a bad game, but it makes it questionable as a representation of WWI.
Russia is drawn this way I believe to make the Russian revolution more plausible according to Larry’s rule on it. It makes the central powers try to knock it out. If Russia had say 3 to 4 spaces from Germany to Russia according to Larry’s rule it would never have the revolution. I am not disagreeing with you guys I am simply pointing out I believe this is why it is what it is. To think that England has as many territories as Russia is nuts but that also may be an advantage to Germany. England can’t possibly defend all of that coastline and mount a solid offensive with the French. Can anybody say Sealion 1914 style?
