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?
I agree with you on this one Flash I think some of these rules and the map will need to be cleaned up in the second edition we have been talking about. I like the combat system but I don’t like the rules on tanks or fighters from what I can see. I need to see it first hand to see if it will work.
I actually like the tanks and fighters rules; in fact I think the combat system might just be the best thing to happen to Axis and Allies since, well, the MB edition.
I just wasn’t expecting it all to take place on a slightly modified Diplomacy board.
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?
I’m in total agreement Flash.
We are going to have to come up with fixed russian revolution rules before the boxes are even on the shelf.
Mock up of the full map.
Still some areas we can’t see, so guessing here and there.
The “Western Turkey” area is almost as weird as Sevastopol, but that seems to be how its done.
Congo may not have an Atlantic coast
Again it would be logical for:
Paris to border Marseilles
Berlin to border Bohemia
Venice to border Switzerland
but it wouldn’t be Diplomacy…
I’ve reduced GB to 4 areas, as I can see only 4 infantry stacks there, but then again there’s nothing in Ireland so this may be a mistake.
Further update:
Been trying to count infantry stacks, and concluded that it doesn’t follow Diplomacy in Western Europe as closely as in the East.
Germany is largely guesswork; I may have one tt too many.
Divided Black Sea to accommodate Turkish & Russian fleets.
Don’t know whats going on with the Tibet/China tt.
Battles lost and Casualties taken is a REALLY hard stat to keep track of in beer and pretzels terms.
The main factors are:
1. Duration of game (which is a catch for # of battles lost and # of casualties)
2. Home territories lost
If you want simple rules for ANY power it might go something like this:
At the end of your turn, if you did not win a battle, and the enemy occupies any two of your home territories (with a printed IPC value), your citizens may become restless and you may experience a revolution.
Roll a die and consult the following chart:
(on turn 1 or later) Roll of 1: Labor Strikes - collect one die less IPCs during your collect income phase
(on turn 2 or later) Roll of 2: Mutiny - The enemy may remove one of your Infantry from up to three territories you control that are not contested or bordering enemy forces.
(on turn 3 or later) Roll of 3: Armed Revolt - The enemy may replace two of your infantry with his infantry in one of your original territories that is not contested.
(on turn 4 or later) Roll of 4: Protesters at the Capital - You must maintain at least 10 infantry in your capital city, and you no longer collect IPCs from this territory.
(on turn 5 or later) Roll of 5: Change in Government - A shift in the ruling classes results in a curtailing of offensive actions. You may only make offensive movements with 5 units per turn.
(on turn 6 or later) Roll of 6: Capitulation - You have lost control of your forces. You may no longer make offensive movements and are now at peace with the opposing faction.
Not if you have a morale chart and a casualties box.
The morale chart is updated after every action affecting morale, just like the IPC tracker.
Put all eliminated units in the casualties box. When you see an enemy power has 10 units in there after a combat phase, place them back in his unused units box and move his morale tracker down one space. Simple.
Another map, with redone Eastern Europe and Turkey. Russia is allowed to move the capital to Moscow at the start of its own turn.
I guess the other main reason for Moscow to be so close to the German/Austrian borders is the placement of all new units in the capital. Clearly this would have to be modified if using a map such as this.
Or of course implement strategic rail movement within Russian home tt.
I guess a morale tracker like that might work….but it’s going to tempt players to not make attacks…which WWI was about, in a grand sense, but not so much on the ground.
We see pictures of men sitting in trenches and think it was a defensive war, but we know that those men charged out of those trenches frequently.
I would hate to see a game mechanic that punishes action.
My idea is more of a war weariness shot clock that you are subject to if you are in a losing position.
I also have a universal morale reducer after each year of war.
-1 at the end of year one
-2 at the end of year two, and so on.
In the end, nearly every county should be just hanging on.
That being the case, would countries suffer penalties as their morale score falls down the ladder?
For instance, lose a die roll of IPCs per turn if your morale falls below 20
Lose d6 infantry if your morale falls below 30
So on and so forth.
These penalties could stack all the way up to…70 maybe, when you have a revolution on your hands.
Each power, instead of having NO’s might have a list of nation specific morale penalties, such as
United Kingdom: Automatically lose 10 Morale if you have no surface warships on the board at the end of your turn
France: Automatically lose 10 Morale if you hold no overseas colonies
Germany: Automatically lose 10 morale if you have no naval units
So on and so forth.
I have 2 stages - disorder & revolution
In disorder you have to make a mutiny roll for every army ordered to move/attack
In revolution you are effectively out of the game, unless you manage to wipe out red units and restore the ancient regime.
I also have a universal morale reducer after each year of war.
-1 at the end of year one
-2 at the end of year two, and so on.
In the end, nearly every county should be just hanging on.
I dont think the real world works that way. Some nations just keep on fighting to the bitter end, while others just surrender for nothing. I figure it has something to do with the current leaders. Kaizer Wilhelm surrendered easily when Hitler would fight to the dead. Halifax wanted to surrender, but Churchill would fight to the dead. The same people, the same nation, but different leaders. Look at Vietnam before 1945, always a slave to others. Then they got Ho Chi Ming, and he told people to fight, so they kicked out the French, then the Americans, and then the Japs, etc But how to make this a game mechanic that works, only Larry know how, man
Larry big man. He knows everything. He designed the game. Smart.
But I maintain that by 1918 everyone had had enough. The Kaizer really had no choice, Germany was falling apart. The navy refused to sail, the people were starving, their Allies had all dropped out.
It was game over Hans, despite the fact that Germany was unoccupied and in fact held 200% more tt than it started with, and that their enemies were further away from Berlin than when they started.
The fact that Halifax wanted to do a deal with Hitler is precisely why he didn’t become PM - the country wouldn’t have tolerated it.
With neutrals invadable, it will be interesting to see the western front develope, as everything from Holland, Switzerland and even Denmark are suddenly possible battle grounds.
