I don’t think Larry should have written the rule that all land units get removed when a power collapses.
You should instead remove all non-infantry units that power has, as well as all units outside of their original territory.
This to prevent Russia from collapsing and a single unit wandering around mopping up and establishing dominance over each territory.
Or in the very least….treat all territory of a collapsed power as an independent neutral power. So if Russia collapses, if finland were attacked it would spawn 3 infantry and an artillery.
but whatev…
Yes, the TR is still messed up on what happens after political collapse. Most especially in that the dead power’s money is grabbed by the first enemy power into the capital; the former allies being forbidden from doing this!
I’m still waiting news on the British infantry who were aboard the Russian transport moored off Karelia when the said transport was removed due to the efects of political collapse.
Political vacuums were very quickly filled, so it should be assumed that there is always some kind of government (with some kind of armed forces) in a country, even if its a local nationalist group proclaiming independence.
It would be kind cool to roll dice for each unit once a power falls into political collapse.
roll 1 stays the color of the fallen power, but can only defend (can’t move) and is now hostel to both sides
roll 2 stays with that side (pick a power/color)
roll 3 joins the other side (pick a power/color)
roll 4, 5 or 6 remove it from play
Would need to work out what power a unit would join (change color) when a 2 or 3 is rolled. Would be the power with the most influence in the region starting with the power having units in the same territory or sz as the collapsed power (if applicable).
Kinda like some Vichy rules I’ve seen.
Like the report Commando only one problem I thought Paris was a must in this one. I realize you could win an economic victory I am guessing that is what you guys were shooting for. Thanks for the report. I am getting my buds together in a couple of weeks and we will be using these rules.
Yes, Paris was a must for the CP’s to win. However, I believe by the time that Germany got around to going after Paris, it would have been impossible for the CP’s to win because Britain and the US would have had enough units to defend Paris and eventually start pushing back the CP’s. I guess it’s a race to see how quickly Germany and AH can take out Russia w/out having the Ottoman’s taken out by Britain. Unfortunately we didn’t get to finish the game. So, no real reasonable conclusion to who would have won. I’m playing a WWI/1914 game via Battlemap using the new tournament rules. I’ll let everyone know how it turns out…
This is why I’ve suggested that in limited round/time games a victory city system is used to determine a winner.
Since the war is fought (mainly) on Allied soil, the CPs only have to build up a reasonable good lead in occupied enemy homelands, then defend that for the rest of the game to hold out for an economic victory.
Under my system they have to keep attacking, as their winning conditions (in VCs held) increases after every round or so.
House rules in House rules. Not here please.
It not a house rule - its a suggestion for making the Potential Tournament Rules work effectively, which the Economic Victory conditions clearly don’t, since they’re in effect a default Central Powers win.
It takes a long time for the Allies to occupy more CP homelands than they have lost of their own even when the Allies are doing well in a long game. The CPs have to be encouraged to keep attacking somehow.
All suggestions outside of these and OOB rules are house rules by definition.
It not a house rule - its a suggestion for making the Potential Tournament Rules work effectively, which the Economic Victory conditions clearly don’t, since they’re in effect a default Central Powers win.
It takes a long time for the Allies to occupy more CP homelands than they have lost of their own even when the Allies are doing well in a long game. The CPs have to be encouraged to keep attacking somehow.
The ‘encouragement’ to keep attacking is called ‘working to win the game’.
F-man’s point is that these rules encourage the CPs to take X amount of Allied territories, then dig in and defend those territories until time is called. Thus, any incentive for the CPs to press on is gone, as victory is achieved through holding more of your enemy’s territories than he has of yours.
It not a house rule - its a suggestion for making the Potential Tournament Rules work effectively, which the Economic Victory conditions clearly don’t, since they’re in effect a default Central Powers win.
It takes a long time for the Allies to occupy more CP homelands than they have lost of their own even when the Allies are doing well in a long game. The CPs have to be encouraged to keep attacking somehow.The ‘encouragement’ to keep attacking is called ‘working to win the game’.
Exactly: it reverses the optimum strategy for both sides.
After an initial land grab, the Central powers can afford to be essentially defensive, especially on the western front. The “long game” need to eventually take Paris and Rome can be forgotten.
The Allies in contrast can no longer afford to wait before driving into enemy territory; they have to grab something of the Austrian and German homelands, something which you only tend to see late on in games with no time limit.
This all makes for a very different game, which may not be a bad thing; but I believe a more balanced solution for short game victory conditions would involve specific targets for the CPs after any given round, with victory cities being the simplest measure of progress.
So in other words… it kind of plays out like WWI.
How interesting…
Haven’t been on this site in a little bit, I was checking to see if 1914 was fixed yet, clearly it is still broken, what a shame
I like the rules except for the part that takes all the units out of Africa. Part of the fun of the game is that it`s a world war, not just a European one. Sure, the African part tends to end quickly, but it distracts forces from other objectives and that has an effect on the game.
Each side should be able to raise an infantry or two at strategic locations in Africa.
Question on capturing capitals:
In the OOB rules, if the capital falls, the IPCs are surrendered immediately but the remaining troops can fight on forever, hoping to their can liberate their homeland.
The tournament rules introduces economic and political collapse. Does this supersede the taking a capital rules?
If the US takes Constantinople by sea, the loss value of homeland territory does not trigger EC or PC. Does USA get the Ottoman’s IPCs right now, or only after triggering PC?
If you manage to capture a capital without triggering a collapse, the normal rules apply.
Used these rules over the weekend I like them. The Centrals went after Russia and they had an almost impossible job of stopping them. While doing this they could easily keep the Allies at bay in the West. I belive Russia could add 3inf and maybe an artillery in Russia. Just my thoughts. Other than that these rules are superior to OOB. I am glad Larry has updated them.
I don’t see how Central powers have a chance. In the games I’ve played against myself, and others, the allies are slightly winning even before America gets into the war. I feel like the Ottomans got the shaft with Russia getting 3 more units that could hit them, so before they even go UK and Russia take 2 of their territories and really threaten them right away. This would be fine if Austria could handle Russia alone but it can’t. Russia and Austria are very equal in terms of overall strength, but the problem is that Austria has Italy to worry about. Germany can’t give too much help to Austria against Russia or else Paris won’t even be really threatened and then when U.S. comes into the war they will never take it. I might be doing something totally wrong, so please help me understand how this is balanced….
the 2 movement rule is way way better than OOB. diggin it. :mrgreen:
