Is Germany screwed?

Before I come to any conclusions I am going to play the game.

@BJCard:

If you want to talk about armies moving slowly through country, what about navies?  You could easily make the assumption that ships should be able to move more than 2 spaces/turn.  In fact, I think it should be more like 4.  With rail movement how can you redeploy troops several territories away, yet it take two or three turns of sea movement to get american troops across the atlantic?

To cross the Atlantic in 1940 with a trampship would take 12 days, with a cruiser even faster, so obviously a game turn is no way equal to 6 months in real time. In fact Larry has statet that a game turn and units movement is very abstract. One turn may cover all events for a year, and the next turn may cover what happened in one week. You may also have noticed that one specific territory like Berlin cover just a very small area with lots of roads and railways, while other territories like Algeria cover huge areas of desert and wilderness, but they both count as one move for a unit. In the real world you could walk through Berlin in one day, but in Algeria that would not be very likely.

Larry big man, very smart, he designed the game this way for playability. He figured out how many spaces was needet between the opposing players to make it an even match, and later he named the spaces to make it look like a WWII map. Any serious comparison between an A&A map and a real WWII map would be very derogatory and right out bedlam, man. So just let it go, and try to enjoy the feeling of embarking men on a ship in a US port, sail them to Europe, watch them amphibious assault an imaginary fortified shore, then closing in on the enemy capital step for step, and you will get a happy life, man

Dude I am happy with A&A, I was just arguing with Flashman about Rail movement and pointing out another game mechanic that is not based on real life.

You are totally right though- The game is extremely abstracted for playability.  For example - for AA1940, country incomes would be more like:
Germany: 41
Italy: 15
Japan:  19
Russia: 41
France: 16
UK: 32
USA: 94
Based roughly on GDP in 1940.  Could the Axis win the war?  maybe, but not very easily with a 75-183 IPC difference. And those numbers don’t account for the USA’s ramp up to roughly 150 IPCs in 1944.

Flashman,
You are right… We will just have to live with many abstract things for games on such a strategic level.

@Flashman:

Its one thing to tamper with income levels to create balance, I’ve no objection to that.

But pretending that infantry walked, and tanks drove across the world towards battle fronts is warping us into a parallel universe.

You could always design your own game ;)

Flash, I don’t disagree that rail could have been part of this game, and has been widely used since the 1800’s in many wars. I think that rail could be part of AA, and I would love to see that mechanic in a future AA game for any era (hopefully it will happen). As a side note IL will probably take full credit for the idea though, leaving you hanging in the wind LOL.

To work as a game mechanic rail would probably need to be printed on the map for the regions that had a good network, be able to be SBRed, and not just a general rule for NCM. It would probably benefit the bad guys more, so there would most likely need to be something to off set it for the allies. Maybe in the form of UK getting the ability to mobilize a limited number of units (inf) from the Commonwealth w/o ICs (or something).

In this 1914 game there is going to be a delicate scale of balance (like all AA games), and Germany will be the axis of that scale IMO. Germany will need to be careful not to overload one front, and ignore the other for to long, and will most likely be working the French front w/o much help. The way the game is set-up moving units at a faster rate (rail) would throw that balance off IMO. It’s about game mechanics and balancing it, and rail didn’t make it in this edition (get over it).

Historically Germany was thinking that they could drop France quickly enough to switch gears to the Russian front before they fully mobilized. Kinda like what happened in WWII (yeah Italy screwed them in both wars LOL). Yes rail was part of that plan traveling from one front to the other with-in a relatively short span (I get that), but if allowed to, it would give the CP to much of an advantage in this game because the way that this game engine works IMO.

When the game starts, as the CP you know that the above isn’t going to happen because of the game mechanics (one round of battle). The French front is going to get stuck in the mud, and be pretty stagnant. You will be required to keep a steady flow of units pouring into the trenches so that the French (with UK) don’t gain ground and ratchet up their income for more units. French units come into the game (Paris) much closer to the front in the beginning then Germany (Berlin) because the front is on French soil (as Flash pointed out). As the Germans you need to keep that line though, because you can’t afford for the French (w/help of UK) to gain ground and ratchet up their income (more units near the front).

You also know there is a Russian revolution rule (4th turn at the earliest) that is based on how hard you (Germany) and the rest of the CP push that front. The game mechanics force the Germans to have a good balance of units going in both directions (they won’t be able to overload one side or the other IMO). You (flash) say that the CP need a rail system to jump from one side to the other in a couple turns, I think it’s quite the opposite in this game (because of the other mechanics). You can’t allow the Germans to go full throttle against the Russians the first 4 turns to force them out of the game because your left over units will return to save Berlin quickly. You can’t allow the Germans to play mostly defense against the French/UK. Again as you have pointed out Berlin is a long way from the opening front, and it would take the French a while to get close to the German capital. In that case the Germans would be mobilizing near the front, and the French have the logistics problem (it is a double edge sword IMO).

I kinda like that this will be a slower paced game as far as movement. It gives a new depth that has been missing IMO, and I think you may share it. In most games you can buy slower units early, and mechanized units later and go all in w/o having a reserve force, or reinforcements coming up. This game doesn’t allow that, as you will have a constant flow of reserves flowing in (I like that).

I know a couple of things have bugged you in past games Flash.

1. Tanks/mech moving twice as fast as inf knowing they would all be NCM at the same pace because of rail. Problem solved, because now there is no difference in movement (watch what you wish for LOL). It does provide for a constant flow of reserves though, which is a little more realistic isn’t it?

2. Being able to take over enemy ICs and produce units in what would be perceived as using the enemies factories (factories that would have been burnt to the ground in most cases). This game doesn’t allow for you to use your enemies production centers (that I’m aware of anyway), so we have made some progress haven’t we?

As a side note Flash, you have been at the forefront of not having the ability to use enemy ICs, or build your own IC on enemy soil to mobilize your own units (I get that, it would be unlikely to happen because of scorched earth etc…)  You have also been trying to pioneer rail into the game for as long as I can remember. I know the thought process and theories behind both mechanics, but don’t they both basically do similar things.

An IC built on, or captured on enemy soil would allow you to mobilize fresh units near that front, but there is a slight delay before you can use it (next turn for captured could be longer if it is traded, two turns if you build one). Rail would allow you to quickly move your units built back in your own production centers to, or near the front (somewhere between 3-5 spaces I’m guessing). Theoretically the IC on enemy soil could be a gathering point for your units that are railed or flown in from your production centers, rather then an actual factory building them. I’m not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that theoretically they are similar as far as units getting to the action that’s all. I understand the logic behind both are different, and w/rail you would probably be able to disrupt enemy movement etc….

Technically new ICs are railheads or ports where units and supplies arrive from the home country (when they are built)
Problem is, why cant you move units you already have like this? Why can only new recruits be sent to the muster site?

Perhaps if ICs allowed units to be built at OR units to teleport to (as long as you hold a chain of territories to it)

When Germany captures Ukraine, why cant units they already have shuttle there? Why are only fresh troops shuttled there?

Should captured industry only be allowed to build infantry?

If you change the rules for movement you ruin the setup.

How bout just playing the game as is…… before trying to fix it?

The game has not been proven to be a good or poor design. Give it a chance right?

If rail movement is a must for you (general) playing this game, with a little work at setup adjustments you can get a decent game going.

But let’s remember that the absence of rail movement doesn’t screw Germany from a balance perspective unless the playtesting was done with rail movement helping Germany and then the movement was removed without any other adjustments.

The game would be cooler with it, but if Germany is screwed balance-wise, it’s not because of the absence of rail movement.

@Imperious:

If you change the rules for movement you ruin the setup.

How bout just playing the game as is…… before trying to fix it?

The game has not been proven to be a good or poor design. Give it a chance right?

Hmm, same quote, different response LOL. Don’t think you can judge a game in a bad light because all the things on your personal X-mas list didn’t make it.

I agree 100% w/IL and most would see it that way (strange I know right). I generally play OOB until we notice a repeating problem, or it is proven that something is skewed and needs some work (like through the Alpha process). It isn’t my intention to suggest radical changes or say something is broken 3 months before the game comes out LOL (3 months after would be more typical). I reserve any personal judgement, and I’m skeptical (as most are) even when others proclaim a problem, because sometimes such demands come from a certain play style, group setting, or in Flashes case just want more out of it. Fortunately the later can be dealt with through house rules, and maybe, just maybe after much testing and proven data at some point can find its way into the game as an optional rule (or in a reprint) ?

Flashman,
What do you do in AA1940 when the bulk of your army is in Moscow?  Are you giving up because ‘germany is screwed’?

No. At that point all sorts of trains appear and shoot everything in sight.

Nope, I’m sure he plays by his own set of rules (which would include rail), and probably on his own map too.

If Germany has a transport or two in the Baltic you can transport 2-4 units from Poland, PetroGrad, Prussia right to Keil and to the western front quicker. That’s at least a partial solution to getting your Eastern troops back to the West with more speed.

It’s wait & see of course but I find it hard to believe that some type of Stragetic Movement won’t be included.
It’s an effective way to show the importance of rail networks w/o having rails on the Game Board.

Can’t wait to see the full Rules on this Game.

Hi, one question for Flash.

Do you advocate rail movement but only for original territory,
or you could move units from Berlin wright to Serbia, or from Moscow to west front in NCM?

Because Germany had rails, A_U too but Serbia didn’t, Russia either.
Serbia had only Beograd-Ni�, for Russia i don’t know but if retreating they would destroy it.

So it would be historical to move from Berlin to west/east part of empire your troops.
But to move from Russia to west front nope. They should first come back to German or A-H original territory.