Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bobsalt

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]
196
Game Design / Re: Optional Naval Rules
« on: July 20, 2007, 09:01:52 AM »
I’m not sure how authoritative I can be in this discussion, since in the 5 games we’ve played so far, the game only went on long enough for Japan to get into the war twice, and in those two Italy surrendered on the next turn, petty much ending things, so anything I say will be largely based on theory as opposed to experience. But based on how the system in this game works, and what I’ve seen in other games, I think I like the idea of a separate unit for naval air.

Something I experienced in our last game as Britain was that I had to decide when building fighters whether to build Spitfires or early naval fighters. If I didn’t have an extra or two, my carriers were useless until I could build replacements for combat losses. I kind of liked the realism of this decision process, and I’d like to see every other country faced with this as well.

One idea might be to have naval air units with an attack value of 3 for both air-to-air and bombing. Then, for combats involving aircraft versus ships, the naval air units would function as both a fighter and a bomber. Instead of the normal sequence of play, all planes on each side fire at each other in air-to-air; all surviving planes then move on to attack ships. If this results in too much carnage, make the naval air units have a 2 for air-to-air and a 3 for bombing. There is a justification for this; the naval air unit would represent a group of fighters and bombers together, while other air formations are exclusively fighters or bombers. With this route, you could make the naval air units 2/3 air-to-air/ bombing and regular fighters 3 air-to-air and 2 (or 1 if you prefer) against ships. Personally, I like this because it forces you to take into consideration what the mission will be for a given unit when you’re building units. So, the proposed units would look like this:

Naval Air
Air to Air – 2
Bombing (vs. ships) – 3
Bombing (all other) – 2

Fighters
Air to Air – 3
Bombing – 2
(Or 1 against ships and 2 against other targets)

I don’t like the half-and-half rule, if for no other reason than the problem that was brought up of when you have no ships to attack you’re still required to commit half of your planes as bombers.

197
We started another game last night using the event-driven US and Soviet entry. The US reached Tension Level 1 in their part of the Fall 1940 turn. When does the actual roll for economic damage to Japan occur? As soon as they reach Tension 1 (which would affect Japanese builds for Winter 1940/1941) or does the US have to wait until their part of the Winter 1940/1941 turn to roll (and Japan is not affected until Spring 1941)?

198
Thanks for the link - I never saw this before.

Bob

199
Rules questions from first edition / Question about naval movement
« on: July 13, 2007, 08:40:55 AM »
I have a question regarding naval movement. Is there a reason why the movement rates are less on the Asian map than the European one? I realize that the scale between the maps is different, but I don’t see how this would make a difference when you are talking about several months for each turn. Did something come up in playtesting that mandated this that just hasn’t shown up in our games yet?

200
After action reports from first edition / Game in Louisville KY
« on: July 11, 2007, 08:25:12 AM »
Hey everybody,

I don’t know if anyone here would be interested in this or not, but we played the game at my house last night. This is the after action report I posted on the FOTOG (Falls Of The Ohio Gamers) Yahoo group. I’ve been trying to generate interest in the group to play this, but haven’t had much luck so far. I posted this in the hope of getting a couple of guys interested to try it at the next game club meeting in two weeks.

This was the fourth game for Peter and myself, though it’s been over a year since we played until we played again last week with Patrick; this was his second game.

Anyway, for whatever it’s worth, here’s what I wrote.

**************************

We played “WWII: The Struggle for Europe & Asia” at my house again last night and had a great time. For those of you who’ve expressed interest in the game, here’s a recap:

(Peter played Axis; Patrick played France & England; I played US, Soviet Union, and China)

Fall 1939 – Germany and Soviet Union split Poland between them. Germany also launches an amphibious invasion of southern Norway, and succeeds, though he loses 1 infantry in the assault. Japan captures a resource point from China. In the Allied turn, the Royal Navy sinks the German transport used for the Norwegian invasion, and mauls the German Surface fleet. US sends 5 points of Lend Lease to China via Burma Road.

Winter 1939/40 – Germany redeploys to western front. With the loss of one infantry in their invasion of Norway, and no transport to ferry reinforcements, the one infantry holding the south doesn’t have a realistic chance of completing the conquest of Norway; the 2 Swedish resource points for conquering Norway remain tantalizingly out of reach.  SU cleans up Estonia and Lithuania. Japan continues to move slowly against China and places a CVL on the production spiral.

Spring 1940 – Germany takes out Belgium and Netherlands; France is trying to frantically prepare for the expected attack in summer. Japan begins a factory and continues to find the going slow against China; they gain some more territory, but no resource areas.

Summer 1940 – Germany slams into northeast France; France takes heavy casualties, including 3 nearly-irreplaceable armor (armor and AT guns score hits on armor first). Italy gathers forces in preparation for their declaration of war.

Up to this point, things went fairly close to history. The one joker in the pack for Germany is that Belgium and Netherlands both cost Germany more casualties than expected; they lose 6 infantry in adding these nations to the Reich. Germany was a little weak on the ground in France after their assault, but still had 4 Pz IV’s and 2 88’s, and could have used assault movement to blitz into Normandy, which was defended by only one infantry. They couldn’t have held it if the Allies committed to take it out, but taking it would have increased the French surrender roll to 2/6. As it turned out, it was irrelevant, since Patrick rolled a 3.

In the Allied turn, Patrick is in a difficult spot. Most of his armor is gone, and the Luftwaffe has air superiority. His choices are to either make an amphibious assault into Belgium to cut the Germans in France out of supply, to make a direct assault against the force in northeast France, hoping to at least bleed Peter down or force a retreat, or stand on the defensive. Of these, the least desirable is to stand on defense. Peter has a force of 7 infantry, 4 armor, 1 artillery, and 2 88’s in France, with more armor and some Panzergrenadiers in Belgium; he also has 6 fighters, 2 Stukas, and 2 bombers available to fly defensive air support if Patrick attacks. If Patrick stands on defense, Peter can select any of three French territories to attack, and bring up his reinforcements and move them again in the mechanized phase to make a second attack. The likelihood here is that he’d wind up with three French territories with a 50% chance of forcing French surrender; if he takes Paris and has at least 5 units remaining French surrender is automatic. Patrick can attack with 21 infantry, 2 armor (all he has left), and his outnumbered air force. Taking a deep breath, he goes all in against the Germans in northeast France.

In the air-to-air phase, Patrick elects to fly one carrier fighter as air-to-air, and hope to get the rest of his fighters through as bombers, along with his French bomber. 2 of Peter’s Me 109’s shoot down the carrier fighter, but in going for the bombers with his remaining 4 fighters misses ALL of them. This was to be a harbinger of what was to come.

Rolling for his infantry, Patrick rolls 8 ones out of 21 dice! All three armor also hit, and 2 of his fighters score hits, along with his bomber – and in one round he has annihilated the Germans! Peter compounds the disaster by rolling very poorly; 1 Stuka and 1 bomber miss (out of 2 of each), 2 out of 4 armor miss, the artillery misses, and all 7 infantry miss as well. To add insult to injury, the 88’s, needing 4’s to hit, roll boxcars.

Peter is now in trouble. There isn’t enough in Belgium to mount an offensive, so he has to spend a turn bringing up reinforcements.

Distracted by the debacle in France, he makes a mistake in China and leaves a territory garrisoned only by an infantry, armor, and artillery. I decide to attack with 11 infantry, my artillery, and the Flying Tigers. In the air-to-air combat we both miss. I roll 2 hits with the infantry and hit with the artillery, and kill the hard-to-replace Ha-Go armor and artillery unit. Japan places its CVL, which gives the US an extra card draw for Level 1 tension. Unfortunately, it was a 3 – I’ve now drawn three 3’s, a 2, and a 6. At this rate, the US ought to enter the war around, say, 1948.

Fall 1940 – Germany frantically builds up in Belgium. In China, Peter brings over more Japanese infantry and places a factory (I draw an 8 – FINALLY! – and a 6). Not wishing to lose infantry to Peter’s air force and gathering infantry, I retreat all but the one required garrison unit back into the mountains; the territory I had retaken doesn’t produce income, and they served their purpose in knocking out a couple of expensive Japanese units and I don’t want to push my luck. The Soviet Union takes out Vyborg. The US sends 5 Lend Lease via the Burma Road.

Winter 1940/41 – Germany attacks again into France, and inflicts heavy casualties, forcing a French retreat. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Peter brings Italy into the war out of desperation and moves into Southern France. By a narrow margin (one damaged fortress left) Patrick holds him out; as luck would have it, this battle made the difference, as he rolled a 2 for French surrender – if Italy had succeeded in their attack France would have been out of the war. The naval battle doesn’t go as well for the Allies, and Peter damages the French battleship and cruiser and sinks the destroyers. Patrick counter-attacks on his turn with the Royal navy; unfortunately; the dice don’t go as well for him as they did earlier, and he takes more damage than he inflicts, and the Regia Marina retreats. The combined French-British army forces Germany to retreat again into Belgium.

Summer 1941 – Germany simply doesn’t have enough to get into France again, and has to waste another precious turn building up in Belgium. The Italian land-based aircraft goes after the Royal Navy and wipes out the British Mediterranean fleet, using destroyers to prevent a retreat. In the Allied turn, France invades northwest Italy, and succeeds. In the north, there is more French armor on the map, and Britain has brought over some more; it’s going to be expensive for Peter to try to get into France again. Italy passes its surrender roll. Nothing much going on in the Pacific; Japan places a fleet carrier. I’ve drawn better cards of late and draw another 8 and a 7 – I now have 51 and the US goes to Tension Level 1.

At this point we called it a night, and decided to start over next Tuesday as well. There is no hope for the Axis – Russia is already well past Tension Level 1, and is massing on the German border. Germany is so far behind the eight-ball that there’s no way even if they got a French surrender next turn that they could hope to make up the production deficit against the Soviet Union. England has two factories on the map, and now that the US is at Tension Level 1 I was planning to start sending 10 points of Lend Lease to England every turn to try to push Germany deeper into the hole.

Looking back, I think Peter made a mistake by not building subs for Germany; as a result, England was able to build unhindered by strategic warfare. Patrick, of course, got very lucky with his die rolls in the climactic battle; compounded with Peter rolling well below average I think this one battle pretty much decided it. Other than the subs and the one mistake in China, I can’t fault Peter’s strategy too much; after the debacle in France he was pretty much forced to react to events instead of being able to force things on his terms.

Anyone who wants to give this game a try is welcome to join us; we’ll be playing every Tuesday night for the rest of the summer. We also plan to play the game at the next Game Day at PSC.

201
Game Design / Re: A couple of rules ideas
« on: June 20, 2007, 02:34:28 PM »
  Hi, I am one of the main play testers of the game ! 
 
  You can make it to the phillipines wihtout crossing the blue line !
We have play tested ZOC's in the game and they work but a little more complex. 
   
Well, that's what I get for trying to post something from memory without looking at the map. I just pulled my map out and you're quite correct - the position of the blue line does indeed allow you to reinforce the Philippines. No one tried to do that in the two games we've played, and I for some reason thought it was because of where the line was. Oh well - never mind.

202
Game Design / Re: A couple of rules ideas
« on: June 20, 2007, 02:15:05 AM »
Your ZOC idea sounds like it might do the trick. I'll look forward to seeing the rules for that.

Regarding the Blue Line, for most of the US territories in the Pacific I agree with you, but I was specifically thinking of the Philippines. The US was sending reinforcements there up to the outbreak of hostilities (for what little good that it did them). As it is, the US player cannot do likewise.

203
Game Design / Re: A couple of rules ideas
« on: June 19, 2007, 01:49:08 AM »
Another thought - to be historically accurate, shouldn't the US be able send transports across the Pacific Blue Line? The US did send reinforcements to their holdings prior to the commencement of war with Japan.

204
Game Design / A couple of rules ideas
« on: June 13, 2007, 08:50:20 AM »
I want to start by saying that this game is one of the best games I’ve ever played. I’ve only gotten to play it twice, but we had a blast both times. We did run into a few odd situations in our games that wouldn’t have happened in real life, though, and these rules suggestions below are an attempt to address a couple of them. I don’t know if these ideas have any merit, or if they were already tried and discarded as part of the design process, but I thought I’d go ahead and post them here for consideration/discussion by those who have more experience with the game than I do. At any rate, here they are:

1) Sea Patrol

Planes may patrol a sea zone. During the Air Unit Movement, a plane may be moved into a sea zone within its range and be declared to be patrolling that sea zone. The aircraft remains in its designated sea zone “on patrol” until the beginning of the owning player’s next Initial Strategic Phase unless it engages in combat.

This unit may engage any enemy ships that attempt to move into or through this sea zone. If combat occurs, any planes adjacent to this sea zone may fly to reinforce this battle (see Air Interception/Defensive Air Support). If the patrolling plane engages in combat, it must land at the conclusion of that battle per the normal aircraft rules. An aircraft on patrol may fly defensive air support (only) in adjacent sea zone (if it has the range); it must land at the conclusion of combat per the normal aircraft rules. Other than engaging in combat in the sea zone it is patrolling or flying defensive air support in an adjacent sea zone, an aircraft on Sea Patrol may not take any other action until it has been landed at the start of the owning players’ Initial Strategic Phase.

COMMENT: As I said, I’ve only played two games so far, and although the game is great, we have run into a few odd situations that wouldn’t have happened in real life. One of them is the situation where ships will go right through a sea zone containing an island with enemy aircraft based there. In real life these ships would have been engaged by the aircraft; in the game the ships are allowed to move through unmolested. This is especially unrealistic in the case of strategic movement; you simply couldn’t run supply lines through areas that were within the operational radius of an enemy airbase. This is the reason why the Americans neutralized Japanese island airbases as they advanced across the Pacific (and a reason the Japanese had those bases there in the first place). By allowing aircraft to intercept enemy shipping, I believe it might give the Japanese player an incentive to fortify the islands with aircraft as was done historically, which would force the American player to have to deal with them. Another possibility to try with this is to say that an enemy aircraft patrolling a sea zone prevents supply from being traced through that sea zone.

2) Admirals

A fleet of 5 combat ships or fewer may deploy in a sea zone as normal; fleets consisting of more than 5 combat ships must be commanded by an Admiral. Admirals cost 1 point and take 1 turn to build. With an Admiral, a fleet may consist of up to 10 combat ships. Fleets larger than 10 ships may be deployed, but each combat ship in a sea zone over the limit of 10 requires the expenditure of one production point each. This represents the strain created by trying to keep a large force properly supplied. The check for stacking is made at the end of the movement phase, and payment of production points for any over-stacked ships is made at that time.

COMMENT: This is the other big thing we’ve seen in our games – Japan and the US end up with one big fleet each and have a big Jutland-style Throw Down. While a battle involving 90% - 100% of each side’s fleet could have happened, in reality both sides had enough strategic interests that they had to be dispersed into smaller fleets in order to accomplish all their goals. As it is, it looks like deploying smaller naval forces is just asking to have them all get whacked. In the game system I don’t think there is any way to give players an incentive to deploy in smaller groups, so I thought perhaps giving a disincentive for recreating the Spanish Armada by having to pay production points for the privilege might be effective.

I didn’t want to suggest a flat stacking limit, since there might be valid reasons for creating a vast armada, but I’d like to see doing this as an option, and not as a matter of course. The production point required for each over-stacked ship make sense to me – trying to supply a naval force larger than a certain number of ships would begin to overtax the supply system at some point.

Frankly, I don’t know if this is a good idea or not. I haven’t played the game enough to know if our experience is unique or common to everyone. The numbers I threw out for how many ships could end their movement in the same place is completely arbitrary; the numbers 5 and 10 “felt” right. Playtesting (if this idea is considered to have merit) might show these numbers need to be adjusted. 

Anyway, those are my ideas. Any comments, suggestions, threats, etc. are welcome.

205
Game Design / Re: Optional US Entry
« on: April 27, 2007, 04:38:42 AM »
This idea reminds me of the US Entry Rules for World in Flames. It’s been probably 15 years since I last played WiF, but I remember that there were specific Axis actions that triggered the US player drawing a chit, and when the total exceeded a certain number, the US could declare war. Personally, I think a system like this is much better in that it introduces some uncertainty into the game. I’ve only played two games so far, but in both games the Allied player maxed his factory builds to get into the war as soon as possible, and the Axis attacked the US on the turn the US could declare war. That’s just a little too convenient for my tastes. With an uncertain entry the Japanese player has to be a little more honest – wait too long to spring that Pearl Harbor attack and he may find it’s too late.

I’d like to see some discussion generated on this topic. Surely I can’t be the only one who thinks this is a good idea, and I’m sure with some brainstorming that there could be more ideas for events that would trigger a US card draw.

One other suggestion I’d make is that in addition to the 2’s through 8’s I’d leave in one ace (1 point) and one joker, which would be worth, say, 10 or 12. This would increase the randomness even further, though the odds of drawing one of them would be small enough that it shouldn’t throw things too out of whack.

206
Game Design / Re: Differences from A&A
« on: November 14, 2005, 04:15:11 AM »
Carl,

I’m one of the two people who just bought this game (the $1000 deluxe version). To keep this brief, I’ll make the following comments:

1) Definitely worth the money. I haven’t actually played it yet – just set it up and pushed some pieces around. I’m taking it to a large game club meeting this Saturday (11/19) – hopefully, this’ll get some guys hooked on it.
2) The way I’ve described the game to people is that it’s a cross between Axis & Allies and World in Flames. If you’ve never played WiF, WiF is a very complex strategic level game covering all of WWII – if you’ve played WiF, there isn’t anything here that’s going to take you by surprise. Many of the mechanics of this game (I’ve been calling it Axis Uber Allies – you can commence groaning now…) are borrowed from other games, but have been streamlined. The effect is, believe it or not, a game that still has very simple and easy to understand mechanics, while being more realistic than A&A.
3) In my opinion, air units involved in ground combat are handled more realistically. You now commit fighters and bombers to participate in a ground combat, and the defender does the same. You fight a round of air-to-air combat to see what units actually get through the enemy fighters to participate in the battle. I think it’s much more realistic than the traditional A&A rules.
4) The game appears to be highly customizable. The game as sold pretty much locks you into doing what was done historically in some areas (for example, you can’t build strategic bombers for Germany), but since all of the stats are there, you can buy additional miniatures on your own (as I’ve done) to allow things like this. This is in no way a complaint – I agree with the approach of the designers – but I game with some guys who are marginal gamers, and might be put off a bit by a “You’re Germany, you can’t build strategic bombers” approach. My friends and I have already discussed additional rules ideas and new units to add.

I truly do believe that this is something I’ll be playing years from now. The game takes a concept that has already proven itself (Axis & Allies), and just expanded upon it. A&A is probably one of the best games ever published as to the ability to play it again and again and not get tired of it. I think this game will be similar. The only drawback(?) is that it will take awhile to play, so you will want to be sure you have friends who are willing to go a couple of sessions to complete a game. For someone who’s in a group that games regularly, this game is ideal.

Hope this helps –

Bob

207
Strategy Tips / Re: To build factories or not to build factories
« on: October 05, 2005, 09:17:44 AM »
Hello Imperious,
  Â  Mark is in Holland so I am covering. Sorry for the delay. I am getting the maps from the printers on Friday. We are nearly completed with the first 2 full version games. One for you and another. We have glued over 1,000 units together in the past 10 days. We had to wait for a few backordered units. We do not want to rush and make any mistakes. Painting should happen next week.

 :)

Dare I hope that I am the "another" you refer to?  ;D If not, any idea how far back in the queue I am? For reference, I'm the one who gave you a CC number early last week from Louisville, KY. As youcan see, I'm *quite* anxious to get my hands on this...

208
Reviews / Re: What a game!!!
« on: August 24, 2005, 03:42:27 AM »
Hi guys,

I didn't play the game at GenCon, but I watched for awhile (I was with a newbie, he didn't want to get tied to one event, and I was concerned with making sure he enjoyed his first convention). I DEFINITELY plan to buy this game. This is a very impressive effort. What I really like is that it contains so many concepts from more traditional wargames (line of supply, production spiral, etc.) that you could use this game to transition a traditional A&A player into more traditional wargames like WiF. On the other hand, playing this you might not want to go back to those other games - I mean, it IS a whole lot more fun to push tanks and battleships around than counters.

A couple of questions:

1) When is it going to be released for sale? My assumption from what I heard is that this is a "coming release" - but I saw a post where someone apparently has it. I'd like to get this as soon as I can, because I'll have time in the next three months to paint - after that, it will be next May before work slows down again enough to do much. If the Basic Game is already available, I can send you payment immediately (one of the upsides of bachelorhood - no wife to clear things through).

2) On the subject of buying, do you take plastic? Or do I need to send a check?

3) Would it be possible to get just the list of needed miniatures and where to buy them before you release it so I can get busy painting so they'll be ready when the game is released?

4) What will be the next events you guys will be attending to demo this?

Thanks - Bob

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]