Messages

1

After Action Reports / Playtesting / Re: ConsimWorld Expo 2014 - Game Play-by-Play

« on: July 09, 2014, 09:31:23 AM »

Great summary!  I was on the edge of my seat the whole time!  You guys must have had a great time.
Would have liked to have seen pictures of the game at the end, though. . .just to how things ended after all that 'struggling' 

2

General Discussion / Re: ConsimWorld

« on: June 05, 2014, 02:07:02 AM »

Great - looking forward to the play by play

3

General Discussion / ConsimWorld

« on: June 03, 2014, 01:56:24 AM »

How did ConsimWorld Expo go?  Did you get a full game in?  Take pics? 

4

Reviews / Re: Unique

« on: May 15, 2014, 01:13:07 PM »

I like the ideas here.  Interested in how they play out.  Will you be using these diplomacy rules at CSW Expo later this month?

5

Introduction / Re: Advanced Struggle for Europe (ASfE) is AVAILABLE!

« on: May 14, 2014, 08:12:43 AM »

Are there more pics of the Pacific game available?  Can you post some and examples of play?  It would be good to start a section on the forum dedicated to the Pacific Game and one dedicated to the Europe game.

Uncle Joe

6

Reviews / Re: Unique

« on: March 05, 2014, 12:49:19 AM »

Great - I am looking forward to seeing your ideas on diplomacy and minor triggers.

The game does a fantastic job of simulating the big battles (at a strategic scale).  I love the movement of reserves and the idea of support and front line units and the ability to break the front line and force retreats.  These are all great concepts.

A little bit better system for diplomacy would be the icing on the cake. 

Uncle Joe

7

Reviews / Re: Unique

« on: March 03, 2014, 02:36:12 PM »

I am a big fan of this game and agree with Citadel about what makes it unique.  The best part of this game is the chits for initiative and the use of leaders.  Rolling for initiative and drawing chits to move makes nothing certain and the best laid plans go horribly wrong.  It creates a great fog of war feel.

Leaders provide an added layer of strategy and historical flavor without being too overpowering.  They also help with some of the things that other games fail to model such as the operational superiority of the Germans earlier in the war and there decreasing ability later in the war as well as the horrible Russian leadership in 1941 and their much better leadership later in the war.  Adding air leaders to the game would be cool.

One of the things I would like to see improved are more varied diplomatic rules for minor countries.  While the triggers for Spain and Turkey create some uncertainty, other countries join the Axis pretty automatic on a pretty historic timeline.  There is room to make this a better aspect of the game.  Soviet and US entry could be made more uncertain too.  But, because the rules are pretty standard, players can make their own mods for things they like and it does not mess other parts of the game up.

Overall, this is a great game and probably the best WW2 European Theater game I have played. 
AWESOME job John and Mark!

Uncle Joe

8

Strategy Tips / Axis victory

« on: February 05, 2014, 05:10:43 AM »

What are some best practices for a German victory in the second edition game?  In the after action reports it looks like the Axis win a number of your games.  Is their path to victory the same?

9

Introduction / Re: Alternating Movement Concept

« on: February 05, 2014, 05:05:36 AM »

Have you thought about adding air leaders?  Like a Harris or Spatz for strategic bombing, Dowding for fighters, Richtofen for tactical bombing?  Maybe they could act similar to u-boat aces?  Any ideas or suggestions for a few air leaders?

10

Game Design / Re: Optional Naval Rules

« on: July 03, 2007, 07:49:21 AM »

I REALLY likethe ZOC idea instead of sea zone ownership. 

1)  It gets rid of the Japanese mad dash across the Pacific to cut off Australia and then redeploy their fleet elswhere.  In reality, the Japanese would have to stay and fight it out with the Americans.

2) It spreads ships out more to protect "your" sea zones from enemy strategic movement.

3) It makes cruisers and islands (with planes on them) more important.

4) It makes cutting things out of supply more realistic and more resource intensive.

11

After action reports from first edition / Re: U.S. National Championships (sort of)

« on: May 07, 2007, 01:13:44 PM »

Looks like a great game !  The Japanese took Pearl Harbour - wow.  It looks like the Germans got stopped pretty much cold on the Russian front tho - that and the Brits invaded France really early looks like it knocked the Germans back on the defensive pretty early in the game.  Looks like fun tho - U.S. Sherman tanks in Berlin in the Winter of 1944 - awesome   

12

WWII discussion forum / Re: Soviet war entry

« on: April 06, 2007, 02:16:37 AM »

Stalin was building line of fortification in the Soviet Union: the "Stalin Line".  He may have just sit tight until the Germans attacked him regardless of what was going on around him

13

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Number of stacks

« on: April 02, 2007, 08:32:53 AM »

yup - no AT guns for the Japanese.  I don't even think they had any kind of AT guns or AT formations.  No need I guess. . .

14

After action reports from first edition / Re: March 17th at Todd's Bunker

« on: March 28, 2007, 08:28:22 AM »

You should have invested in self-sealing gas tanks 

15

After action reports from first edition / Re: the first Holland game...

« on: March 05, 2007, 08:17:57 AM »

OK - if they have already played their turn, then it's OK for me to observe the huge opportunity the Russians had to strike South out of Smolensk and blitz-move into Kharkov - wouldn't that have encircled all of the German units pushing on toward Stalingrad?  Did they see it?

I guess we'll find out