How often are the Central Powers winning?

@BJCard:

@xxstefanx:

With no diversion into Italy Germany should - at least - 50/50 be able to win with a full G/A-H thrust on France early on!
(like all out India Crush in old Pacific!)
Germany should as well be able to win by gaining considerable additional income in the east forcing Russia out of the game and then swing full industrial and troop power to the west.

As an increased submarine warfare is not possible due to the lack of economic damage the submarines can do it boils down on those 2 strategies.

If neither can be successful then there is a balance problem!

P.S.: Did I already mention that the French Dreadnought at the Western Coast of France ought to be a Cruiser? :-D

A slight variation could be to hit Switzerland as many have prescribed and take Italy out first, but without more play tests, and the rules being in ‘flux’ it is hard to know for sure.

Correct!
But personally I refuse it out of protest!
Switzerland ought to be impassable - end of story!
If the CP tend to choose taking out Italy first - fine - but not via Switzerland!

I tried the all attack west/hold in the east and still couldn’t take Paris due to the aforementioned reinforcement problem. My CPs were forced to turn east to try knocking out Russia because they couldn’t make headway in the west.

Regarding US entry, it can perhaps be linked to Russian politics rather than a mandatory turn 4 trigger. When the Tsar was overthrown it did remove an obstacle to American entry as Wilson did not like the idea of fighting alongside the absolute Monarchy of Russia.

Regarding navy, I think Germany should have a cruiser and transport in SZ 26, and a transport in SZ 10, giving them a chance to threaten landings in UK and Russia from the start.

I also point you towards my latest map tweak for the Mediterranean: this gives the Austrian navy many more options, including linking up with the Turkish fleet or even invading Italian North Africa.

I’m also beginning to think that powering up submarines might be an option to give Germany another way of breaking the western stranglehold.

We need an official explanation of why Switzerland is worth only one IPC. My hunch is that the designers decided that the short front between Switzerland and the North sea was just TOO short, and needed to be extended south, hence invite players to invade the Swiss by leaving it ridiculously thinly defended.

It think it should be possible to invade Switzerland, but at a much higher cost - 8 enemy units generated. It might just still be worth it, unlike Norway or Sweden, because of the vital chance to outflank on the decisive front.

My original choice for 2nd German factory was Strasbourg (Alsace); Ruhr is the obvious economic choice. But Munich seems the best choice given the distance from the French frontier. Put a new production centre any closer and the game becomes all about holding/taking that tt.

Overall I still prefer building new units in any home region subject to reasonable limits. Practically every region of Germany was industrialized, why produce just in certain tts?

Flash you have a good point about the Med. Splitting that monster Italian sz17 into two sz’s would be a good start (on the actual map). A line could be drawn from the bottom tip of the boot (Italy) to the eastern edge of Libya (still allows Italy to bridge to Africa). That would give the CP a little room to maneuver in the eastern Med. The way it is now the A/H navy is trapped (blocked by Italy), and the Turks can get double hit too easily.

In our game the English home navy was sunk by Germany w/o much loss (yea it’s mandatory), unfortunately my 2 Atlantic subs failed to sink the Canadian fleet (lost both subs, no hits in 2 rounds ?). In light of the English losing the back bone of their fleet the French fleet left the Med to bolster the Atlantic. The English kept the bb & 2 transports near India where they are completely safe moving units around in the Mid East/Africa (really didn’t need the bb over there, maybe the cruiser from what I can see). He left the Brit cruiser w/Italians though in sz17 to boost their def (keeping the A/H tied down even more). I bought a sub w/Austria and attempted a break out. He missed with his mines (cool), but I failed to get a single hit in my attack  :cry: The A/H bb was left beached in sz17, and later sunk by the Italians. Shortly after that though I was able to get a little pay back when the Russian cruisers in the Black sea got hit by mines when trying to soften up the Turk navy (snake eyes baby)  8-)

Any way I’m not much of a historian, and I guess the CP ships must have felt trapped so maybe its all good for history, but sucks for game play. Would like to see sz17 split up.

I have played 2 games aswell and both times the CP were soundly beaten.

USA/UK/France are too much for Germany to handle esp if Germany sends anything east towards Moscow.

I too support a second German production center in either Munich or Ruhr. Ruhr would be more historically accurate but i think Munich would be better for game balance.

Also maybe add a transport to SZ 10.

I dont think the USA should be able to move anything untill at war. Dont change the turn though (4)

@Flashman+WILDBILL
But the A-H-Navy WAS blocked! /at least from Italinan War entry 1915 on!)
It is an artificality that Italiy is already in the game, so maybe some option for the opening move?

One option I’ve played about with is that Turkey has no navy. The two cruisers it starts with are (I assume) meant to be the German ships Goeben and Breslau, which were cruising the Med when war broke out. If Italy is neutral (as it was) then they can move through Italian waters without penalty and move through to Turkey, or join up with the Austrian fleet.

I’m also considering new sub rules, consider:

1. The Allied superiority on the seas allows them to reinforce much sooner than the CPs, this gives them a tremendous advantage.

2. However, the UK & USA are almost entirely dependent on large transport fleets to get their units into action.

3. The CPs cannot reasonably hope to win a battle of building surface ships.

4. Therefore, their best hope is to close down the Allied transport convoys feeding units into Europe.

5. This was the exact conclusion reached by the Germans in 1917, and was probably the closest they came to winning the war.

6. Therefore, to give the CPs a fighting chance, make submarines much more powerful versus transports and their escorting surface ships. A key point here is that its one area in which the Allies cannot directly negate the German move by simply counter-producing the same unit. While it will always be able to out-build the enemy on the surface, a submarine race does not benefit the Allies because the CPs are not dependent on sea transport.

So, give subs more abilities such as first-strike, ability to intercept convoys, maybe even moving in secret.

Subs should be far more powerful against convoys so that the Allies loose more income!
That’s primarily what they were used for.

I was thinking of making them more powerful directly versus enemy shipping, rather than an abstract economic interdiction, since that in effect represents the same thing in game turns.

If Germany really is hosed in not being able to get units to the front I would support Ruhr as a spot for limited placement.

Check out my review of the first 5 turns of my latest play. You will see how the CP’s fair

How the heck did Russia have 64 units defending Moscow? You get 25 IPC’s a turn and the Russians have no way of getting more if the CPS attack hard.

25/3 8.  8*4 32 infantry after 2 turns.
Did you just abandon Poland, and also move all starting units to Moscow? I don’t see why you wouldn’t at least try and slow Germany down in Poland

I’ve played 2 games of this testing it out with a couple of buddies and both times the Central Powers have trounced the Allies. As we are still learning the game, strats and rules I think it would be premature to glean anything from it. I’ll be playing my first 6-man game this Friday, but as it’ll be a bunch of noobs to the game (not to A&A in general but this one) it’ll be another learning game as well. For all I know I could be still playing some stuff wrong as the WWII versions are so ingrained in my head, anniversary and global anyway.

If I’m playing neutrals correctly, meaning attacking true neutrals doesn’t mobilize all the others against you like in 1940, in my first two games Germany has gone after whatever cheap territories they can scoop up in Africa, attacked neutral Denmark, Holland, Switzerland and Belgium first turn, and consolidated their fleet into sea zone 9 while wiping out the British fleet there. If all goes well they are earning around 40 IPCS. They’ll contest Belgium and Switzerland forever once France gets in there, but Holland and Denmark will earn them points all game provided they hold sea zone 10. Turn 2 they retreat their fleet back to Sea Zone 10 and add a battleship.

Austrians add a battleship immediately and never leave sea zone 18. From here they can hit Tuscany with their transport as well as Venice. They attack Serbia, Albany and Venice first turn and consolidate everything they have left into Galicia and look to the Ukraine. Both Germany and Austria keep adding fleet as they can. Battleships are so cheap in this game that it’s been working (so far), but again too premature to tell.

Those free hits for Battleships have been crucial to holding onto the CP fleets. So far I’ve found that by the time the British Indian fleet can get to the Italian sea zone Austria will have 3 more units there, preferably Battleships if they can do it. As Allies can only defend together but not attack, it requires the French, then the British, and then the Italians to suicide their Fleets there to remove it. Only the French can place in sea zone 16, and that’s only if they can afford it - India cannot build navy to replace it and Italy just won’t.

I agree with others that if the Central Powers lose their fleets forever, as well as sea zones 10 and 18 they are lost imho as it’s too easy for the Allies to mobilize against them. If they can hold the British to just reinforcing Picardy that’s huge. By the time the Americans get into the game Italy and Russia have been having severe problems. And with America only earning 20 IPCS and starting with virtually nothing I haven’t found them to be the threat they are in the WWII versions.

Both games the Ottomans have been screwed - no fleet off the bat and even a trickle effort from the Brits in India gives them major manpower problems. But with them I’ve pushed into Greece and walked into Bulgaria first turn, whilst contesting Trans-Jordan and Mesopotamia after they are invaded.

Again my first experiences with the game so take with a grain of salt. If after many games players are still finding that the Central Powers are losing too often then maybe consider a bid, but seeing as the game is barely a week old with a completely different play style with new rules on old units I’d like to see more playing before those conclusions are drawn.

2 cents
Gj.

If you attack any of the beige neutrals like Norway, Denmark, Spain, then they get the opposite alliance to mobilize troops.

If you attack Spain with France then you pick which Central Power nation to represent the mobilized troops.

you mobilize x2 the IPC value (all infantry and 1 artillery). So Germany gets 7 infantry and 1 artillery to use against the attackers.

You have been playing wrong, and this may have been why the Central powers were winning so easy.

Big naval builds for the CPs may be an answer, but the Allies should be able to match them. Or outspend Germany on fighters to gain air supremacy.

A submarine fleet would be another possible answer, but they’re so puny in this game.

@Flashman:

Big naval builds for the CPs may be an answer, but the Allies should be able to match them. Or outspend Germany on fighters to gain air supremacy.

A submarine fleet would be another possible answer, but they’re so puny in this game.

Are people actually spending the money on ships in this game? I feel like if I don’t maximize the number of land units I buy every turn, my supply lines dry up and my fronts falter.

Our first game we played I was the Central Powers and I stomped all over the allies.  Russia was te only one to give me some trouble, but that was the first game and we where getting used to the rules and still screwed up a few things.

Will play again next week and we’ll see what happens.

@ossel:

@Flashman:

Big naval builds for the CPs may be an answer, but the Allies should be able to match them. Or outspend Germany on fighters to gain air supremacy.

A submarine fleet would be another possible answer, but they’re so puny in this game.

Are people actually spending the money on ships in this game? I feel like if I don’t maximize the number of land units I buy every turn, my supply lines dry up and my fronts falter.

That has been my thought as well.  If the CPs can rival the Allies on the seas, it may significantly alter things on land as well.  The Italians can’t afford to buy ships.  Would the French even bother?  They don’t need one.  It would force the British and Americans to buy ships rather than land units.  My first couple games, the CPs ignored the sea and the US didn’t have to buy a single warship.  I will have to try this out to see what the effect would be.