Historical Entry House Rules

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Historical Entry House Rules

Re: Historical Entry House Rules

by Caractacus » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:31 am

Flashman wrote:I take the point about the Turks building navy, but I'd extend this to tanks and planes as well. They simply did not have the industrial base to produce modern weapons, but allow them to be gifted such units from their allies.

On a similar theme, the Americans almost completely relied on French and British made heavy equipment when they reached Europe. America was not ready for war, and it was much more economical to use allied tanks, artillery and planes than to set up production lines in America and ship them over, running the U-boat gauntlet. They did not even have modern battle dress, using French then British made steel helmets. The USA did produce a few planes that saw action late on, and a few "Liberty tanks" (copies of the British models) reached Europe too late to take part.

So, to balance the two, Turkey cannot build ships, artillery, tanks or planes (but can be given them by Germany and Austria); America cannot build these units either (apart from ships), but must buy them from their allies - essentially an American infantry unit shipped to Europe can be upgraded at cost difference in London/Paris.

P.S. consider the importance of Serbia in moving German made equipment through to Turkey - that Austrian attack on Serbia suddenly makes much more sense!
Interesting ideas here. I may try a few.

The upgrading of US troops to 'heavier' units require the unit to be stationary, i assume?

Further, it doesn't sound like much of a restriction, but I suppose that their need to be upgraded means that they can't go straight to the Med for action as they will lack all the heavy equipment.

P.S. I checked the Petsamo issue again, and you're quite right - the Russians annexed the area when they took over Finland from the Swedes. That said, it had been Finnish for the previous 600 years and was Finnish again at Independence (only to be lost probably for good after the Continuation War) as the Russians regranted the Finns their 'historialliset rajat' or 'historical borders' (though that didn't include other areas populated by Finns in the centuries before). There was, I think a railway to Petsamo, but that I haven't checked...

Re: Historical Entry House Rules

by Flashman » Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:43 pm

I take the point about the Turks building navy, but I'd extend this to tanks and planes as well. They simply did not have the industrial base to produce modern weapons, but allow them to be gifted such units from their allies.

On a similar theme, the Americans almost completely relied on French and British made heavy equipment when they reached Europe. America was not ready for war, and it was much more economical to use allied tanks, artillery and planes than to set up production lines in America and ship them over, running the U-boat gauntlet. They did not even have modern battle dress, using French then British made steel helmets. The USA did produce a few planes that saw action late on, and a few "Liberty tanks" (copies of the British models) reached Europe too late to take part.

So, to balance the two, Turkey cannot build ships, artillery, tanks or planes (but can be given them by Germany and Austria); America cannot build these units either (apart from ships), but must buy them from their allies - essentially an American infantry unit shipped to Europe can be upgraded at cost difference in London/Paris.

P.S. consider the importance of Serbia in moving German made equipment through to Turkey - that Austrian attack on Serbia suddenly makes much more sense!

Re: Historical Entry House Rules

by 13Foxtrot » Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:28 pm

Wild Bill,

Thanks for commenting! Our game changes have really made this game feel like WWI. I don't know if I mentioned it earlier, but we have given Italy a 3 IPC bump. Sicily and Sardinia are now worth 1 IPC each and Venice is worth 3. Italy probably could use a bit more in my opinion since they enjoyed more manpower on their front, but this could all be due to very bad luck on the A/H part in the real war. A funny thing that has happened in a couple of our games is that the happless dice rolling of two of our A/H players have actually caused the Serbians to stick around for 3 turns! So, when the Bulgarians arrive on turn 3, they make a big splash just like they did in history. Additionally, Having Romania come in on turn 5 pretty much forces the Turks/Bulgarians and the A/H's to garrison vital territories. Certainly, we have had games where Russia has been on the ropes early, but most of our guys can make it survive into turn 6 when the Brits bust through Afghanistan and pump in 10 infantry/Arty a turn in Russia's support!

What's really interesting is our Unrestricted Raiding Warfare Rules. In these, we allow surface ships to raid just like subs and it goes both ways! German IPC's in Africa or those that can only trace a line back to the home country by sea are also subject to allied raiding (and CP Raiding). Also, we allow one turn of Unrestricted Sub Warfare in the Atlantic (this is the one that causes the USA to initially whine) before the option to use a second one that will bring the US into the war. Surface raiding can happen all the time as Cruisers and BB's can take on survivors and thus keeps the USA Happy! USW is fully allowed in the Med and around Africa where there is little or no US shipping.

Another interesting thing we do is, BB's are now a "0" when attacking an all submarine force and when part of a mixed attacking force on an all sub defending force cannot be tipped as it is not the function of BB's to hunt Subs ref. Flashman's website he offered pertaining to this. When being attacked by an all sub force, they defend at a "2." If two mixed forces fight, the BB's fight as normal until the conditions above are met. We figure that those(Battleships) units represent a task force of Dreadnauts and a lesser group of cruisers and destroyers that support the BB's but not so much that they would be used to actively mess around with subs rather they defend their task force of Dreads. To be honest, a battleship taskforce's role is to kill other surface ships and support naval landings. Because of this, we have seen a marked increase in the purchase of Cruisers which represent more of an anti-sub role. Also, there has been a much increased number of subs produced, especially by the Central Powers.

Now here is one that you might find surprising. The Ottomans can't produce any naval forces. The only ships that they added to their fleet during the whole of WWI according to Navalwarfare.com were the two German Cruisers, Goeben and Breslau and that was just before they came into the war. They added one French sub that got caught in a anti-sub net in the dardenelles. The only other ships they had in the making were contracted by Great Britain who chose to keep them even after the Turks paid up front in Gold. This was just another factor that pushed the Turks into the arms of the Central Powers... I think I failed to mention that much of the existing Ottoman Navy was former German/French/Brit at the begining of the war. Believe it or not, the Ottomans seem to do well without the unrealistic ability to build naval units. We are also discussing allowing the Ottomans to purchase ships from the Germans (in the form of subs) or from the A/H's.

We also allow the Germans to produce one sub a turn in Trieste. This can start on turn 2. The subs become Austrian untl 1916 (Italy formally declared war on Germany in 1916, WTH! :D ) (turn 4) when they can become German once again as they were flying A/H colors being the sneaky Germans that they are! This really happened so we allow it in our game. To be honest, in the past 4 games, only one German sub was built there as Germany is usually more worried about their fleet parity with the British up North.

If I think of anything else, I'll try to mention it here. I just want to let you know that all of your suggestions that you made are an improvement to the Potential Tournament Rules just as I feel ours are. And I truly appreciate your thoughts and comments as I've enjoyed your posts here and regarding the Global rules! Cheers,

13Foxtrot :D

Re: Historical Entry House Rules

by WILD BILL » Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:04 pm

13Foxtrot, I think that you're on the right path and I like most of your changes.

Turks starting neutral and coming in on their 1st turn seems right (I like that the allies can't attack them round 1). It allows the Turks to be the aggressors in Russia & Middle East. This will call for the the allies to respond, instead of the Turks starting their 1st turn missing half of their land.

The same applies to Italy fence sitting, and then joining the allies. Having the CP not able to attack their thought to be ally, and allowing the Italians also to be the aggressor seem to fit history and the game as well. Just not sure if Italy should get a two round pass, or just have them come in on their first turn (like Ottomans) for game play. I also think you may have stretched the other minor powers from coming in to far. I think that for game play most should be in the war by the end of second turn (maybe turn 3 for Portugal/Romania) and keep the US on pace for turn 4, turn 5 at the latest. Sorry, but I kinda like to get to it, not wait for long periods of time before every one is in.

I like Bulgaria and Romania getting to be minor powers with their own income/units sounds like it could be cool. Would probably only allow them to conquer adjacent territories to keep them somewhat in check (others taken would go to their parent power I guess, unless that power was taken out on the game?). I think Romania should come in (turn 3) before the Russians are potentially force out.

As for Albania, that's a tricky one. It was divided up at different times between A/H, the Serbs, the Greeks and the Italians. Why not leave it as a 2 IPC territory, but neutral like Greece. If one side attacks it, the other side places units. If no one attacks it by the start of Italy's third turn it is awarded to them (they get to place the 4 units). You could probably do the same thing for Greece, if no one attacks it by the 4th UK turn it is awarded to UK (they get to place 4 units)

The other neutrals should probably stay as is with the exception of Switzerland. Keep it at 1 IPC for value, but have the Swiss units multiplied by 5 if attacked (5 inf/5 art), and have them in bunkers that take 2 hits to kill them LOL.




Anyway I think that I would have countries come in quicker, maybe each turn is 8-9 months?

Turn 1 based loosely on what happened in 1914, and a couple months of 1915
Belgium (allied to France) invaded as Germans head to Paris (if they go that way), Turks DOW on Russia, and also attack Sinai Peninsula etc...

Turn 2 starts say March/April of 1915 until the end of the year
UK attacks Turk navy, and starts Gallipoli invasion
Bulgaria enter war on Turks turn (allied), and Italy enters war

Turn 3 based loosely on what happened through Aug 1916
Portugal (allied w/England), and Romania enters war (allied w/Russia) on those powers turns

Turn 4 starts say Sept in 1916 to June 1917....
USA enters war
Greece enters war (allied to UK?)

Re: Historical Entry House Rules

by 13Foxtrot » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:25 pm

flashman is correct. Here is another map of 1914.

http://www.ianblanchard.com/Russian%20M ... 01914.html

13Foxtrot

Re: Historical Entry House Rules

by Flashman » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:18 pm

And this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas ... story_maps

You could argue that it was all part of Russia, but administratively Finland had no Arctic coastline in 1914.

Re: Historical Entry House Rules

by 13Foxtrot » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:51 pm

caractacus,
Check this out.
http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/400/489/489z.htm

13Foxtrot

Re: Historical Entry House Rules

by Caractacus » Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:52 pm

Flashman wrote: Take away Finland's fictional (in 1914) Arctic coastline. This creates a small Norway-Karelia border which could be an imbalance; a "4 corners" solution is an acceptable compromise
I nicked that text from where you posted on the other site (I am not a member). Can I ask you why you feel that Finland had no Arctic coastline in 1914?

Whilst a Duchy, it still retained its territory - and it had an Arctic coastline (though short).

The shape of Finland is described as a woman (in the same way that some say that Great Britain looks like a witch riding a pig), and she used to have two arms - one is still there (reaching up into Norway) but the other was lopped off and surrendered to Russia - it included Petsamo (the Russian name is Pechenga), and the associated coastline.

Have to hop off now as the wife wants me to come to dinner - but I like the rules suggestions you are making!

Top