@DessertFox599 said in 1914 Tournament Rules Game Play:
i only play with those rules. They are great.
Nice mate.
What are you finding the CP need for a bid?
Are you playing with the time limit?
Test Play Setup
-
We have rules for this in advanced game:
Optional Rules:
Special Events:
A few historical events will come into play during the game.- Senussi Rebellion – Takes place on turn 4 during the Ottoman turn from the Senussi region in Egypt. The rebellion includes 1 infantry, 2 cavalry, and 1 artillery, which is controlled by the Turkish player. The Turkish player may use the troops during any of their turns by moving them into Egypt.
Senussi replace one infantry or cavalry per turn (up to a maximum of 4 pieces) on map in the Senussi-controlled lands during the placement phase. However, they will receive a bonus infantry or cavalry for control of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and French Morocco (to a maximum of nine pieces). In this case, a single replacement piece can be placed in each of the controlled lands (in addition to whatever the Turk might place there). If the total number of pieces is above the allowed total, the Senussi do not lose a piece, they just do not get any reinforcements.
If Egypt is held by the Central Powers, then the Senussi may attack outside of their region and into an adjacent territory. During combat in Egypt, the Senussi can retreat from battle by retreating back to their region. This region may be attacked only after the recapture of Egypt.
If at any time all Senussi pieces are eliminated then the Rebellion ends immediately.
Unlike the restrictions on the Ottomans, Senussi may attack Italian troops before they are formally at war with the Ottoman Empire.
-
Mmm, it’s unlikely the Turks can get a unit there to activate them, so another “trigger” is needed.
Perhaps a note from the Sultan declaring Jihad…
-
Notes are found in the rulebook, which trigger the games play mechanics.
-
Just some more impressions after playing a couple of turns:
Wow, I think some of the true value in this game is having to think through strategy for scenarios that have never been encountered in an (official) A&A game before. I mean, when has a player ever had to consider the best way for Turkey to invade Austria? The Balkans are a strategic conundrum that I never really thought about, being personally very West-Front-centric, and you’ll find that deciding what to do there as Austria, the Ottomans, Italy, and Russia is going to take some thought.
There seems to be a bit more weight to decisions on where to move your units, both because there is only one movement phase and because you know that units will most likely be tied up in a tt for more than one game round, and so must be supported in order to succeed. Larry has captured that aspect of the war very well with the mechanics.
There’s a whole aspect of the strategy where at times you’re not invading to win, you’re just invading to tie up your enemy’s income in “contested” status. Not sure if this is a viable long-term strategy.
With the way the land war is shaping up, if the sea war becomes critical I can see that hemorrhaging much-needed IPC’s from a power’s budget.
-
Indeed the Balkans played one of the more critical roles in the war, people just never hear about it. But yes, this game looks like it will have some really great moments in it. Can the Russians afford to support a British invasion of the Middle East? Do the Austrians have the power to go all in on the Italians while holding of the Russians? Can the German naby sink the British navy? Tune in next week to find out.
-
You know… after months of posts I think it’s safe to say that “Idioits Triggered the war” more than anything else.
-
You know… after months of posts I think it’s safe to say that “Idioits Triggered the war” more than anything else.
That’s really the tragic thing about the war, and the reason I think it gets a little less attention than the Sequel; in WWII it was a clear struggle against evil, in WWI it was just men killing each other because their respective nations signed a piece of paper.
-
WWII was a struggle between two different brands of evil, at least on the eastern front. Some would say the capitalist west was not much better.
-
WWII was a struggle between two different brands of evil, at least on the eastern front. Some would say the capitalist west was not much better.
Hear, hear! There’s great naivety in calling one side evil and the other (the victor) good. All nations at war try to make the war seem legit by calling the opponents evil.
-
WWII was a struggle between two different brands of evil, at least on the eastern front. Some would say the capitalist west was not much better.
Granted, and the Russia vs. Germany example is especially valid. I suppose you could even call out America’s internment of Japanese as a brand of evil. I just find it hard to say the Nazi’s (gas chambers, ovens, genocide in general) and the Brits or the French are on the same level of “evil.”
I’m just saying that WWII was a little more clear cut (I mean, they had skulls on their caps! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU :lol:), whereas in WWI both sides tried to demonize the other, but in the end the motivations of the war were abstract politically (honoring treaties vs. trying to cleanse the world of non-Aryan scum).
-
WWII was a struggle between two different brands of evil, at least on the eastern front. Some would say the capitalist west was not much better.
Hear, hear! There’s great naivety in calling one side evil and the other (the victor) good. All nations at war try to make the war seem legit by calling the opponents evil.
Um. Yes, the USA had Japanese internment camps, but for the most part did abide by the Geneva convention as far we know (as well as the other Western Allies), and fought a way where they were attacked first. The alliance with Russia was more of a ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend.’
The Axis on the other hand were the aggressors, tortured & killed a large population all over the world. I suppose you could say that the firebombings and nuclear bombings were evil, but paled in comparison the the numbers of civilians the Axis put in the ground.
Not sure how anyone could say it was anything but a ‘just’ war and ‘good’ vs. ‘evil.’ Granted, not all Germans, Italians, and Japanese were evil, but enough were to start a world war.
Agreed that WWI isn’t the same type of war- Alliances spiraled out of control.
-
The Allies murdered more people in German death camps after the war than the Germans had killed there during it. The western Allies collaborated by sending “undesirables” back to Russian occupied zones knowing they were going to certain death. They chose not to know what happened at Katyn and elsewhere behind the Russian lines.
The biggest example of ethnic cleansing in the 20th century happened after WWII as a result of Churchill and Stalin redrawing the map of Europe and disposing of anyone who didn’t fit the picture, mainly Germans and Poles. Look at the map of Germany and Poland now compared to 1939. The differences represent entire populations being liquidated.
The only mitigation is that, probably, had the Axis won the picture would have been even more radically changed with corresponding human wastage.
-
The Allies murdered more people in German death camps after the war than the Germans had killed there during it. The western Allies collaborated by sending “undesirables” back to Russian occupied zones knowing they were going to certain death. They chose not to know what happened at Katyn and elsewhere behind the Russian lines.
The biggest example of ethnic cleansing in the 20th century happened after WWII as a result of Churchill and Stalin redrawing the map of Europe and disposing of anyone who didn’t fit the picture, mainly Germans and Poles. Look at the map of Germany and Poland now compared to 1939. The differences represent entire populations being liquidated.
The only mitigation is that, probably, had the Axis won the picture would have been even more radically changed with corresponding human wastage.
:?
Proof? -
-
The Allies murdered more people in German death camps after the war than the Germans had killed there during it. The western Allies collaborated by sending “undesirables” back to Russian occupied zones knowing they were going to certain death. They chose not to know what happened at Katyn and elsewhere behind the Russian lines.
The biggest example of ethnic cleansing in the 20th century happened after WWII as a result of Churchill and Stalin redrawing the map of Europe and disposing of anyone who didn’t fit the picture, mainly Germans and Poles. Look at the map of Germany and Poland now compared to 1939. The differences represent entire populations being liquidated.
The only mitigation is that, probably, had the Axis won the picture would have been even more radically changed with corresponding human wastage.
You need to separate the “Allies” between the “Western Allies” and “Russia/USSR.” I don’t think the Russians were all that much better than the Germans.
-
http://ia700402.us.archive.org/10/items/CrimesAndMercies/CrimesAndMercies.pdf
History is written by the victors.
It’s the same reason we have tanks named after that bastard Sherman and his army of rapists.
-
http://ia700402.us.archive.org/10/items/CrimesAndMercies/CrimesAndMercies.pdf
History is written by the victors.
It’s the same reason we have tanks named after that b��t��d Sherman and his army of rapists.
You’re just mad Sherman won :wink:
-
http://ia700402.us.archive.org/10/items/CrimesAndMercies/CrimesAndMercies.pdf
That is at best misleading and at worst, blatant lies. We did forcible boot 12 million Germans, but we were having our arm twisted by the Soviet Union. Politicians will say what they will, but allowing 1 million to die in the transfer was likely a savings in lives over going against the USSR
-
http://ia700402.us.archive.org/10/items/CrimesAndMercies/CrimesAndMercies.pdf
History is written by the victors.
It’s the same reason we have tanks named after that b��t��d Sherman and his army of rapists.
You’re just mad Sherman won :wink:
People from the Northern U.S. (Yankees) always ask me why people are still angry about the Civil War. “That was like 200 years ago, get over it!”
I just ask them, “How would you feel if your country was invaded and occupied?” -
http://ia700402.us.archive.org/10/items/CrimesAndMercies/CrimesAndMercies.pdf
History is written by the victors.
It’s the same reason we have tanks named after that b��t��d Sherman and his army of rapists.
You’re just mad Sherman won :wink:
People from the Northern U.S. (Yankees) always ask me why people are still angry about the Civil War. “That was like 200 years ago, get over it!”
I just ask them, “How would you feel if your country was invaded and occupied?”How dare the north win the war 148 years ago :mrgreen: anyway I would say this whole conversation about good vs evil is off topic.
Suggested Topics
