Battle board

@DoManMacgee Totally agree with your thoughts. I also thought that Russia just needed to do something to throw the CPs off their game. In regards to the 1 Inf, I think its just an annoying move people made so the opponent couldn’t just grab free IPCs, but I’ll check with some of the other players to make sure that rule was understood right.

It slows down US shuck to Europe too much, but it does help get those Canadians across when the UK is shucking its transport fleet between Picardy-London-Karelia.

@Flashman:

The other main objective is that the SZs bordering Africa have no mines, which should make naval combat more lively; the CP fleets can link up, or invade north Africa.

That definitely think that could change things up a lot.  Those mines in SZ17 and the large allied fleets make any early AH naval plans difficult.

@Koningstiger:

I wonder how they handled this during “playtesting”.

I also wonder what the general consensus was on the unrestricted submarine warfare rule as written. Did they really not notice during playtesting that this rule was entirely uselless in this form?

Well i can imagine the playtesters saying “tts in europe too small we need marshaling cards”
And WOC saying “ok…wait that cost more money, F*** that”
WOC also says “Play testing over, we will fix any problems in the 2nd editions while taking every ones money again”

One could get a rules download, get different colored pieces that look similar from other AAA games and hand them out as tryout games to newbies with excellent map, piece containers, game box and odd looking but functional pieces.  If one is feeling benevolent, throw in some dice. :)

@BJCard:

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Don’t have the board near me; why is attacking Spanish Morocco a good idea for France? Just the free IPC or is there something else?

As far as I know, just the free IPCs

Yep. I don’t see why you shouldn’t do it. You have extra French down their for a turn anyway.

Out of Supply

I’m not going to suggest complicated supply rules, just a thought about armies that become isolated from friendly capitals.

To use an obvious example of Serbia. Suppose the opening Austrian moves involve a successful invasion of Romania, but the attack on Serbia is resisted.

This leaves Serbia as politically part of Russia, but isolated from it by neutral and enemy held tt.

Should the Serbian army suffer a penalty from this lack of supply? I would suggest that OOS armies would be most authentically represented by a shortage in artillery shells. So:

Units in OOS armies may not be “promoted”.

This more severely effects attacking moves, but OOS armies defending can dig in and defend well enough.

Give them an entire game round to re-establish supply, otherwise such armies must surrender.

I’m assuming here that a contested Romania does not make Srerbia OOS, supplies will still find a way through.