Messages

166

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Cutting the Soviet Union in half

« on: December 19, 2007, 01:59:57 AM »

Another point I forgot to raise - when I was going back the other day and reading some older posts it was mentioned that the SU could not continue to build early fighters after they are able to build regular fighters. This is not on the SU build card - it just says that the SU can begin to build regular fighters after they build two more (I read the card again last night to verify this). We have been assuming that the SU can continue to build the early ones because there were 7 early fighters in my set, and if you couldn't continue to build them you wouldn't need more than 5 (the three you start with plus the 2 more you have to build). Is the restriction on continuing to build early fighters correct? If so, you might want to consider updating the SU card if you do another update (as well as limit the number of early fighter miniatures to 5 per set).

167

Game Design / Re: Minors and Supply

« on: December 18, 2007, 03:06:28 PM »

I think it might be easier to just say that minors are always in supply in their own country? 

Ah, it's nice to be un-banned...

I personally like this - it's the simple way to handle it.

168

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Cutting the Soviet Union in half

« on: December 18, 2007, 03:04:05 PM »

Ok, no problem with not counting the Swedish VP - I kind of thought that would be the answer but I wanted clarification. As to my original question about how income is treated if the SU is cut in half...any coinsensus?

169

Game Design / Re: Minors and Supply

« on: December 14, 2007, 09:03:38 AM »

We have discussed the topic of minor countries and their supply situation now for a while.

The fact that a defending force in a country like Greece can be put out of supply even though they are defending in their own country seems a bit screwy.

This is something I hadn't thought about, but it came up in our last game due to an offhand comment by one of my friends.

I think that minors should be considered in supply on the first turn they are attacked by the Axis. My reasoning is that they will otherwise be too easy to take out. In our games Poland has yet to even come close to holding out; giving them a -1 just adds insult to injury. If using the optional rules we’ve discussed that allow aircraft to block supply into an unoccupied sea zone that makes it very easy for Germany to place Denmark and Netherlands out of supply on the first turn, making them very easy pickings on turn 2.

Starting with the next turn (if they survive), I think the regular supply rules should apply. The argument could be made that a minor country would have enough supplies to fight for a few weeks; after that, they would need outside intervention in order to continue the fight.

Another approach would be to treat Madrid and Istanbul as a “flag” territory for purposes of supply. Since they are allowed a minimal build capability (1 INF per turn), this makes a certain amount of sense. Allowing all territories with that 1 INF build capability to act as a supply point would make it a little more difficult to place Britain’s Pacific territories out of supply as well.

Another way to address this would be to do what has been done in other games (notably War in Flames) and give the Axis a +1 to their die rolls on the first round of every combat on the turn they declare war against each country, similar to what’s done with Japan. Everything I’ve read indicates that supply wasn’t the biggest problem facing nations hit by the blitzkrieg – it was that they were so quickly overwhelmed, which points more to the extensive training/planning by the Axis than to supply problems by the invaded countries, and a +1 to the die roll on the first round better simulates that. That would probably require some adjustment of the initial forces of the minor nations though.

170

General Discussion / Re: Hearing a pin drop

« on: December 14, 2007, 08:25:07 AM »

It's quiet.

Too quiet.

I may have taken care of that today...

171

Introduction / Re: Some Concept Tests

« on: December 14, 2007, 08:23:13 AM »

That map looks REALLY good. I'll have to try and make it to Gen Con next summer so I can see it up close.

BTW - what are your criteria for becoming a playtester? Myself and two friends (and maybe as many as three more) are now pretty much playing the game at least one night a week (every Wed. night and sometimes Tues or Thurs as well). With us meeting so regularly, we might be able to get in enough play to properly test out new concepts, whether for the current game or this new monster.

172

Rules questions from first edition / Another question

« on: December 14, 2007, 08:18:58 AM »

In the same game as above, the Russians attacked Vyborg, and only hit 1 infantry. Could the Fins have elected to retreat the remaining 3 INF nto Finland proper and then be additional units for the Germans once Finland enters the war?

173

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Convoys

« on: December 14, 2007, 08:15:32 AM »

An old topic, but here's my 2 cents nonetheless (and part of my effort to make the board more lively)...

In the Pacific, I don't have such an issue with the convoys being theoretically more than the DEI. The convoy losses there could be viewed as being not just the loss of the resources (oil?) being transported, but also the value of the merchant ships sunk, as well as the resources used in patrolling that area, etc.

With Italy, I think the Med convoy should be a viable target so long as Italy has at least one territory left in NA. Once they are completely out of Africa, I think they have a good argument that the convoy shouldn't be able to be attacked any longer (unless they get back into Africa, which would probably be unlikely). I guess you could do the same for Japan, but as an island nation with few natural resources Japan was far more dependent on the import of food and raw materials than Italy. I really doubt this would become an issue, though, since the Japanese really can't afford not to take the DEI once at war.

174

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Fortifications

« on: December 14, 2007, 08:02:35 AM »

When exactly can a player pay to convert an infantry to a fortification? Does there have to be an infantry in a territory at the beginning of the turn to upgrade? We have been playing that as long as you own the territory at the start you can pay for a fortress during the purchase units phase, move an infantry there during the turn, and then convert that to the fortress.

175

Rules questions from first edition / Cutting the Soviet Union in half

« on: December 14, 2007, 05:00:19 AM »

We ran into something in our last game that I think ought to be addressed, at least as an optional rule.

We were able to cut the Soviet Union in half. In the Allied half of the turn the SU was able to build in Moscow with his full income, which makes sense since the income he’s building with had been collected at the end of the previous turn. However, if he was unable to “reconnect” the two halves of the SU (and he couldn’t), would he be allowed to use his full income the next turn to build again in Moscow? The way the rules read it would seem that he would be able to. The rules say that any territory that is put out of supply doesn’t produce income – but since there were far more than two flagged territories in the eastern half of the SU, they weren’t out of supply. My thought is that in this situation the SU would have to keep straight what points came from where, and could only build in each half what that half produced.

Another question that came up in that game is whether or not the Axis can count a victory point controlled by a pro-neutral toward their VP total - in this case, the one point in Sweden when Sweden is pro-Axis.

Speaking of victory points, has anyone created or thought to create, a listing of all the VP’s on the map and who controls them at the start? This would be handy when you’re deep into the game and it seems that units are covering up every VP site.

Another rules question, or perhaps a suggestion for an optional rule that was brought up by a friend of mine who happens to also be an active duty army officer. Why don’t AT guns get the same +1 modifier for defending in rough or forested terrain that infantry gets? This is precisely the sort of terrain in which they would be so dangerous to armor. Perhaps a rule could be added that AT guns in that terrain gain the +1 to their defense if the attacking force contains any armor. This would force an attacker to decide if he really wanted to commit armor to attacking in terrain for which it is not suited.

176

Game Design / Re: Increase Build Limit with Factory Construction

« on: October 18, 2007, 08:10:07 AM »

I like this one - potentially a big help to Italy and Germany. One question - suppose, for example, Germany builds two factories. Do they then get an additional one for both armor and aircraft? Could they go with two on one or the other?

177

Game Design / Re: Incremental US Buildup

« on: October 15, 2007, 06:07:16 AM »

I know I'll get alot of flak on this, but anyway, here goes. 
I really like the game.  I'm jealous--I wish I'd developed it.  I've gotten some ideas in my head to "tweak" it.

One is that the US doesn't increase it's production capability automatically when it goes to war, but incrementally, especially if it goes to a war footing.  To wit:

1939 and 1940--USA gets 4 production points/turn

1941--USA gets 12 p. p./turn (starting with the Dec. 1940 turn)

1942--USA gets 40 pp/turn

1943--USA gets 80 pp/turn

1944+--USA gets 115 pp/turn

I suggest this as my research shows that the USA took some time to develop the manufacturing facilities and proceedures over several months and it did not happen automatically.  In terms of the GNP and Defense spending over those years, I think this is a good progression.  Of course, the USA is an economic powerhouse, but not at first.  The "Arsenal of Democracy" will take some time to develop.  It will change the game's play.    Anybody got some other thoughts?

I’m not out to give you the “flack” you’re talking about, but I see some real issues with this suggestion.

To begin with, it would dramatically impact game balance. From the games I’ve played, the Axis is usually getting to around 30-35 victory points when the US enters the war (assuming entry +/- 1 turn from historical). At this point the Axis has to begin to divert resources to defend what they’ve taken in order to fend off the US, who can usually begin to create some real threats after a couple of turns of building with a war economy. About the time the victory point total needed for Axis victory begins to drop, the Allies (thanks to US production) are able go on the offensive enough to challenge the Axis being able to achieve the victory total. The game seems very balanced as it is, with both sides having a decent shot at victory on points. With what you’re proposing, given competent (or even just close to competent) Axis play, I see no way for the Allies to prevent the Axis from winning the game on points.

Also, your proposal doesn’t take into account that the US was already gearing up for war before Pearl Harbor. The North Carolina and South Dakota Classes were already undergoing sea trials at the start of the war, and were operational by the start of summer 1942. Essex Class CV’s and Iowa Class BB’s were already on the slipways. Aircraft production ramped up to where the US could begin serious strategic bombing in Germany by 1943. Keep in mind also – the US didn’t just build things for itself – it was also shipping military hardware to Britain, China, and the USSR while simultaneously building up its own war effort.

As to the US not being an economic powerhouse at first – well, that sort of means what you mean by “economic powerhouse.” True, the US economy before the war wasn’t what it would be by the time the war ended (at which time it was still only really getting warmed up – the US cancelled production of a lot of military hardware well before the war ended, simply because they knew they weren’t going to need it), but even before the US entered the war, its “war” production compared very favorably with what the Axis powers managed to do while they were in the war.

The US built over 25,000 aircraft and over a million tons of merchant shipping in 1941 alone; for the year 1942 the US built more merchant shipping tonnage (over 5 million tons) than Japan built for the entire period 1939-45 (4.1 million tons). Total US aircraft production 1939-41 was nearly 45,000; this is nearly two-thirds what Japan produced 1939-45. In 1942, with 47,836 aircraft built, the US more than doubled total aircraft production of the previous 3 years combined In 1941, the US built over 4,000 tanks and 5,000 halftracks; as a comparison, some sources (including Jane’s) report that Germany built less than 5000 Pz IV’s of all models during the entire war.

In the US’s first year at war, 1942, they commissioned 18 aircraft carriers (of all types), 4 battleships, 8 cruisers, 82 destroyers, and 34 subs. This compares very favorably to Japan’s totals of 17 aircraft carriers (of all types), 2 battleships, 9 cruisers, 63 destroyers, and 167 subs –except that the US total is only for 1942, and Japan’s total is for the entire period 1941-45.

My point is, with your proposal, the US can’t build at the levels that they did historically, either before or after they enter the war.

I have to also say I can’t imagine you’d find anyone willing to play the US player using the rules you propose.

If you really want to experiment with requiring the US to have more of a “gear up”, as you call it, I’d suggest trying one of the following (assumes you are using event-driven US entry):

1) US does not get additional production points for factories built until they are at war.

2) Same as above, with the addition that each turn after at war one factory on the map “comes on line” and contributes its 5 points to US economy.

3) Require the US to supply 5 PP of Lend Lease per turn until Tension Level 1, and 10 PP per turn after Level 1 until at war.

4) Use a bid process to determine who plays the Allies, in which each player bids a number of turns that he is willing to play the Allies with no US production. For example, Player One bids 1 turn and Player 2 bids 2 turns. In this case, Player 2 will be the Allied player, and will not have a US turn for the first 2 turns of the game.

5) Alternatively, if you want to adjust the economics to give the Axis a break, use a procedure as 3) above, but bid on a number of PP’s that the Axis starts with “in the bank”. Player 1 bids 8 points for the Axis, player 2 bids 10 points. Player 1 wins, and will have 8 PP’s “saved” from a theoretical Summer 1939 turn, and thus available to be spent on the first turn in addition to normal income. These PP’s can be allocated between the three Axis powers any way Player 1 sees fit.

178

Introduction / Re: Introduction

« on: October 10, 2007, 04:17:57 AM »

OK - all good comments.   I think the time to play the game depends a lot on who you are playing it with.  Some groups are faster than others.

That being said, the game as it stands does take a while to play.  But, we do play it at cons and usually we play a game in a FULL day (starting off at 9am and finishing a full game by between midnight and 2am).  That is what our games are like out here on the East coast as well.

Sounds like a great way to spend the day. We used to have sessions like that 20 years ago. Play from morning until around 4 or 5, take a break for pizza and trash talk, and then start up again around 6 and go till who knows when that night. A little more difficult to pull that off these days when you’ve got a career, mortgage, wife, kids, etc.

Some groups like to take their time - and I think Yopers group has some players that like to analyze all their options closely before committing to a move.  There is nothing wrong with that - but it contributes to the length of a game.

When we play (in New England or at a con) we usually shoot to start around 9am and reach Pearl Harbor by around 2pm.  RandR can attest to that as he has played several con games.  Then the game slows down.  We reach Spring 1943 by around 6-7 pm and Spring 1944 by around 9-10pm.  then the game starts picking up again as the focus gets tighter and we usually finish off around midnight-2am.  So, yes - I guess I am stretching the definition of a long day to play a game - but it is what we do.

I’d say so. As I said, a great way to spend a day, but the 12-15 hours of game time you’re talking about here is for most people 2-3 sessions.

So - anyway, this is the discussion I wanted to have in starting this thread.  I am not sure if the game should be a bolt-on to the standard game or include a new map or rules - that is part of the debate.  At any rate, the pieces would certainly remain (and they represent $800 of the $1k game).  I would never ask anyone to re-invest in that without thinking that my car would explode when I turn the ignition on.  And - if there are any new player aids or maps they would have to be discounted for people who have already invested in the standard game and helped develop any more rules.  Any rules developed should not contribute to the length of the game - so that needs to be a factor in determing whether it gets added or not.  One way to prevent rules from slowing games down is to not inject "one-off" rules that apply to only certain conditions or times.  The more consistent the rules are the better and they contribute to quicker play.

I think most things being discussed could be fit within the parameters of the basic game.  I'm not sure all new materials are required - though they are fun to put together   

Personally, I’d love to see a larger map. I currently play on a ping pong table, which measures 9’ by 5’. The current map is 8’ by 3’, so you have a little room to expand for it to fit on a ping pong table. If you’re thinking about a new map, it might be a good idea to see where guys are playing the game now. I could (barely) play on my dining room table, assuming I had another table to put all the charts and such on. As I said, I’m lucky enough to have a ping pong table to play on, but others may not be as fortunate and their gaming space may be stretched as it is.

My thought is that the best route to go with a “deluxe” or “advanced” game is to stick to revising charts, adding/changing rules, and adding/changing existing units. This way, those of us who want a more in-depth experience can buy the add-on, while those who don’t can continue to use the regular game as is.

Here’s a thought: have you considered coming up with a “Patton’s War” for the game? With this you’d game a war between the USSR and the Western Allies starting with wherever you end the regular game – or you could make it a stand alone scenario that you could set up from the start. This might be a nice addition to an add-on project.

One thing I’ll toss out (without having any idea of what you may be considering) is an adjustment to the economics. I’ll do my best to say what I mean here, so bear with me. Some of the unit costs aren’t really what they should be. For example, light armor costs the same as medium armor, but is less effective. Early fighters are less effective than regular fighters, but cost the same. Japanese aircraft carriers cost the same as US carriers, but only take one hit to sink versus 2 hits for the US. It seems to me that the costs of units ought to be reflective of their respective combat abilities. If you were to adjust the economic values of at least each country’s home territories, you’d have room to adjust the costs of units, and then you’d have some room between the costs of units to introduce new units. For example, in the New Units/New rules thread I proposed assault guns as a new unit. They should be cheaper than armor, since they were in real life. In my mind, they should fall somewhere between artillery and armor in cost, but with artillery costing 5 and armor costing 6 there isn’t a place to put them. Of course, adjusting the values of any territories would mean changing the map…

Another idea might be to have some sort of research track. Germany could have had the most advanced fighters in the world during the whole war if they had taken what was already on the drawing boards (or even actually being test flown) if they had made more of a commitment to development instead of just continuing to modify existing aircraft that ended up being left behind by the more advanced Allied fighters that came online later in the war.

Another idea might be to have economics be more than just generic economic points. For example, if oil were treated as a separate resource, and you needed oil as a separate commodity to do certain things (like move fleets), it would give an incentive for players to play more realistically. This may be more detailed than anyone would like, but in the war there were natural resources that had to be defended because of their importance to a particular nation’s war effort – and these resource areas were attacked for the same reason.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Comments, ideas, suggestions, threats, etc. are welcome.

Bob

179

Introduction / Re: Introduction

« on: October 09, 2007, 03:13:16 AM »

Just a thought for grouping some of the variations this game could have. 1 NAVAL POWER VARIATIONS. 2 AIR POWER VARIATIONS. 3 LAND POWER VARIATIONS.  4 VARIOUS  COMBINATION(S) OF 1 & 2 & 3.  5  A POLITICAL VARIATION. 6 A LOGISTICS VARIATION  7 OTHER.  The original Axis & Allies game was a lot of fun but had its limitations on strategy. Then someone came up with some variations like having artillery & destroyers. Then we got the Avalon Hills variations.   Lo & behold they were good games but good gamers asked for that 1 more step upward and we get "THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE & ASIA." Going 1 more step upward may be nice but you start hitting DETAILs which can bog the game down and make it more cumbersome. Let's keep it where the original  game can be played in 1 day.

Not be combative, but we never got in a game that only played out in one day (unless you count any game that blew up in the early stages).

Even the games we (Detroit group) played against Mark and John went two days of all out carnage.

Length of game has never been a factor for our group.

Craig

I agree with Craig. The game is already at the point where, barring the unusual, you really can’t play it out in one 8-hour session. The guy I game with regularly (Peter) and I can usually knock out about two years in our first 4-hour session; after that, it slows down considerably due to the simple fact that as you get deeper into the war there’s simply so much more to do, particularly after Russian and/or US entry.

And I’m not trying to be combative either, but I have to say that if you want to keep complexity down, that game already exists – it’s the current game. There wouldn’t seem to be much point in creating an “advanced” game if there isn’t going to be additional complexity.

Mark, could you tell us what’s on the table for consideration? Are you talking about an add-on for the current game, or another game altogether? In my opinion, an add-on would probably be better than a completely new game. RandR’s comments about complexity need to be considered, because I’m sure that others would also feel that the current game is complex and complete enough. With an add-on, you could change the combat tables, add or change rules, add new units, etc, and sell that as a sort of expansion of the basic game for, say, $100. I think that’s an important point economically. After spending a grand on this game, I’d look at an add-on as an investment; I’d look at a separate game as –well, a separate game, and it’s extremely unlikely I’d buy that.

180

Introduction / Re: Introduction

« on: October 04, 2007, 03:30:29 PM »

Given that a friend of mine and I are playing the game once or twice a week we might be good candidates for trying out any new concepts you have. We've already tired a few things - we've just started a new game using the airbase rules along wth allowing aircraft to react to amphious invasions into an empty sea zone. I can already tell you that allowing planes to react this way has an impact on the game. Invading England is much toguher now; it also makes Italy a little more defensible.

I'll be watching this thread closely.