I have balanced the game as follows: Italy enters the game in the second round (1915 as was the case), Munich is a second German production center (like UK has in India), Switzerland impassable or 4 IPC, India can only build 4 units (its IPC value), 4 additional artillery in Hannover. (additionally if you attack one neutral, all neutrals create a sort of alliance against the attacker (that avoids taking the nordic countries, but i dont play with this one).Thank you Jonathan.
I like some ideas I’ve seen where the German army is strengthened in East Africa. I’ve even seen one where Germany gets one free infantry for every three bought, but they must place it in Africa. This represents Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck’s holding off the British and being a thorn in their side until the end of the war. This rule makes Africa more interesting and it forces the British and French to deal with the threat, thereby drawing forces away from India, taking pressure off the Ottomans, and possibly depriving the French of some needed troops in Europe. This was Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck’s exact strategy. He knew he couldn’t beat the British because he was vastly outnumbered and couldn’t get supplies from Germany, but he knew he would draw away some forces that would have been used in Europe.
Interesting thoughts mate. When tinkering with these ideas don't forget about the economic victory when using a time limit/turn limit under tournament rules, I believe the CP have a much better chance going for the Economic Victory rather than taking two capitals. Keep up the good work!
Great Video! I like were you have placed the extra Russian Infantry. One thing I've done with Russia that has worked well is switching the starting units in Belarus with the ones in Karelia. Having India only produce 4 seems a little underwhelming. Maybe you could create a optional rule where Britain can place 2 more units in India if they don't attack Persia. That way they still can't just overpower the Ottomans. Anyways really good video. Keep up the good work.
Nice video, I recall reading Italy was a non-combatant Central Powers member for the first 10 months of the war, Italy should be a non-combatant for the first game turn, possibly a dice roll for the second turn. The Italian sea zone turn one is a Central Powers zone of control...Italy changed sides and took to arms fighting only after the first 10 months, could this affect the opening naval moves in the Mediterranean ?
This is my addition to my games, adding 1 fighter for all neutral countries on top of the standing army. For example, the defending army for Denmark is 3 infantry, 1 artillery, and 1 fighter. Once the defending army is destroyed, the fighter dies with it.
Some of these are a good idea. I like putting Switzerlands ipc value at 3. That seems more fair. The unrestricted subs seem OP to me. Being able to take that much from America and the UK puts both at a huge disadvantage. Plus the placement restriction on India seems whack. It's already tough to take Constantinople even if you throw everything the UK has at them. Making the UK choose between attacking Persia or funneling troops via 2 transports is already a decent barrier for the ottomans. With the two space movement rule the CP'S are sitting pretty.
Hi Jonathan. Thanks for the video. How about some kind of diplomatic system in which the major powers can align neutral countries? It can make the game more interesting and will also make the game more unpredictable and adds some flavour. Like paying 3 IPC's to influence a neutral, roll a dice to see if the influence is a succes. 3 influence stages. 3rd stage makes the target nation aligned. The target nation can use the received money to buy units. Something like the "Diplomacy" expansion by Historical Boardgaming.
Good question. I can see the value of generally increasing the number of units in Africa, maybe slightly increasing the IPC value of a couple territories to make the fighting down there seem more consequential as well.
Liking the Turkish straits, increasing the mines defense and eliminating seaports extra movement! However not giving Russia extra stuff or handicapping India's builds, since India can't build ships just make neutrals off limits to attacks or at least have them neutral friendly to the other side when attacked - this way India can't just pour land units through the neutral mideast!!!
I think the changes are in the areas needed. USA enters turn 4 though not three and does naval ports really add movement in this game? Russia can use extra stuff but it should be far from the front, Karelia is a good place (S:t Petersburg being an important part of Russia). 1 inf on the front is like 3 further back... We have tried with a full 6 inf 2 arty stack there or even in Finland to symbolize units mobilizing far from the front.
Thanks for the comment! In the Origins/GenCon Tournament rules, naval ports allow for extra movement (www.headlesshorseman2.com/origins.html). I will give some more thought to concentrating these extra forces in either St. Petersburg, Finland, or both.
Hey Jonathan and others watching this video. What are your thoughts on changing the Ottomans Economic Collapse threshold to 8 as opposed to 7? I have played 2 full games and currently have 2 on the go which use the tournament rules as per Gen Con. It appears that as long as the Entente have some idea what they are doing that the Ottomans will E-collapse every single game unless they get really lucky with the dice. They have little money, little troops and a lot of coast line to defend. 7 would not be such an issue if the Entente had to control the territory but as we know you only have to contest the territory to collapse a nation.
Rather than increasing Ottoman's threshold, I'd lower Russia's thresholds to 11/13. In the current game, you have to do much better than the Central Powers did historically to get Russia to collapse.
Additionally, it'd make a Russia-centric strategy for the Central Powers actually viable. Currently, it takes about 4-5 rounds to take Russia down if you focus on them 100%. Even if you do this, America will be in the game by time you're finished, and Ottomans will probably be dead. Since killing Russia this quickly requires basically all of the German-Austrian builds (or their initial setups, if you're playing tournament rules and can 2-move) to go into Russia, you're stuck playing defense against France and Italy. This means that, even if you do collapse Russia, you're going to have a hard time defending Rhur-Munich and Tyrolia-Trieste. The IPC value of those 4 territories (6 (Munich) + 4*3 (the other 3) = 6+12=18) almost completely negates the IPC gain you'd get from collapsing Russia (25)! Couple that swing with the IPC swing from America joining the Entente and Ottomans collapsing and the Central Powers lose every time.
I know it’s unlikely but let’s say they release 1914 second edition, what changes would you make seeeing that you can change the game from the ground up, IE map changes, other rule changes that you would be able to do with a new version of the game. I love this game but I kinda get the feeling that it was half baked given all the imbalances it has. Love the videos, keep up the great work.
I have given a good deal of thought to that. I've always been fascinated with World War 1 and had hoped to create my own World War 1 board game one day, even before I'd first heard of Axis and Allies 1914. That said, the biggest areas I would change for an Axis and Allies 1914 Second Edition are as follows: 1) More territories overall-Land and sea, many neutrals should also be made up of a few territories. 2) Researchable technologies 3) More advanced diplomacy-maybe Italy or the US could be swayed to join the CP, or the Ottomans could join the Entente. Of course, many nations would start out leaning toward one side or the other but only the big five should be locked into an alliance. 4) A revamped team collaboration/turn order system. This last one might be a bridge too far for Axis and Allies. There's just something that appeals to me about allowing every country on the CP side to attack as one, and then the same for the Entente nations.
I like a lot of this, especially the India production rule and the Turkish straits. I like how you improved the unrestricted sub warfare as the out of box rules are so weak and this is better but in my opinion id rather just overhaul the whole thing and use a system more like the original axis and allies Europe and Pacific: czcams.com/video/vuhAS-Mntec/video.html
Players should not be able to invade Switzerland. Tactically and strategically it would be crazy for either side to invade Switzerland which is why they never did. I notice you have not completely followed the Tournament rules establish by game designer Larry Harris and available on Board Game Geek. The French battleship and transport in sea zone 15 are removed and replaced by cruiser, armies are removed from Africa and Russian infantry are added to Sevastopol and Livonia. The British battleship in sea zone 29 should be moved to sea zone 9 for during the entire war all the British battleships were in the Grand Fleet and never in India. I would not place the additional British cruiser in sea zone 9 that the tournament rules requires. I have mixed reaction to your deleting the additional naval movement if leaving from a friendly port. Your rule about the straights of Bosporus makes historical sense and provides game balance. Your rule that allows two movements if traveled over friendly or contested land territories containing your troops which should speed up the game play. Restricting British reinforcements to 4 in India has a historical foundation.
Thanks for the comment! I'll give those naval adjustments some thought. In terms of the tournament rules, I based my starting point on the rule set used at Origins/GenCon found here: www.headlesshorseman2.com/origins.html
Hey Jonathan, Being a fan of the tournament rules in general I thought I would post this for you to have a read www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33534/3-newbies-and-a-game-of-1914
I have balanced the game as follows: Italy enters the game in the second round (1915 as was the case), Munich is a second German production center (like UK has in India), Switzerland impassable or 4 IPC, India can only build 4 units (its IPC value), 4 additional artillery in Hannover. (additionally if you attack one neutral, all neutrals create a sort of alliance against the attacker (that avoids taking the nordic countries, but i dont play with this one).Thank you Jonathan.
I like some ideas I’ve seen where the German army is strengthened in East Africa. I’ve even seen one where Germany gets one free infantry for every three bought, but they must place it in Africa. This represents Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck’s holding off the British and being a thorn in their side until the end of the war. This rule makes Africa more interesting and it forces the British and French to deal with the threat, thereby drawing forces away from India, taking pressure off the Ottomans, and possibly depriving the French of some needed troops in Europe. This was Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck’s exact strategy. He knew he couldn’t beat the British because he was vastly outnumbered and couldn’t get supplies from Germany, but he knew he would draw away some forces that would have been used in Europe.
That's doable, great ideas.
Interesting thoughts mate. When tinkering with these ideas don't forget about the economic victory when using a time limit/turn limit under tournament rules, I believe the CP have a much better chance going for the Economic Victory rather than taking two capitals. Keep up the good work!
Great Video! I like were you have placed the extra Russian Infantry. One thing I've done with Russia that has worked well is switching the starting units in Belarus with the ones in Karelia. Having India only produce 4 seems a little underwhelming. Maybe you could create a optional rule where Britain can place 2 more units in India if they don't attack Persia. That way they still can't just overpower the Ottomans. Anyways really good video. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the comment and the recommendation! I will give that some serious consideration.
Agreed, Russia needs more manpower being cornered by three enemy powers.
Woot, new vid
Nice video, I recall reading Italy was a non-combatant Central Powers member for the first 10 months of the war, Italy should be a non-combatant for the first game turn, possibly a dice roll for the second turn.
The Italian sea zone turn one is a Central Powers zone of control...Italy changed sides and took to arms fighting only after the first 10 months, could this affect the opening naval moves in the Mediterranean ?
This is my addition to my games, adding 1 fighter for all neutral countries on top of the standing army. For example, the defending army for Denmark is 3 infantry, 1 artillery, and 1 fighter. Once the defending army is destroyed, the fighter dies with it.
Some of these are a good idea. I like putting Switzerlands ipc value at 3. That seems more fair. The unrestricted subs seem OP to me. Being able to take that much from America and the UK puts both at a huge disadvantage. Plus the placement restriction on India seems whack. It's already tough to take Constantinople even if you throw everything the UK has at them. Making the UK choose between attacking Persia or funneling troops via 2 transports is already a decent barrier for the ottomans. With the two space movement rule the CP'S are sitting pretty.
Interesting.
Are you going to Gen Con this year? I'm considering finally taking the plunge and driving out there myself.
Probably not GenCon this year, though I do plan on attending the Origins Game Fair and playing an Axis and Allies game or two while there.
Can you please make gameplay video with friends
You should do a full game on axis and allies 1942 second edition
Hi Jonathan. Thanks for the video.
How about some kind of diplomatic system in which the major powers can align neutral countries? It can make the game more interesting and will also make the game more unpredictable and adds some flavour. Like paying 3 IPC's to influence a neutral, roll a dice to see if the influence is a succes. 3 influence stages. 3rd stage makes the target nation aligned. The target nation can use the received money to buy units. Something like the "Diplomacy" expansion by Historical Boardgaming.
I like that idea.
I'm wondering about Africa from Germany's play, would you increase their units a bit?
Good question. I can see the value of generally increasing the number of units in Africa, maybe slightly increasing the IPC value of a couple territories to make the fighting down there seem more consequential as well.
Liking the Turkish straits, increasing the mines defense and eliminating seaports extra movement! However not giving Russia extra stuff or handicapping India's builds, since India can't build ships just make neutrals off limits to attacks or at least have them neutral friendly to the other side when attacked - this way India can't just pour land units through the neutral mideast!!!
I think the changes are in the areas needed. USA enters turn 4 though not three and does naval ports really add movement in this game?
Russia can use extra stuff but it should be far from the front, Karelia is a good place (S:t Petersburg being an important part of Russia). 1 inf on the front is like 3 further back...
We have tried with a full 6 inf 2 arty stack there or even in Finland to symbolize units mobilizing far from the front.
Yeah it was its capital.
Thanks for the comment! In the Origins/GenCon Tournament rules, naval ports allow for extra movement (www.headlesshorseman2.com/origins.html). I will give some more thought to concentrating these extra forces in either St. Petersburg, Finland, or both.
Hey Jonathan and others watching this video. What are your thoughts on changing the Ottomans Economic Collapse threshold to 8 as opposed to 7? I have played 2 full games and currently have 2 on the go which use the tournament rules as per Gen Con. It appears that as long as the Entente have some idea what they are doing that the Ottomans will E-collapse every single game unless they get really lucky with the dice. They have little money, little troops and a lot of coast line to defend. 7 would not be such an issue if the Entente had to control the territory but as we know you only have to contest the territory to collapse a nation.
I could get behind that.
@@JonathanMeyer84 Will be interesting to see other viewers opinions as well. Btw did you get a chance to check out the session report?
@@slipcapone1466 No, I don't believe so. Could you post a link to it?
Rather than increasing Ottoman's threshold, I'd lower Russia's thresholds to 11/13. In the current game, you have to do much better than the Central Powers did historically to get Russia to collapse.
Additionally, it'd make a Russia-centric strategy for the Central Powers actually viable. Currently, it takes about 4-5 rounds to take Russia down if you focus on them 100%. Even if you do this, America will be in the game by time you're finished, and Ottomans will probably be dead. Since killing Russia this quickly requires basically all of the German-Austrian builds (or their initial setups, if you're playing tournament rules and can 2-move) to go into Russia, you're stuck playing defense against France and Italy. This means that, even if you do collapse Russia, you're going to have a hard time defending Rhur-Munich and Tyrolia-Trieste. The IPC value of those 4 territories (6 (Munich) + 4*3 (the other 3) = 6+12=18) almost completely negates the IPC gain you'd get from collapsing Russia (25)! Couple that swing with the IPC swing from America joining the Entente and Ottomans collapsing and the Central Powers lose every time.
I know it’s unlikely but let’s say they release 1914 second edition, what changes would you make seeeing that you can change the game from the ground up, IE map changes, other rule changes that you would be able to do with a new version of the game. I love this game but I kinda get the feeling that it was half baked given all the imbalances it has. Love the videos, keep up the great work.
The game is not balanced, the Entente has huge advantage. The map is ok I think except shipping from USA - Europe is to fast.
I have given a good deal of thought to that. I've always been fascinated with World War 1 and had hoped to create my own World War 1 board game one day, even before I'd first heard of Axis and Allies 1914. That said, the biggest areas I would change for an Axis and Allies 1914 Second Edition are as follows:
1) More territories overall-Land and sea, many neutrals should also be made up of a few territories.
2) Researchable technologies
3) More advanced diplomacy-maybe Italy or the US could be swayed to join the CP, or the Ottomans could join the Entente. Of course, many nations would start out leaning toward one side or the other but only the big five should be locked into an alliance.
4) A revamped team collaboration/turn order system. This last one might be a bridge too far for Axis and Allies. There's just something that appeals to me about allowing every country on the CP side to attack as one, and then the same for the Entente nations.
Jonathan Meyer thanks for the input, and I look forward to the Great War, a Jonathan Meyer’s game
Watched this again. Leave my Kill-Italy-First strategy alone! Leave the AH TT in SZ18!
I like a lot of this, especially the India production rule and the Turkish straits. I like how you improved the unrestricted sub warfare as the out of box rules are so weak and this is better but in my opinion id rather just overhaul the whole thing and use a system more like the original axis and allies Europe and Pacific:
czcams.com/video/vuhAS-Mntec/video.html
Intriguing. I just watched your video and I like the concept! My only concern is that it does require some additional markers/map updates.
Yes quite unfortunately, I always prefer improvements that don't require hardware
Players
should not be able to invade Switzerland. Tactically and strategically it would
be crazy for either side to invade Switzerland which is why they never did. I
notice you have not completely followed the Tournament rules establish by game
designer Larry Harris and available on Board Game Geek. The French battleship
and transport in sea zone 15 are removed and replaced by cruiser, armies are
removed from Africa and Russian infantry are added to Sevastopol and Livonia. The
British battleship in sea zone 29 should be moved to sea zone 9 for during the
entire war all the British battleships were in the Grand Fleet and never in
India. I would not place the additional British cruiser in sea zone 9 that the
tournament rules requires. I have mixed reaction to your deleting the
additional naval movement if leaving from a friendly port. Your rule about the
straights of Bosporus makes historical sense and provides game balance. Your
rule that allows two movements if traveled over friendly or contested land
territories containing your troops which should speed up the game play. Restricting
British reinforcements to 4 in India has a historical foundation.
Thanks for the comment! I'll give those naval adjustments some thought. In terms of the tournament rules, I based my starting point on the rule set used at Origins/GenCon found here: www.headlesshorseman2.com/origins.html
Hey Jonathan, Being a fan of the tournament rules in general I thought I would post this for you to have a read www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33534/3-newbies-and-a-game-of-1914