Game: 1914

Thread: Re: Historical Set-Up

GROGnads — 2008-07-29T09:08:54+00:00

I do believe that their 'coding' "system" for such was in place for displaying these. Otherwise, then it would take a very enlarged "sheet" in order to have those seen within any!

Thread: Historical Set-Up

RaffertyA — 2008-07-29T07:21:32+00:00

Has anyone converted the historical 'set-up' Mobilization Charts on page 31 of the Booklet to a hex and unit listing?

Thread: Re: Review: 1914's import

Ichirou — 2008-05-22T08:46:35+00:00

Well, regarding editions, here's what I read in Vol.4 #6 of The General:

1914-2nd Edition Rule Clarifications

1914 sold out its initial run in one
month. . . a new record for Avalon Hill.
(Of course, we only printed 126 copies. )
Unfortunately, for those of you who
completely ignored our message in the
Mar-April issue that we were obligated
to supply our outlets first before processing
direct mail orders, many subscribers
had to wait over 6 to 8 weeks
for their copy when ordered directly
from us. Now that we are in our 2nd
run, the following rule clarifications,
are being incorporated into the game
components and should be noted by all
who are currently playing the first
edition.

Dunnigan's revision set was something that came a bit later in 1969.

Thread: Re: Good game if you're in prison

Sandy Petersen — 2008-05-14T19:22:44+00:00

There exist way more fun games with fog of war, artillery, flanking, fortifications, and intelligence. 1914 tries to do far too much without the proper tools.

Thread: Re: Review: 1914's import

Michael Erwin — 2008-01-06T18:58:58+00:00

The first edition was the Avalon Hill edition. AFAIK, I've never seen it, the second edition was a Poultron Press expansion/revision kit which required the map from the first edition.

Tannenburg was 15 miles/hex and 3 days/turn. It also had first and second editions which, I assume, mated with the first and second editions of 1914 (using staggered turns, and a time delay for German transfers). I've seen the rules to the second edition which looked much simpler than 1914. Higher combat factors but no separate attack and defense factors. Same movement rates.

Thread: Re: Review: 1914's import

wargamer55 — 2007-12-21T05:48:03+00:00

I was unaware that there was a revised edition, but I don't think it was a "reprint" in the same sense as the reprinted editions of Jutland, Afrika Korps, Midway, etc. It sounds more like it was corrected copies. The revised edition must have followed closely on the heels of the first printing because I acquired my copy pretty early and it's definitely the blue-planning pad version.
Thanks for the information.
I was aware of Tannenberg and had a copy once. I recalled that it has some significant differences from 1914, although I no longer remember what they are, exactly. Anyone with copies of both might be able to write a comparison sometime.

Thread: Re: Review: 1914's import

FlatWorm — 2007-12-21T05:21:17+00:00

The game is far more "playable" today via PBEM and Cyberboard, though a host of "house rules" adding some C&C and other chrome are recommended to add more uncertainty. These are discussed in a sort of Ad Hoc fashion over at the 1914 forum on ConSimWorld.

The Cyberboard gamebox is excellent: it provides the flippable "hidden strength" counters, and the simplified hand-drawn map has removed the original map's ambiguities.

Thread: Re: Review: 1914's import

sherron — 2007-12-21T03:34:34+00:00

The game contest was clearly secondary to the history.

Amen to that. Odd time for your post but a wargaming friend of mine passed away in September and I agreed to sell off his collection for the estate. I saw he had two copies of 1914 and to my surprise one of them was my old copy. With Jim's copy he had some revisionist counters but the kit came from Jim Dunnigan and the counters he had were homemade. I just sold Jim's copy this week on Ebay.

Thread: Re: Review: 1914's import

iplawyer — 2007-12-20T22:47:37+00:00

Although I share your fondness for 1914, there are several underestandable errors in your review:

1914 holds an unusual post in the annals of wargaming. It was never terribly popular, as such. It was never reprinted or updated after its original appearance. It didn't spawn an extensive line of sequels or imitators. It wasn't designer Jim Dunnigan's most famous or successful design.

Actually, there was a 2nd edition of 1914 to make corrections in the rules and charts and to make the planning map more readable (it is blue in the 2nd edition as opposed to red in the 1st). The counters in the 2nd edtion also have smaller typefaces than in the 1st edition. There is no indication of "2nd Edition" on the 2nd edition box, so unless you have seen both editions, you wouldn't realize there were two editions.

There was also a 1914 Revision Kit with counters from Poultron Press (the ancestor of SPI):

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/23636

However, this Revision Kit is extremely rare, and, in fact, I have never seen it in person although I collect old SPI games.

There was also a sequel: Tannenberg with maps and coutners, also from Poultron Press:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/23563

Tannenberg is also extremely rare, and I have never seen it in person either.

Thread: Re: Review: 1914's import

Comrade_Sarayev — 2007-12-20T22:34:47+00:00

I had a copy back in the 1970's and sold it before the decade was out, never thinking I would ever play it again. I later regretted this and secured another one around 1995. I've only played it once since reacquiring it but it was still a valuable purchase. You are quite accurate in your assesment of 1914's merits. It seemed so hugely complex then, but is manageable by most standards now. Perhaps it will be more appreciated more as 2014 nears, though I doubt it will ever reprinted. The tournament game is quite a rewarding experience for the players whom put in the effort.

Thread: Review: 1914's import

wargamer55 — 2007-12-20T20:47:18+00:00

1914 holds an unusual post in the annals of wargaming. It was never terribly popular, as such. It was never reprinted or updated after its original appearance. It didn't spawn an extensive line of sequels or imitators. It wasn't designer Jim Dunnigan's most famous or successful design.
For a while in the 1980s and 1990s it was highly sought after by collectors, with good copies fetching several hundred dollars at auction. But that, too, seems to have passed, and copies can be had on eBay for well under those peak prices.
But 1914 was, and is, an important milestone among wargames because it pointed out the potential for wargames as not mere games about war, but a new way to explore history in an interactive way. In 1914 one really got the impression that you were truly exploring ways in which history could have been different, has different decisions been made.
There have subsequently been interesting and entertaining discussions that have exhaustively explored how much a manual wargame can truly be a simulation of a historical event, given the many and inevitable compromises necessary to make it playable by human beings. But those discussions were made possible and necessary by 1914 and similar simulation-oriented designs that came from Dunnigan and Dunnigan-mentored game designers in the 1970s and afterwards.
More than any wargame that had gone before, and most that came afterwards, 1914 aimed to be a simulation. The game contest was clearly secondary to the history. Both players were really cooperatively working to see how the events of the Summer and fall of 1914 might have developed, instead of competing against each other in a test of wits and strategy. The game system did not reward clever gamy tactics. The overall strategies were rather obvious and not easily adjusted. Indeed, the game, when played, seemed to march inexorably forward into bloody tragedy with little ability for the "commanders' to change much at all. It was more than a little bit like a boardgame version of Tuchman's The Guns of August. No Zones of Control, no 3-1 sure-thing attacks, no D-elims, it was a break from convention in most respects.
The use of step reduction provided a graphic illustration of the grinding attrition of 1914-era fighting. More so than simple eliminations would have, watching your powerful "A" corps slowly attrit down to impotence drove home the character of the fighting.
Particularly when played with all the advanced and tournament options, 1914 was a "monster" game before monster games were conceived. The game took a long time to play, several sittings at least or a weekend. In the end, history was most likely to repeat itself, because the game depicted the forces working against changing history as very powerful indeed. In the game it's easy to see how little chance there was that the Germans could score their hoped-for knockout blow. That failure set the stage for the rest of the tragedy of World War I. As that war's centennial approaches interest in the war has grown. The passage of time allows us to see that the Great War was the pivotal event of the 20th Century, affecting everything that followed. World War II, totalitarianism in all its forms, genocide, nuclear war, post-colonialism and so much more followed in its wake. Only with the fall of Communism in 1989 and the post-Cold War reordering of affairs have the ripples of World War I started to fade away.
I wonder if interest in 1914 will be revived as 2014 nears.

For more comment on games and other topics check out my blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2007-10-29T23:22:11+00:00

Cover

Thread: Re: Good game if you're in prison

AnimalMother — 2007-03-18T13:57:59+00:00

The main problem with 1914 is that, unlike Joffre, we have the benefit of hindsight, and expect the big German move through Belgium. 1914 corrects for that problem, to an extent, with its alternative scenarios. 1914 is very realistic. It teaches the importance of the fog of war & intelligence, of counterattacks, of flanks, of artillery & fortificatios. I played it solitair for hours. It would be more fun with a computer handling the fog of war problem. It was a game ahead of its time.

Thread: Re: Good game if you're in prison

Sandy Petersen — 2006-08-16T20:43:57+00:00

This is a very early Dunnigan effort.

In any case, I played this game several times and while I agree it is trying to be an accurate simulation of 1914, I feel it fails miserably, particularly if you add the advanced rules. People interested in WW1 should try "WW1" or "Paths of Glory" I feel.

Thread: Re: Good game if you're in prison

toonces2 — 2006-08-15T21:38:41+00:00

Never heard of this game, but this was a very nice review.

Thread: Re: Good game if you're in prison

sherron — 2006-08-15T08:09:55+00:00

1914 was designed by one of the best James F. Dunnigan and copyrighted in 1968 so it is a bit dated. However it was designed more as a simulation of the opening of WWI on the western front not as a fun playable game as in Paths of Glory or First World War. I believe it was the first type of wargame that tried to have the "Fog of War" element in the design. You are right it is a struggle to play and is probably why it didn't go over well. I know I had a copy but never played it.

Thread: Good game if you're in prison

Sandy Petersen — 2006-08-15T03:09:22+00:00

This review will be short & sweet.

1914 is monumentally difficult to play. This review will reflect this. You feel a lot like you'd been through WW1 by the time you're done.

THEME
This game covers the opening few months of WW1 in France & Belgium (only). It is at the corps level, so you get German forces facing off a mass of French, British, Belgian, and (optionally) Dutch units. The Russian front is abstracted.

SETUP
First, punch out a bazillion counters. Then organize them into a score or more different piles (I'm not exaggerating). Spend the next hour or so setting up for play. Tired yet?

COMPONENTS
The board is rather stylish, but it's hard to make out exactly where the rivers or hills or national borders lie on it, particularly when it's covered with a dense mass of counters.

The units are very drab and all look very similar. You have to pore over the map with a magnifying glass to tell the French 6-9-3s from the 5-8-3s and so forth.

RULES
It's old-school wargame fun at its worst (I am in fact a hard-core wargamer). One player spends a half-hour or so picking through his stacks and moving all his units. Then the other player moves all of HIS units.

Combat is indecisive to say the least. Most results are that each sides loses a "level" from a unit involved. This means that the unit is taken off the board and replaced by another, weaker unit. When you pile up more units to get better odds, this often actually _worsens_ the potential results you can get!

The rules are extremely extensive, with all sorts of options such as sending half your army to Russia before the game starts to increase your chance of victory there.

ADVANCED RULES
The Advanced Rules make the game totally unplayable. All the counters are flipped face down so not only can you not tell what your enemy has, but it's hard to tell what YOU have. The units then acquire facing, so they have to literally "turn around" to fight which makes them move even more slowly and ineptly. Other features of the Advanced Rules are even more nightmarish.

OVERALL
I fear this may sound a bit too negative but this game is only for completists.

Image

skelly9131 — 2006-07-01T10:26:29+00:00

Image

Offa — 2005-06-08T12:53:31+00:00

Avalon Hill 1914 Mobilization Chart Back

Image

Offa — 2005-06-08T12:53:31+00:00

Avalon Hill 1914 Mobilization Chart Front

Image