Mandatory Attacks

LH has already revealed that Austria is mandated to attack Serbia on A1. Not only is this unhistorical, but it is actually a bad move for Austria, as it commits them to fighting on a southern flank they might well have chosen to avoid. What he didn’t say was how many units are required to move in, though as it will unavoidably activate Serbia the Austrian player will probably choose to send enough units to finish the job.

So I wondered if mandatory attacks are featured elsewhere? The reports seem to assume that everyone will simply choose to make attacks, but what if its more economical to sit tight and wait for the enemy to fling his men on your barbed wire?

Perhaps every player should be required (if able) to make at least one attack per turn involving no fewer than 5 units, or at least suffer some penalty on the grounds that the nation is paying for an army that isn’t being used.

Precisely.

Austria did not INVADE Serbia until August 12th, more than a week after the Germans crossed the Belgian frontier. Since the game does not feature the ability to bombard an adjacent tt (except perhaps from a SZ) the shelling of Belgrade cannot be represented.

Technically, then, the turn order should be:

1. Germany (invasion of Belgium, August 4th)
2. France (activated by German attack)
3. Austria (invasion of Serbia August 12th)
4. Russia (invasion of Prussia, Aug 17)

Where to put the UK?

The BEF started arriving in France August 9th, first action was at Mons (Belgium) August 23rd.

So Britain could be legitimately placed 5th, or between France and Austria.

The three latecomers should be in order of entry. Turkey can reasonably join on round one, but Italy should be r2 and USA r7 at the earliest.

Given the advantages of defence, I think a player should be penalized for making no major attacks if he is capable of doing so.

Many major battles were fought to divert enemy strength away from other fronts, so a player who doesn’t do some damage to the enemy on a turn is really letting the side down.

You mean a conquered Belgium that is still independent. Very Larry Harris.

Actually, the Diplomacy/simultaneous turns system is something that might just work with this game. Certainly worth thinking about.

Only 10?

I will try to whittle it down to this absurdly low figure.

But I’ll have to make some assumptions based partly on my dislikes from previous A&A games. Several of the things I disliked are not in this version, notably building factories and units in captured tts. Some progress has been made.

Razor, I agree that “A&A Diplomacy” would be a minority game, not a new production but a development by players of the official product.

However, while previous A&A versions were not conducive to the idea, I think with this game it might just be possible, given only 1 space land movement. Naval movement could still work, perhaps everyone attempts their 1st move simultaneously, then all 2nd moves that are still possible. When rival units clash the battle is considered to take place at the border. Keep the one round of combat; if there is no outright winner, both armies stay where they are. Probably too complicated to allow contested tts.

First of all the following list of wrong things does not mean I think this will be a bad game, far from it. Most of the criticisims are consistent with my opinions on every other A&A game.
I believe this version will be the best yet, and I like most of the new stuff so far.

Very tough cutting these down to ten, but here goes:

10. Collecting money at the end of a turn.
Not as bad now that contested tts has come along; we’re not going to see 4 different players collecting cash for Moscow in this version, but its still rather silly.

9. Only one type of aircraft.
Would like to have had medium range reconnaissance planes, and most of all long range bombers. But I can live without them. for now.

8. No Naval refueling.
Every ship including subs should have to refuel at a friendly or neutral coastal zone each and every turn.

7. Berlin is closer to Moscow than it is to Paris.
So obviously manipulated for gameplay reasons. Looks wrong, feels wrong. Delete the Lorraine tt and give Germany fewer starting units in the west. Restore East Prussia to Germany. Make Petrograd Russian capital.

6. Turksih tank factories.
I can just about accept Turkey equipping infantry divisions, but they did not have the technology to produce heavy weapons. These should be imported from its allies and then converted to Turksih units as per the Goeben.

5. Fixed Timeline of events.
Important events happening according to a historical schedule, rather than as a consequence of player actions. Abritrarily setting American entry on turn 4 practically dictates German strategy, which should be the cause of American entry, not a consequence of it.

4. All infantry units “built” in the capital.
Infantry should be placed anywhere in home tts contiguous with the capital, as long as the build is even, with colonial placement optional.
There also needs to be a means of feeding in ANZAC units.

3. The map is too small.
I would quite happily pay more for a game with a useable map. Look at how crowded the western front area is with just starting units; what happens when there are pieces from 3 or 4 different players in small tts?

2. Capture the capital victory conditions.
Completely anachronistic and unhistorical. Should be a system based on morale and revolutions.

1. No strategic rail movement.
You’ve all read my book on the subject. Now go back and read it again. The Berlin-Baghdad railway existed for a reason.

Some issues I’m reserving judgement on pending full official rules.
Notably:
Tanks - still not convinced that a tank is ever a better buy than 2 infantry.