Indeed. The Central Powers and winning in the game, Russia already capitulated (revolution).
Worst part of the game so far
-
Seriously, it is truly sad that this game will probably see so much houseruling. With just a little more attention to detail, this could’ve been one of the best pure Axis & Allies games out there; now it’ll be distorted so much that everyone will basically be playing a different game.
It still will be one of the best A&A games. If I could vote for “The fact that everyone is whining about it” I would, but people like you decide to ignore the fact that it’s a WWI game with, in my opinion, a perfect battle system. Cavalry wouldn’t fit into a system, because you would need complex rules about the speed of units. The advantage of cavalry is that they charge the guns quickly, so not easily representable. Bombing was a pretty minimal thing in WWI, as even zeppelin raids and bombings accounted for few casualties. Prussia is annoying, but have you never seen map inaccuraccies before? The russian revolution was about as good as it could be without supercomplex rules. Barring a ridiculously complex morale system, Capitals rule is as logical as anything (Meaning the war was illogical, so nothing really makes sense.) American Entry is literally exactly like G40 entry. Fixed turn if nothing else happens.
Gas. Again KISS. that is a very complicated thing to add in. This is supposed to compare with 1942, not 1940. Moscow is a valid complaint, but it it doesn’t limit my ability to enjoy a game. Finally, Rails? Okay flashman, I’ll let you have this one, because it makes some sense. However this game is supposed to be on the level of 1942, and y’all have turned your expectations into something more complex than G40!Oh, I’m not saying I think it won’t be fun. Even with all this, the game has a lot of potential, and it should make a lovely addition to my collection. What I’m upset about is the sheer number of problems everyone seems to be complaining about, so I just made a poll to find out what everyone doesn’t like about it. The East Prussia thing doesn’t matter much to me, and while I’d like more unit variety, I know that cavalry were very marginalized in the war and that bombers weren’t developed until much later on. My main problems are with the lack of rails and gas attacks, and the vagueness of the American entry rules. Other than that, I find it a compelling game; what’s sad is how people will be houseruling this game so much when these problems could’ve been fixed by the development team. My own houserules will consist of nothing more than rail lines, gas attacks and clearing up the American rules, but I wish I didn’t need to houserule at all.
-
By the latest version of what I think the map is like, Berlin is the same distance from Petrograd as it is from Moscow by land.
By sea Germany could land in Petrograd on G1, albeit after dealing with Russian mines and a dreadnought.
-
Whereas on my version of the map (with Prussia restored) Petrograd is one step closer:
Strategically, on the official map Poland is a defensive tt fro Russia, a strong garrison here should keep the Germans at bay.
With Prussia restored, the Russians really have to think about taking out Prussia on on R1 to push back the border.
-
Whereas on my version of the map (with Prussia restored) Petrograd is one step closer:
Try splitting Livonia into Lithuania and Latvia/Estonia, maybe?
-
Strangely enough, I did something like this on another version:
However, having Prussia and Petrograd so close gives a certain dynamic to the front; should make the Russians more keen to take the initiative, rather than just reinforcing “Big Poland”.
Russia can always be given the option to, once per game, move the capital to Moscow.
-
By the latest version of what I think the map is like, Berlin is the same distance from Petrograd as it is from Moscow by land.
By sea Germany could land in Petrograd on G1, albeit after dealing with Russian mines and a dreadnought.
Yea, I think you have it right. That’s why there needed to be a buffer state between the Germans Prussia and Livonia reaching to the sea so the Germans can’t bypass Poland (but could reinforce it by sea). The Polish territory needed to provide that buffer zone, and by having Poland include what looks to be modern day Lithuania seems to have worked out ok (although I’m sure there were other ways to handle it).
In this game where new units are mobilized from your capital (w/exception of UK-Bombay) you nailed it. Germany would have been able to amphib Karelia (Petro) pretty easily as it it does in most other games (Leningrad). The Russians wouldn’t be able to mobilize units w/o having some kind of special secondary capital rules, or the ability to mobilize from both Russian zones (which I admit either would have been cool w/me).
What the game does allow for though is for Karelia (Petrograd) to be one of the Russian territories that the CP can capture to cause the Revolution (which is pretty cool). Historically the Reds ended up moving the capital to Moscow during the Revolution because of German advances. In the game you can re-enact that part with the capture of Karelia (Petrograd) as one of the trigger territories.
-
The “Big Poland” tt as I’ve drawn it includes Congress Poland (Poland from 1815 to 1915) and East Prussia. A tiny part of each of these (Memel and a small area west of the Niemen) are in modern Lithuania.
IL’s map has all three Baltic States, but gives them the modern borders and names:
-
but I wish I didn’t need to houserule at all.
You don’t. I’m sure the system (as is) will work quite well. Transport ships should eliminate the “massive imbalance” issues of a lack of rail
-
Some have suggested that in fact East Prussia is in Germany on the official board, and that the Polish coastline is taken from Kurland.
Frankly I’m sure this isn’t the case, it just looks too silly.
-
But does that balance the game?
Transport ships will be used mainly by the Allies to encircle the CPs; the balancing factor should be the CPs internal lines allowing them to reinforce any front in a turn. But if these don’t exist…
Consider:
It takes the Allies one turn to ship units from London to Karelia; the only plausible threat being German subs roaming SZ 5.
It takes German infantry four turns to march from Berlin to Moscow, even assuming the way has been cleared of enemy units by previous waves of attacks.
This can be halved by taking SZ 12 and investing in a transport fleet, but even then the Germans can (I think) only stop Russia building new navy there by taking Karelia, with its large Allied garrison from England…
While the CPs have to laboriously slog their way over the map one tt at a time, the Allies can use their sea power to be pretty much anywhere they want to be in a turn or two.
but I wish I didn’t need to houserule at all.
You don’t. I’m sure the system (as is) will work quite well. Transport ships should eliminate the “massive imbalance” issues of a lack of rail
-
House rules only work if everyone agrees. If there can be unilateral agreement, then I’ll stop being a stickler.
BUT FIRST…
The game must be released (A novel Idea, I know) -
Besides East Prussia Germany is also screwed with great parts of upper and lower Bavaria that were cut off and given to Austria for making it possible to place units in small tyrol. The Hofbraeuhaus (Munich) is now in Austria - jo mei prost!…
If this crazy mapdesigner has given Strassburg back to France at last Germany won´t have to fight in the west at all.
Don´t get me wrong I´m not complaining and I´m sure I will love this game.
Just saying that the german tt cut offs that have been made for better gameplay look actually even worser than the historical annexions that followed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919…
-
The worst part about this game so far that’s it’s not released yet. :wink: :-(
Or, more accurately, it will be released after my Spring Break passes over. So no long stretches of gameplay for me. :|
-
House rules only work if everyone agrees. If there can be unilateral agreement, then I’ll stop being a stickler.
BUT FIRST…
The game must be released (A novel Idea, I know)What do you mean by “everyone?”
We know a lot about the game already; for some things its very clear there is no need to wait in brainstorming ideas to share for house rule changes; the Russian Revolution for one.
-
The worst part about this game so far that’s it’s not released yet. :wink: :-(
My vote as well. I was originally very bummed about the way the board looks–I’m a graphic artist and care a lot about that kind of thing–but I’m now curious enough about it to strongly consider a purchase. I’m sure once it’s in my hands at the store I’ll give in.
Yrs.,
R.PS. I actually skipped the 2004 Revised edition because I thought the board looked like garbage. I don’t think I missed much on that one. :-)
-
I actually skipped the 2004 Revised edition because I thought the board looked like garbage. I don’t think I missed much on that one
Revised was the best according to me because it was the most balance A&A ever.
Eastern front felt like trench warfare (when Brit player gave good support to Russia)I think I will like this game because of that. Just waiting to see how the balance turns out. Which is the most important part for me.
-
I actually skipped the 2004 Revised edition because I thought the board looked like garbage. I don’t think I missed much on that one
Revised was the best according to me because it was the most balance A&A ever.
Eastern front felt like trench warfare (when Brit player gave good support to Russia)I think I will like this game because of that. Just waiting to see how the balance turns out. Which is the most important part for me.
Classic and Revised were good if you liked the JTDTM and little Pacific action. I, for one, hated that completely ahistorical aspect, so I am extremely happy that has been mostly phased out.
-
For some reason, I don’t think I’m quite as stoked about this game as I was when it was first announced. I think I will await user reviews before shelling out.
-
Classic and Revised were good if you liked the JTDTM and little Pacific action.
Yes, but that was the way the Axis should have played it out, if Hitler and Hirohito had cooperated. Attack Russia from two sides at the same time. The ultimate strategy. But Japan was scared of the big ugly Russians after the Khalkin Gol battle in 1939, so they choose the lesser strategy, to attack America, alone. Like a mouse attack the cat. But you want Larry to design the game in a way that favour the historical correct timeline, like a scripted game, so the lesser stategy always will be choosen over the ultimate strategy, because some retards did that in the real war ? Explain……
-
Classic and Revised were good if you liked the JTDTM and little Pacific action.
Yes, but that was the way the Axis should have played it out, if Hitler and Hirohito had cooperated. Attack Russia from two sides at the same time. The ultimate strategy. But Japan was scared of the big ugly Russians after the Khalkin Gol battle in 1939, so they choose the lesser strategy, to attack America, alone. Like a mouse attack the cat. But you want Larry to design the game in a way that favour the historical correct timeline, like a scripted game, so the lesser stategy always will be choosen over the ultimate strategy, because some retards did that in the real war ? Explain……
No, You can still attack Russia in the newer games. There are just more territories. A Tank built in Manchuria should not be able to move across Siberia so quickly- two turns to threaten Moscow!
I enjoy the newer games because there is action all over the board, not just in the Atlantic and Eastern Front. In classic/revised rarely did you see Japan contested until either they are in Africa (or Moscow) or Germany is all but defeated. I actually didn’t like playing Japan because there’s no competition in the Pacific for several turns. India and/or Australia falls with rarely a fight! How fun is that?
I like fighting for Africa, fighting for the DEIs, etc. Its just more fun than the optimal ‘scripted’ America shuck on a KGF (for Classic and Revised).
Suggested Topics
