Axis and Allies: WW1

[Codsticker]

We played this last night for the first time; has anyone else here given it a shot? I think it to be an improvement over the original WW2 game. After only one game, my thoughts are that the central powers have to try and grab territories as quickly as possible to boost their IPC's (allows you to buy troops, ships, etc.) whereas the Allied powers need to hold on long enough for the USA to enter the war on the 4th turn. In that respect, it is not much different than the original game but I feel the 'combined arms' aspect of the combat rules are a significant upgrade.

Our game effectively ended in a draw, with the USA just barely getting going, the Italians pushing back hard against the Austrians; the French and British doing the same against Germany, but Russia crumbling hard after getting stuck in a land war in Asia (you know what they say...) and the Turks on the verge of clearing the British out of India(!).

[Commissar von Toussaint]

We played this last night for the first time; has anyone else here given it a shot? I think it to be an improvement over the original WW2 game. After only one game, my thoughts are that the central powers have to try and grab territories as quickly as possible to boost their IPC's (allows you to buy troops, ships, etc.) whereas the Allied powers need to hold on long enough for the USA to enter the war on the 4th turn. In that respect, it is not much different than the original game but I feel the 'combined arms' aspect of the combat rules are a significant upgrade.

I played it yesterday and I agree that it is the best of the series.

You are correct that the clock is ticking on the Central Powers - they have to score a quick victory before the power of the Entente becomes preponderant. For the Entente, the challenge is to hang in there until that happens. An overly aggressive strategy can bring disaster.

What intrigues me is the complexity of the strategic options hidden underneath a rather uncomplicated gaming system. There is no "quick fix" in this game where tanks and bombers can race to a threatened point. The emphasis is on deliberate planning and keeping steady in the face of adversity. Of course, having some reserves to deal with an emergency is critical.

One aspect I really like is the way it highlights the flexibility of sea power. Control of the oceans brings huge benefits in the real world and this is one of the few wargames set in Europe that doesn't treat sea power as a background feature to the land war.

I'm curious about your experience with India. The ability of the British to use India as a "second capital" for reinforcements is huge. So many strategic games treat India is a net drain on the Brits, but in fact it had immense resources and considerable defensive capabilities. My one regret in the game (which I had to leave when the result was in doubt but the Entente had the upper hand) was that I didn't fully exploit India's potential.

Very cool game. Can't wait to play it again.

[Codsticker]

I'm curious about your experience with India. The ability of the British to use India as a "second capital" for reinforcements is huge. So many strategic games treat India is a net drain on the Brits, but in fact it had immense resources and considerable defensive capabilities. My one regret in the game (which I had to leave when the result was in doubt but the Entente had the upper hand) was that I didn't fully exploit India's potential.

The Turks really have to evict the Brits from India. I think if the Brits and the Italians put in a concerted effort they could eliminate the Turks early. We played a third time a couple of weeks ago and the best strategist in our group was playing the Brits and he realised the value in India. He nearly put the Turks down twice on his own by using his navy to come up the red sea and strike at their homeland while they funneled their meagre troops to the front in the east.

The general consensus seems to be that it is difficult for the Central Powers to win. We figured that there area couple of things that have to happen: they take Russia as quickly as possible and the Turks push the Brits out of Asia . I think an alternative strategy would be to ignore Russia, effectively reinforcing the border, perhaps trading territories, the Germans go for Paris through Switzerland and the Austrians for Rome (possibly striking of over the Adriatic as well as down the boot).

[Commissar von Toussaint]

Since my last game I have been blocking out various strategies and I agree that the UK can really hammer the Turks early. This is of course what Churchill wanted to do, but for a number of reasons it didn't work.

I think the game has a lot of flexibility in terms of strategy for both sides and for the Central Powers the key is picking a target and sticking with it. Russia can't survive if all three countries tear into it at once. Turkey may collapse but I think trading Russia for Turkey is an acceptable exchange.

The alternative of having them go West from the get-go is also reasonable.

My point is that unlike some of the other games (such as the original) it doesn't feel scripted. Some strategies may be high-risk, but player dynamics (especially in multi-player games) add another variable that keeps things interesting.