A&A WWI

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

Re: A&A WWI

Post by pellulo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:26 pm

Film of W.W.I tanks, a few scenes of French Heavy tanks(so bad even the German AV-7 was better), and, towards the end of the film, they show Mephisto, thanks, Pellulo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbTvQOiGiWI
Pellulo

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Re: A&A WWI

Post by Flashman » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:21 pm

Why this game NEEDS techs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLP1ZIehscQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... lKx5Q&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra1d6fLLQZ0


There were NO fighter planes in 1914

No Tanks

No Bombers

No Armoured Cars

No Steel Helmets

No Anti-Aircraft Guns

No Aircraft Carriers

User avatar
Old Dwarf
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: A&A WWI

Post by Old Dwarf » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:14 am

It does seem odd that no Tech will exist as the Great War started off with
cavalry charges (which won't be included) & ended with coordinated air/Inf/tank
assults.

Perhaps Units will just be introduced at set dates :?: Gotta have some more info
about this Game.
Für Kaiser und König

pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

Re: A&A WWI

Post by pellulo » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:55 pm

For sure if any follow games are introduce, one of the features will be new tech., like tanks, gas, and, so forth(especially for a game about a specific battle). Thanks, Pellulo
Pellulo

pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

Re: A&A WWI

Post by pellulo » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:15 pm

Getting units at set dates or turns might come in handy, if you got the bucks or time or need for them, like Germany on its last legs and being allowed to make tanks, too little too late(or USA being allowed to make a Zeppelin/Battle-cruisers, two weapons that did not work out as expected), thanks, Pellulo
Pellulo

pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

Re: A&A WWI

Post by pellulo » Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:08 pm

Battlecruiser WWI(the little ship that couldn't), enjoy, Pellulo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A battlecruiser, or battle cruiser, was a large capital ship built in the first half of the 20th century. They were similar in size and cost to a battleship, and typically carried the same kind of heavy guns, but battlecruisers generally carried less armour and were faster.

The first battlecruisers were developed in the United Kingdom in the first decade of the century, as a development of the armoured cruiser, at the same time the dreadnought succeeded the pre-dreadnought battleship. The original aim of the battlecruiser was to hunt down slower, older armoured cruisers and destroy them with heavy gunfire. However, as more and more battlecruisers were built, they increasingly became used alongside the better-protected battleships.

Battlecruisers served in the navies of Britain, Germany, Australia and Japan during World War I, most notably at the Battle of the Falkland Islands and in the several raids and skirmishes in the North Sea which culminated in a pitched fleet battle, the Battle of Jutland. British battlecruisers in particular suffered heavy losses at Jutland, where their light armour made them very vulnerable to battleship shelling...

In the First World War, the British and Germans used battlecruisers in several theatres. Battlecruisers formed part of the dreadnought fleets that faced each other in the North Sea, taking part in several raids and skirmishes as well as the Battle of Jutland. Battlecruisers also played an important role at the start of the War as the British fleet hunted down German commerce raiders, for instance at the Battle of the Falkland Islands, and also took part in the Mediterranean campaign.
Construction

For most of the combatants, capital ship construction was very limited during the War. Germany finished the Derfflinger class and began work on the Mackensen class. The Mackensens were a development of the Derfflinger class, with 13.8-inch guns and a broadly similar armour scheme, designed for 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph).[56]

In Britain, Jackie Fisher returned to the office of First Sea Lord in October 1914. His enthusiasm for big, fast ships was unabated, and he set design staff to producing a design for a battlecruiser with 15-inch guns. Because Fisher expected the next German battlecruiser to steam at 28 knots, he required the new British design to be capable of 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph). He planned to reorder two Royal Sovereign class battleships, which had been approved but not yet laid down, to a new design. Fisher finally received approval for this project on 28 December 1914 and they became the Renown class. With six 15-inch guns but only 6-inch armour they were a further step forward from Tiger in firepower and speed but returned to the level of protection of the first British battlecruisers.[57]

At the same time, Fisher resorted to subterfuge to obtain another three fast, lightly armoured ships that could use several spare 15-inch gun turrets left over from battleship construction. These ships were essentially light battlecruisers, and Fisher occasionally referred to them as such, but officially they were classified as large light cruisers. This unusual designation was required because construction of new capital ships had been placed on hold, while there were no limits on light cruiser construction. They became Courageous and her sisters Glorious and Furious, and there was a bizarre imbalance between their main guns of 15 inches (380 mm) (or 18 inches (460 mm) in Furious) and their armour, which at 3 inches (76 mm) thickness was on the scale of a light cruiser. The design was generally regarded as a bizarre failure (nicknamed in the Fleet Outrageous, Uproarious and Spurious), though the later conversion of the ships to aircraft carriers was very successful.[58][59] Fisher also speculated about a new mammoth but lightly built battlecruiser that would carry 20-inch (510 mm) guns, which he termed HMS Incomparable; this never got beyond the concept stage.[60]

It is often held that the Renown and Courageous classes were designed for Fisher's plan to land troops (possibly Russian) on the German Baltic coast. Specifically, they were designed with a shallow draught, which might be important in the shallow Baltic. This is not clear-cut evidence that the ships were designed for the Baltic: it was considered that earlier ships had too much draught and not enough freeboard under operational conditions. Roberts argues that the focus on the Baltic was probably unimportant at the time the ships were designed, but was inflated later, after the disastrous Dardanelles Campaign.[61]

The final British battlecruiser design of the war was the Admiral class, which was born from a requirement for an improved version of the Queen Elizabeth battleship. The project began at the end of 1915, after Fisher's final departure from the Admiralty. While initially envisaged as a battleship, senior sea officers felt that Britain had enough battleships, but that new battlecruisers might be required to combat German ships being built (the British overestimated German progress on the Mackensen class as well as their likely capabilities). A battlecruiser design with eight 15-inch guns, 8 inches of armour and capable of 32 knots was decided on. The experience of battlecruisers at the Battle of Jutland meant that the design was radically revised and transformed again into a fast battleship concept with armour up to 12 inches thick but still capable of 31.5 knots (58.3 km/h; 36.2 mph). The first ship in the class, Hood, went ahead according to this design. The plans for her three sisters, on which little work had been done, were revised once more later in 1916 and in 1917 to improve protection.[62]

The Admiral class would have been the only British ships capable of taking on the German Mackensen class; German shipbuilding was drastically slowed by the war, and while two Mackensens were launched, none were ever completed.[63] The Germans also worked briefly on a further three ships, of the Ersatz Yorck class, which were modified versions of the Mackensens with 15-inch guns.[64] Work on the three additional Admirals was suspended in March 1917 to enable more escorts and merchant ships to be built to deal with the new threat from U-boats to trade. They were finally cancelled in February 1919.[63]
Goeben and the Ottoman Empire

The German battlecruiser Goeben perhaps made the most impact early in the war. Stationed in the Mediterranean, she and her escorting cruiser evaded British and French ships on the outbreak of war, and steamed to Constantinople (Istanbul) with two British battlecruisers in hot pursuit. Goeben was handed over to the Ottoman Navy, and this was instrumental in bringing the Ottoman Empire into the war on the German side as one of the Central Powers. Goeben herself, renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim, saw engagements against the Russian Navy in the Black Sea and against the British in the Aegean Sea.
Battle of Heligoland Bight
Main article: Battle of Heligoland Bight (1914)

A force of British light cruisers and destroyers entered the Heligoland Bight (the part of the North Sea closest to Hamburg) to attack German shipping in August 1914, the first month of World War I. When they met opposition from German cruisers, Admiral Beatty took his squadron of four battlecruisers into the Bight and turned the battle, ultimately sinking three German light cruisers and killing their commander, Rear Admiral Leberecht Maass.
Battle of the Falklands
Main article: Battle of the Falkland Islands

The original battlecruiser concept proved successful in December 1914 at the Battle of the Falkland Islands. The British battlecruisers Inflexible and Invincible did precisely the job they were intended for when they chased down and annihilated a German cruiser squadron, centered on the armoured cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, along with three light cruisers, commanded by Admiral Maximilian Graf Von Spee in the South Atlantic Ocean. Prior to the battle, the Australian battlecruiser Australia had unsuccessfully searched for the German ships in the Pacific.
Battle of Dogger Bank
Main article: Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)
Seydlitz was heavily damaged in the Battle of Dogger Bank

During the Battle of Dogger Bank, the after turret of the German flagship Seydlitz was pierced by a British 13.5-inch shell from HMS Lion, which detonated in the working chamber. The charges being hoisted upwards were detonated, and the explosion flashed up into the turret and down into the magazine, setting fire to charges in the process of being handled. The gun crew tried to escape into the next turret, allowing the flash to spread, destroying both turrets internally. Seydlitz was saved from near-certain destruction only by emergency flooding of her after magazines. This near-disaster was due to the way that ammunition handling was arranged and was common to both German and British battleships and battlecruisers, but the lighter protection on the latter made them more vulnerable to the turret or barbette being pierced. The "working chamber" had been introduced in Formidable in 1898 and was intended to prevent such a dangerous flash, but instead made such an event more likely. The Germans learned from investigating the damaged Seydlitz and instituted improved measures to ensure ammunition handling was flash tight. The British remained unaware of the weakness, to their great misfortune at the Battle of Jutland.[citation needed]

Apart from the cordite handling, the battle was mostly inconclusive, though both Lion and Seydlitz were severely damaged. The British flagship Lion lost speed, causing her to fall behind the rest of the battleline, and Admiral Beatty was unable to effectively command for the remainder of the engagement. A British signalling error allowed the German battlecruisers to withdraw, as most of Beatty's squadron mistakenly concentrated on the crippled armoured cruiser Blücher, sinking her with great loss of life. Blücher herself was obsolete, out of all the ships in the battle, and so she had proved to be a liability to the rest of the German squadron, which was otherwise an all battlecruiser squadron.[citation needed]
Battle of Jutland
Main article: Battle of Jutland
Queen Mary blows up during the Battle of Jutland

At the Battle of Jutland 18 months later, both British and German battlecruisers were employed as fleet units. The British battlecruisers became engaged with both their German counterparts, the battlecruisers, and then German battleships before the arrival of the battleships of the British Grand Fleet. The result was a disaster for the Royal Navy's battlecruiser squadrons: Invincible, Queen Mary, and Indefatigable exploded with the loss of all but a handful of their crews. This was due to the vulnerability of the working chamber, which the Germans had discovered after the near-loss of Seydlitz at Dogger Bank and had taken preventative measures against. The British ships not only had lighter armour but also lacked flash-tight ammunition handling arrangements, due in part to lack of awareness and experience, and also as it would improve their rate of fire to compensate for poor accuracy. Each was lost to a single salvo penetrating the turret and detonating in the working chamber. Beatty's flagship Lion herself was almost lost in a similar manner, save for the heroic actions of Major Harvey.[citation needed]

The better armoured and flash-tight German battlecruisers fared better, in part due to poor performance of British fuzes (their shells exploded on impact with the ships armour instead of penetrating the armour before exploding thus causing more damage). Lützow for instance only had 117 killed despite receiving more than thirty hits, though she had sufficient flooding that she was scuttled. The other German battlecruisers, Moltke, Von der Tann, Seydlitz, Derfflinger were all heavily damaged and required extensive repairs after the battle, Seydlitz barely making it home, for they had been the focus of British fire for much of the battle. No British or German battleship was sunk during the battle with the exception of the old German pre-dreadnought Pommern, the victim of torpedoes from British destroyers.[citation needed]
Pellulo

pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

Re: A&A WWI

Post by pellulo » Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:02 pm

Finally got to see the cover art, surprise to see President Wilson was so highlighted compare to other leaders. I wonder in other countries(where the game will be sold) would the head of for example Germany(the Kaiser) would be in Wilson's place. For me, even thought he was not head of state, I put my favorite Churchill(first sea lord) in Wilson's place, thanks, Pellulo
PS see game cover at AH site of game section.
Pellulo

WILD BILL
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: A&A WWI

Post by WILD BILL » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:43 pm

Flashman wrote:Why this game NEEDS techs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLP1ZIehscQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... lKx5Q&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra1d6fLLQZ0


There were NO fighter planes in 1914

No Tanks

No Bombers

No Armoured Cars

No Steel Helmets

No Anti-Aircraft Guns

No Aircraft Carriers

Larry said 1914 will be on par (or slightly less complex) then 1942. Trying to get into Larry's head (could be scary, like going into a haunted house w/lots of cob-webs) you're not going to see complex rules or mechanisms, they're going to be simpler mechanisms that add depth to the game. He has already said that to simulate trench warfare that combat will only last one round. That is a very simple mechanism that gets what he wants. I don't see him force feeding you tech to get to a certain unit, or to raise a units capabilities (it's no secrete he's not a big fan of tech, and it messes w/balance).

Larry already said no tech in 1914 (although it would be fun to make some up). I think that new pairings could somewhat fill the gap for tech, and the units needed for these combos (air & tanks) could have a delay upon entering the game. They may also be restricted to just a couple of these units per turn so you can't go crazy buying only units that give this benefit. If the number of units aren't restricted the cost could be self restricting depending on how much income the game has.

Like on turn 2 you can start building air (ftr/recon), and tanks (that way those units wouldn't be available to use until turn 3) but you are restricted to 1-2 of each per turn so you can't have these assets come out of nowhere. These units will most likely have a different role (values) then in the WWII games. Inf might have similar values, but the tank should be nerfed in attack, def, and probably movement. Air might still have 4 movement, but the attack/def values will be lower then we are used to (as it should be). I think you might see some new pairings to raise attack or def levels. Like a bi-wing attacks at a 2, but will boost art +1 (recon). Maybe a tank will boost 1-2 inf in attacks etc.... Using these high bread pairings could be the ticket to breaking-though the defenses later in the game. Even if you are allowed to build tanks and air units in the first turn (I know it's 1914), they won't be a factor until turn two or maybe turn three for tanks if they only move 1 space in combat. It depends on if you are restricted in some way as to how many you can buy. Maybe it's a man power first thing and each power has to buy a min of 2-3 inf each turn leaving less income for other units?

Keeping with that train of thought (pun intended) I wouldn't be surprised to see all ground units only move 1 space in combat move phase (tanks were really slow), but all ground are allowed to move 2 spaces in NCM to somewhat simulate rail (might be some restrictions). This would allow for slightly faster movement from one front to the other for the axis once Russia pulls the plug. I didn't see any rail lines on the map in the preview, so knowing Larry if there is some mechanism to simulate rail it will be a simple, very basic system (like above).

Just my thoughts on it, but I see this as a base game that might lead to a more complex game in the future if there is enough interest (sales). Some stuff being tossed around is much more complex then will be in the box this time around. I think this game will introduce some new mechanisms, and be a blast to play. I also believe some ppl may be setting themselves up for disappointment wanting more out of it, thinking it will be on the same level as G40, or even their own creation (I'm not trying to pick a fight here, it's just MO).


Trying to get into Larry's head (could be scary, like going into a haunted house w/lots of cob-webs)

Actually it’s more like Hugh Hefner’s mansion with many empty bottles of Don Perignon scattered about.
LH
Last edited by WILD BILL on Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests