How often are the Central Powers winning?

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.

I think that even a modest naval buy with the CP’s would force the UK/US to buy warships.  The CP’s don’t have to win in the sea, just be a threat.  “fleet in being”

I think 2 games is premature to announce the game is broken. As others seem to be doing.

I have played 2 live games, and 2 solo test games:

2 Naval games resulted in naval arms races, with the allies jointly defending and creating a stand off.

2 Land games 1 with France first (allies win) 1 with Russia first, (CP win).

Once you knock out Russia, you eliminate a front, gain large amounts of IPCs and then drive out the allies to the west. (never do RR, simply seize Russia for the 6 IPCs (and plunder) and ability to counterattack India. We used Ottoman to pressure India, while Germans build a BB a turn to pressure London, one front has to give) In one game, France colected 50 IPCs, only to have Austria collect 51 (toke back the temporary French gains) and drove the allies back.
The allies face the same problem the cp’s do, as you approach a capital, you are farther from your reinforcements and they are closer. By maintaining a naval blockade (keeping allies from breaching German/Austrian waters) you limit the amount of mobility and fronts you have.

After someone plays 20 games or so, then they might have enough experience to suggest balance issues, this is just too soon. It already sickens me, that after 1 week of whining, they already changed the rules regarding both RR and USA loading transports. Design by committee is very disappointing. I am very impressed with the design of this game, maintains axis flavor with a new mechanic and map…hat’s off to them. I hope they will shut off there computers for a month or two, to let us knock our heads against this challenge to see if “balance” can be “restored” by strategy and tactics, What’s the harm in waiting until God forbid, October before addressing issues. You don’t need to “fix” the game the month it comes out.

I agree with you James, but some OOB rules are nonsensical, and need to be addressed.  Simply by reading the OOB rulebook, the US could drop troops in France turn 3; not what the designers intended, but allowed.  Additionally, the Russian Revolution was designed to help the CPs, but looks like it hurts them; not what the designers intended.  There are other things the rulebook doesn’t spell out exactly, which forces the players to interpret (and if that interpretation is different than Larry’s, then well it may be game breaking).  The biggest interpretation/intention rule that went foul was the old ‘substalling’ from the original Pacific game… oh boy.

Plus, the designers aren’t infallible, they may have made mistakes- but they are willing to address them through official FAQ’s and even reprints.

I do agree that we should not have major setup changes like a factory in Munich, or artificial building limits in India.

It is difficult to write a rulebook for a game you’ve been playing for the better part of a year.  I had to write a rulebook for the board game risk back in college- it was supposed to be for a person who has zero knowledge of risk and/or any board game.  One of the tougher assignments I had in that class.

RR had to be rewritten as it made no sense; essentially its the same rule, but with various anomalies cleared up.

If it was the intention of the designers or not, America waiting off the French coast with a large invasion fleet before declaring war was historical nonesense.

America was not prepared for war in 1917, so making tham anticipate it to that extent before going to war spoiled the whole idea of a late US intervention.

@Flashman:

RR had to be rewritten as it made no sense; essentially its the same rule, but with various anomalies cleared up.

If it was the intention of the designers or not, America waiting off the French coast with a large invasion fleet before declaring war was historical nonesense.

America was not prepared for war in 1917, so making tham anticipate it to that extent before going to war spoiled the whole idea of a late US intervention.

I agree with you Flashman, which is why I’m for simple fixes/clarifications before we tackle bigger ones.  In the end we may need bigger fixes to make the game balanced, but smaller fixes are preferable.

No reason to think the US couldn’t send some warships on deployment, but having some kind of invasion force is ridiculous. - and the RR rules need re-writing to make more sense; I was trying to follow the thread on the new RR ruling, but got lost in all the conceptual ‘what-ifs.’

I really like the mechanics of this game my only problem with it is the myriad of small problems that everyone seems to be bringing up. Either the rule book shouldv’e been updated or this game wasn’t properly playtested.  I think Larry came up with some really good ideas on this one and had it been playtested more I wonder if we would be having these conversations?

@GoSanchez6:

I really like the mechanics of this game my only problem with it is the myriad of small problems that everyone seems to be bringing up. Either the rule book shouldv’e been updated or this game wasn’t properly playtested.  I think Larry came up with some really good ideas on this one and had it been playtested more I wonder if we would be having these conversations?

two things:
Maybe it has been playtested and we are all too green to realize all possible strategies.
Or, maybe they wrote the rulebook poorly- and are now trying to ‘put out the fires.’

I don’t know for sure BJ but I do know that these games are coming out faster than they ever had which leads me to believe they are not playtesting them like they used to.