How often are the Central Powers winning?

@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.

@GoSanchez6:

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.

Fair enough.  It seems as though the 1940 games and Spring 1942 were made and then after a couple years of playtesting by the general public, they put out 2nd editions.

if you have issues with america sending troops ready to invade before their at war, why not just give them 80 ipcs when turn 4 hits to spend on units. That way troops cant land till turn 5.

Under the revisions released by Krieghund (first post on page 14 of the sticky FAQ thread), the US can’t load transports until it is at war.

It all depends what you intend with the game in various areas.
1. Balancing
2. When doing 1. how much are you interested in:
-> Rule simplicity
-> Historical Accuracy

In my opinion USA should have 40 IPCs production capacity
(it already was world’s No1 economy!)
BUT lbesides haviing the 3rd largest fleet in the world land forces were virtually nonexistent! The 6Inf/2Art are ridiculously exaggerated!

1. USA 40 IPCs (as above)
2. No production Rounds 1 to 3/as long as not at war.
Easy fix.

@xxstefanx:

In my opinion USA should have 40 IPCs production capacity
(it already was world’s No1 economy!)
BUT lbesides haviing the 3rd largest fleet in the world land forces were virtually nonexistent! The 6Inf/2Art are ridiculously exaggerated!

1. USA 40 IPCs (as above)
2. No production Rounds 1 to 3/as long as not at war.
Easy fix.

America wasn’t the world power in 1914. 20 IPCS for their production at that time is accurate imho as this is their war production - not their capacity to loan money. They became the world power as a result of WWI as they replaced the UK as the world’s principle money lender. WWI broke the British Empire. Also their colonies started to fail. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was the 2nd largest territory in Europe, and at the time had the 4th largest production of goods in the world, but their armies sucked. The IPCs should always reflect their capacity for war production. The Americans were not known in WWI for their armies which is precisely why the Germans underestimated them in WWII.

No American production during rounds 1-3 ignores the possibility of German unrestricted submarine warfare prior to round 4 which would bring the US into the war earlier. Both times we played the game we left the American fleet in their own sea zone. We must have skimmed over that portion of the rulebook under American Isolationism, but after reading it again I guarantee we’ll still play that way as none of the guys I play with ever try to ‘game’ anything. Nothing in the rulebook that forces the American player to leave their home waters and it’s the correct way to play it imho.

I do not know where you get your knowledge from, but I extensively researched Industrial Production for creating my WWI game using the university library in Hamburg.

USA was the No1 economy in terms of production already. The outcome of WWI just multiplied the margin. UK was ruined financially and USA hadn’t invested much before the war was over already.

A-H: check!
1. USA; 2. Germany; 3. UK, 4. France, 5. Russia, 6. A-H (finally), 7. Italy, 8. Ottoman Turkey

As noone in their right mind would ever declare USW due to the ridiculously low damage chance and potential of the subs it does not matter anyway, but you are right: Rules must be consisten!

@Siris101:

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.

@Suvorov:

I didn’t see him saying anything like that.  He just said that he assumed that attacking one true neutral didn’t make ALL true neutrals hostile, like in AA1940.  He’s right on that point.  Based on what he’s said about attacking neutrals I infer that he’s having them defend.

Yes that is exactly what I meant. Thank you. We did mobilize x2 IPC value.

@Suvorov:

He has some good points, too.  Battleships are cheaper, and that is a good option for the CPs.  I also see that he took a different approach on attacking neutrals than we did in our games, and maybe that makes sense, too - in most cases the neutral forces will be wiped out so the CPs can pick up extra IPCs fast.  It’s better than trying to get the IPCs for Belgium, for example.

With the cheap neutrals like Holland and Denmark that can’t be reinforced or liberated 4 easy points per turn is worth the 1-turn stall vs. France. With the CP fleets, I was trying to break the mold of WWII where Germany always loses their fleet. In this game they don’t have to. And yeah it seemed early on like the only viable strategy to keep the Allied Fleet that comes later out off the coast of Kiel and out of the North Sea. Same with Austria. Kill the mobility.

@Suvorov:

There is also a very good point about the Russian Revolution.  The US isn’t a powerhouse like in WWII A&A games.  Knocking out Russia will probably leave the CPs in a much better position, IPC-wise, than the Allies.  Germany is likely to have an additional 15 IPCs or so, Austria might be up by 6, and the Ottomans could be up by 5 or so.  In that sort of situation, the CPs are in a good position to first shore up their line with lots of infantry and then start spending on other things.

That’s the plan. Whether it works on a regular basis is a whole different story. :wink: The game’s been fun so far and I’m playing my first 6-man game in about 2 hours.

@xxstefanx:

I do not know where you get your knowledge from, but I extensively researched Industrial Production for creating my WWI game using the university library in Hamburg.

I bet you did. I’m not talking about industrial output for civilian goods but America’s capacity to make war at the time, which is where I find the 20 IPCs for them in this game fair.

@xxstefanx:

USA was the No1 economy in terms of production already. The outcome of WWI just multiplied the margin. UK was ruined financially and USA hadn’t invested much before the war was over already.

Not arguing that the US had recently taken the lead for lending over the UK. Like I said the colonies eventually became unprofitable. I completely agree that WWI only exasperated this shift in power. Nor I’m I arguing production levels at the time, but what they were producing at the time of that war.

@xxstefanx:

As noone in their right mind would ever declare USW due to the ridiculously low damage chance and potential of the subs it does not matter anyway, but you are right: Rules must be consisten!

I completely agree.