Larry Harris 1914 Tournament Rules ( "potential rules" using his language)

@Shakespeare:

Kreig

I complained about the various Alpha’s becz I thought the whole Alpha process was a joke.
You and Larry “fixed” 1940 with a sledgehammer rather than some simple elegant adjustments.

You still did not address the questions I asked about the 1914 playtesting about the number of units and about Africa.

And why not address the question I had about wether or not you believe there was enough playtesting for 1914?

I mean come on and try to be accountable. You like the the “Official Answers” aspect of your association with Axis Allies, 
But you don’t want to accept responsibility.

Your answers seem to indicate you have much in common with the IRS and The AG’s office and the State Dept.
Where no one knows nothing, like Sgt Shultz; and no one has any accountability.

This is not the complain to Krieg about 1940/1914 playtesting thread, its the potential 1914 Tournament Rules thread… lol…
I don’t see the problem with the multiple Alphas anyway. The way I see it, there are now multiple set ups and rules to play by, even if some may be considered “unbalanced.” I found it pretty fun to run into a new set up and rules to play with my group.

Anyway, I should have a game at the end of this month. I’ll post a report on HGD afterward.
I’m pretty excited about the collapse rules, but I think the check for collapse phase going first in a player’s turn is harsh. I think it should happen at the end of their turn, so they at least have a chance to prevent it from happening… But, oh well. I guess I’ll have to see how my group can try to avoid collapse, even with it being the first phase of a player’s turn.

@ch0senfktard:

This is not the complain to Krieg about 1940/1914 playtesting thread, its the potential 1914 Tournament Rules thread… lol…

Good point.  This thread has strayed far off topic.

Atease, if you’d like to post your question in a new thread, I’ll answer as best I can without violating confidentiality agreements.

“I’m pretty excited about the collapse rules, but I think the check for collapse phase going first in a player’s turn is harsh. I think it should happen at the end of their turn, so they at least have a chance to prevent it from happening… But, oh well. I guess I’ll have to see how my group can try to avoid collapse, even with it being the first phase of a player’s turn.”

Hmm.  That might end up being a problem, especially for smaller nations like Italy or the Ottomans.  I wonder if it’s possible, with a deliberate strategy and coordinated ganging up, to cause a collapse of one of these powers before they even get their first turn?  It might require extreme sacrifices on other fronts, but it might be worth it to eliminate a power completely (or at least cripple their economy).

This is why I originally suggested calculating collapses should involve the number of casualties suffered - it should be about war weariness as much as economic capacity.

@almashir:

I wonder if it’s possible, with a deliberate strategy and coordinated ganging up, to cause a collapse of one of these powers before they even get their first turn?

Italy is pretty safe turn 1.
Ottomen… well… Lets see:
Guaranteed to be atleast contested-
Russia can invade Mesopotamia - 3IPCs
Britain can invade TransJordan via Egypt - 1 IPC

The other 3 territories that can be invaded by sea have 6 Infantry and 1-2 artillery.
Also, to cause at least an economical collapse, the one French transport and/or British transport in the med will have to invade Ankara and/or Constantinople. With only two units each, there is no way they’ll survive the mines, artillery preemptive strikes and then the usual battle. So they’re pretty safe.

But Turkey’s long coastline would make it vulnerable on future turns.

It doesn’t seem right that concerted Allied landings could force the collapse before Turkey has its own turn to put things right, although remember that it would get a chance to prevent political collapse during its own movement & combat.

@Flashman:

But Turkey’s long coastline would make it vulnerable on future turns.

It doesn’t seem right that concerted Allied landings could force the collapse before Turkey has its own turn to put things right, although remember that it would get a chance to prevent political collapse during its own movement & combat.

quoted from Larry’s site:
_Checking for economic collapse is done at the beginning of each power’s turn, and checking for political collapse is done at the end of each power’s turn. A collapse occurs when the total IPC value of a power’s homeland territories that are either captured or being contested by one or more enemy powers equals or exceeds its collapse threshold (see chart below). The effects of a collapse are resolved immediately. An economic collapse can be recovered from and its effects reversed, but the effects of a political collapse are permanent. A political collapse can occur without being preceded by an economic collapse.

Economic/Political Collapse Thresholds
Austria-Hungary 13/16
Russian Empire 13/15
Germany 16/18
France 8/10
British Empire 5/7
Ottoman Empire 7/9
Italy 7/9

If a power suffers an economic collapse, it is unable to purchase/mobilize units or collect income until it recovers. It does, however, retain any IPCs it may have in its treasury.

If at the end of a power�s turn it has arrived at or passed the political collapse threshold listed on the threshold chart it is considered to have suffered a political collapse. It is required to immediately surrender and leave the game at that time. It no longer has a turn, and all of its land, air, and sea units are removed from the board. Control of any territories that it was contesting is established, if necessary, using the rules for moving all units on one side out of a contested territory (see �Land Units�, page 15 of the rulebook). It also loses control of any territories that it controls, including its homeland territories. If units belonging to other powers on the same side are in these territories, control will likewise be established using the rules for moving all units on one side out of a contested territory; otherwise these territories will be uncontrolled (place any national control marker on it face down to denote this status) until another power moves into them. If a territory originally controlled by the surrendered power is captured by one if its former allies, the capturing power takes control of it. The surrendered power’s IPC treasury will be claimed by the first enemy power to gain control of its capital._

Just to get everyone on the same page, Larry has changed it so you have a chance to pull yourself out of political collapse (PC). You now check for PC at the end of your turn (see above). This should play out much better IMO.

So if I have this correct, when your turn starts if you are under econ collapse (EC) you can’t buy any units (must save all your income). You use the units you have on the board to attempt to regain “homeland” territory to pull yourself out of EC, so you don’t slip further into political collapse (PC). If successful, and you recover from EC (during your turn) this will allow you to collect income at the end of that same turn (you’ll now have 2 turns worth of income), but you very well might not be able to buy units on your next turn either if you again are put into EC.

This sounds kinda fishy to me for a couple reasons.

1. If you or your allies are able to bring you back from a 2 turn EC, you would have quite a bit of income and come back pretty strong (doesn’t sound like an EC to me).

2. Buy forcing you to save income over what could be a couple turns, if you end up in a PC, your IPC bank could be pretty large. If it is inevitable you will go into PC, this could actually help your side and be gamed if they are in position to take control of your capital when you fall. I’m not saying you build a strat for it, but I’m thinking France goes into PC on their turn, and because the Brits are helping to defend Paris (no CP units in Paris), the Brits get the loot on their turn (keep in mind they go back to back).

Would it play out better if when your turn starts, and you are in EC, you have to surrender 1/2 your income to the bank (round up or down TBD), but are allowed to spend the other 1/2 on units? Just because your economy is tanking, it shouldn’t stop you from fielding any uits should it, just how many units. Then if you do fall, most (or all) of your treasury would be gone and your allies or enemies wouldn’t inherit as much (if any).

Just my 2 cents WB

I don’t think you collect any income while under economic collapse
You just don’t lose what IPCs were in your hand when the collapse happens

@Uncrustable:

I don’t think you collect any income while under economic collapse
You just don’t lose what IPCs were in your hand when the collapse happens

Yeah, I just heard from Krieghund over at Larry’s site. In a nut shell he said the effects of the econ collapse last through your entire turn, and the recovery would take place upon your next turn if indeed you (or your allies) regained and held enough homeland territory to pull you out (this is explained better in the example that Larry gave on the first page (following the rule I took the quoted from).

I do think that it might be cool for you to be able pull yourself out of an economic crises though during your turn (like you can do to avoid a political collapse now), and this could be done with a couple of tweaks to the rule (see below). I’m not sure that an economic crises should completely shut down your new recruits, and equipment either (should restrict your builds though).

When your turn starts, and you are in econ collapse:

1. You forfeit part of your income to the bank (maybe 1/2)
2. You can use your remaining income to buy new units, or save it.

This would give you a chance to reinforce your homeland territories some (much less then OOB), and could reduce the income that your side has overall. It could also reduce the loot passed on the other powers (friend or foe) if you go into political collapse. Of coarse I guess it could also increase the the size of your bank as well if you are allowed recover, and collect income in the same turn (even if you forfeited 1/2 when your turn started).

I agree wild bill it should be at the end of your turn when you check for both.

Since the Economic Victory condition seems to favour the CPs (I’m making an assumption here based on the fact that most of the fighting takes place on Allied or neutral soil) I’ve considered some alternatives to prevent the CPs just grabbing a lead in victory points and sitting on it.

The idea is that at the end of each completed round the CPs have a Victory Points target; if they hold it they win, if not the Allies win by default.

The winning target will get higher after each round of play to encourage the CPs to keep on attacking; I’ll assume the targets come into force from about round 4 onwards.

Anyway, thrown together a rough map of how the points might be attained from each Allied and Allied-alligned tt (not counting neutrals), based on considerations such as proximity to capitals and so forth:

Played w/the new tournament rules this weekend. It played very well. A lot better than the OOB rules. The new tournament rules may be the best rules to play with, tournament or not.

Did the Central Powers play differently, bearing in mind that the Economic Victory condition means they have to take rather less tt, and can be defensive and play for “time”?

Or didn’t you play with a time/round limit?

@Flashman:

Did the Central Powers play differently, bearing in mind that the Economic Victory condition means they have to take rather less tt, and can be defensive and play for “time”?

Or didn’t you play with a time/round limit?

The CP’s played pretty much the same. Germany and AH threw a ton of resources at Russia. Got a Economic collapse in Turn 3. Russia did not overturn the Economic collapse because that would have given Germany even more money in Round 4 when they took Moscow. So, Russia moved all it’s remaining Inf and Art into Moscow on Turn 3. Germany attacked on Turn 4. Took Moscow. Then, AH and Germany diverted their resources to attack India. However, by then, Britain had made the Ottomans do a Political collapse. So it was a race for the Germans and AH to take out India before France, Italy and the US could make headway into Germany and AH.

Unfortunately, someone knocked a pad of paper on the game board and the pieces went flying everywhere. Had to quit at that point. But, I think it was pretty even at that point. Seems pretty balanced. Would have been interesting to play out. I think the strategy is, Germany and AH still have to take out Russia, while the Brits take out the Ottomans. Then, it’s a rush to see if Germany and AH can take out India before the Allies take out Germany or AH…

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.

Am I correct in assuming that if a port is “neutralized” it cannot be part of an extra naval movement point.

I’m beginning to think that the sea movement bonus should only be between 2 friendly naval bases.

Your sea units can move one extra sea zone if they start at a naval base that is in a territory that is either controlled by you or a friendly power or is contested and was originally controlled by you or a friendly power.

“The surrendered power’s IPC treasury will be claimed by the first enemy power to gain control of its capital.”

So if Italy suffers a political collapse with neither side having troops in Rome, it becomes an uncontrolled territory (kind of like a colony since no defenders will pop up).  The Italian player holds onto the IPCs for the moment.

The Americans land a transport in Rome and take control, increase the US IPC marker up 3.  But since it is an allied player, it doesn’t get the IPCs?

If AH attacks and gains control, they get the IPC income AND the IPCs the Italian player has been holding because they are the first ENEMY power to gain control.

Since the Americans can take control instead of liberating Rome, shouldn’t they get the IPCs held by the Italian player?

I will by trying these tournament rules in about 9 hours and will post the results on the Harris Games website.