31
General Discussion / Re: Added Optional Rules and Pieces
« on: October 09, 2008, 03:16:42 PM »
Thank you, John! We look forward to your developments with baited breath.
kriegspieler7
kriegspieler7
News:
Playing a Worldwide game again this year at CONSIMWORLD 2019 Monster Game Con in Phoenix, AZ - June 22-25!
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.
32
General Discussion / Re: Added Optional Rules and Pieces
« on: October 09, 2008, 07:14:14 AM »
No problem, Craig. Just wondering if anyone was out there to check the emails. And, Eureka!, there is!
How goes The Struggle . . . with your group of gamers?
And, might you be the Tekky Guru?
kriegspieler7
How goes The Struggle . . . with your group of gamers?
And, might you be the Tekky Guru?
kriegspieler7
33
General Discussion / Re: Added Optional Rules and Pieces
« on: October 03, 2008, 05:38:15 AM »
Greetings John and Company!
Well, you still might not get it done b4 the end of 2K8. But that's okay. It really is.
I've been doing some thinking and wondering if and since the rules are being updated for tS4E&A (regular game, not advanced), would it be possible for you and Mark to throw us a bone or two regarding changes in the game (--or maybe 3-4)?
It must have been quite a job to get this all together in the 1st place. I hope the "tweaks" went a lot smoother. And, if you want to wait until they're all done and all available too, I can live with that.
And, I've visited other blogs/sites with discussion groups on them. I found one that had a directory to locate items that were previously discussed/addressed. It saved a lot of searching by those (namely me!
) who were looking for a topic. Do you have a "Tecky Guru" to maybe do that for this website too? Or would that be too costy?
Just an acknowlegement would be sufficient. Thanks.
Well, you still might not get it done b4 the end of 2K8. But that's okay. It really is.
I've been doing some thinking and wondering if and since the rules are being updated for tS4E&A (regular game, not advanced), would it be possible for you and Mark to throw us a bone or two regarding changes in the game (--or maybe 3-4)?
It must have been quite a job to get this all together in the 1st place. I hope the "tweaks" went a lot smoother. And, if you want to wait until they're all done and all available too, I can live with that.And, I've visited other blogs/sites with discussion groups on them. I found one that had a directory to locate items that were previously discussed/addressed. It saved a lot of searching by those (namely me!
) who were looking for a topic. Do you have a "Tecky Guru" to maybe do that for this website too? Or would that be too costy?Just an acknowlegement would be sufficient. Thanks.
34
Game Design / Re: Tactical submarine movement
« on: September 13, 2008, 04:39:00 PM »
Roger that. Reading you 5 X 5. Thanks.
Paul E. Speerbrecker a. k. a. kriegspieler7
Paul E. Speerbrecker a. k. a. kriegspieler7
35
Game Design / Re: Tactical submarine movement
« on: September 12, 2008, 11:20:05 AM »
I knew it! You guys are working day and night to improve and develop this game. Kudos 2U!
kriegspieler7
P.S. Could somebody tell me in the rules the page that has the significance of the red line in China and Asia? (I am so ashamed!
)
kriegspieler7
P.S. Could somebody tell me in the rules the page that has the significance of the red line in China and Asia? (I am so ashamed!
)
36
Game Design / Re: Tactical submarine movement
« on: September 11, 2008, 03:44:27 PM »
Back online. Like I was missed! 
Back in the day, when Dr. Jim Goff (SPI's Winter War) was trying to get us to think spatially, as well as logistically, with time constraints, and assorted other things, it was always a challenge to balance the idea of a conflict simulation with the game idea.
That's probably why SPI "bellied up" and A&A "blossomed." SPI's games were almost too much simulation and detail to the point of absolute frustration with many gamers. A&A's games have much more "playability," at the cost, of course of simulating a lot of historical detail. TS4EnA is, I think, a good blend of both simulation and game playability. Yea, yea, there are a few "gliches" here and there, but on the whole, it's really done well. (I am so jealous
that I didn't think of it first.)
That being said, I still think there's room for a few added extras, like the extended range for fleet submarines. I completely understand and agree regarding the thoughts shared about giving cruisers extra range, especially as used in this game, with these rules, and with this setup. To get players using their "units" in a more historical way is great. I guess that's what I don't like about A&A, the original one, anyway. It was a little too abstract. I enjoy a little more detail. Other posted variants, tried to change that. Some succeeded, others not. The one that had death rays and satellites for a WW2 game, well that was a little too much for me. I really had a hard time with that one. Yes, we/I want a historical simulation as much as possible. And what we are simulating is/was anything but fun, only death, destruction, and considerable loss and waste. The "fun" is trying to use a number of the elements in place then, but using them in a different way to achieve/experience an different outcome.
There's no reason, in my mind, not to experiment with an idea or two (or maybe three or four, but not too many, I know.). To give you another instance, I've got some Xeno Games factories, and with the fact that GB/CW have no production centers in the Pacific, (other than Canada, eh?) I'm thinking that they can be set up in British areas, like Australia, which have a minimum of 2 production points, costing 5p.p.'s for 3 turns to build, and after placement on the board, they provide 3 extra p.p.'s/turn, and allow the owner to produce either 1 non-infantry land unit or 1 fighter unit there. Again, there is more complexity, but also more historical simulation. Australia did have factories which produced tanks and planes. Whether or not the balance can be struck is not certain. And my group hasn't agreed to try this yet, so I don't know if it will fly or not. (Maybe they won't! Then they'll have to get their own game! -----Just, kidding! -----Seriously!)
With that, we are back where this issue began, I believe. Comments?
Back in the day, when Dr. Jim Goff (SPI's Winter War) was trying to get us to think spatially, as well as logistically, with time constraints, and assorted other things, it was always a challenge to balance the idea of a conflict simulation with the game idea.
That's probably why SPI "bellied up" and A&A "blossomed." SPI's games were almost too much simulation and detail to the point of absolute frustration with many gamers. A&A's games have much more "playability," at the cost, of course of simulating a lot of historical detail. TS4EnA is, I think, a good blend of both simulation and game playability. Yea, yea, there are a few "gliches" here and there, but on the whole, it's really done well. (I am so jealous
that I didn't think of it first.) That being said, I still think there's room for a few added extras, like the extended range for fleet submarines. I completely understand and agree regarding the thoughts shared about giving cruisers extra range, especially as used in this game, with these rules, and with this setup. To get players using their "units" in a more historical way is great. I guess that's what I don't like about A&A, the original one, anyway. It was a little too abstract. I enjoy a little more detail. Other posted variants, tried to change that. Some succeeded, others not. The one that had death rays and satellites for a WW2 game, well that was a little too much for me. I really had a hard time with that one. Yes, we/I want a historical simulation as much as possible. And what we are simulating is/was anything but fun, only death, destruction, and considerable loss and waste. The "fun" is trying to use a number of the elements in place then, but using them in a different way to achieve/experience an different outcome.
There's no reason, in my mind, not to experiment with an idea or two (or maybe three or four, but not too many, I know.). To give you another instance, I've got some Xeno Games factories, and with the fact that GB/CW have no production centers in the Pacific, (other than Canada, eh?) I'm thinking that they can be set up in British areas, like Australia, which have a minimum of 2 production points, costing 5p.p.'s for 3 turns to build, and after placement on the board, they provide 3 extra p.p.'s/turn, and allow the owner to produce either 1 non-infantry land unit or 1 fighter unit there. Again, there is more complexity, but also more historical simulation. Australia did have factories which produced tanks and planes. Whether or not the balance can be struck is not certain. And my group hasn't agreed to try this yet, so I don't know if it will fly or not. (Maybe they won't! Then they'll have to get their own game! -----Just, kidding! -----Seriously!
)With that, we are back where this issue began, I believe. Comments?
37
Game Design / Re: Tactical submarine movement
« on: August 24, 2008, 04:55:17 AM »
My computer screen showed the "blue screen of death." I'm useing another for the moment. I have a thought or two to add at a later date when it gets back from the shop and I don't have to barrow another one.
kriegspieler7
kriegspieler7
38
Game Design / Re: Tactical submarine movement
« on: August 21, 2008, 11:40:36 AM »
A good question, Mark. Cruisers would be okay. They had a larger fuel capacity. Not so, destroyers. The reason not is that they did not have great fuel "bunker" capacity. Yes, they were fast, and smaller than capital ships, but they didn't hold a lot of fuel by comparison. And because of their speed, they burned what fuel they had faster than the others. They had to refuel off from tankers or other capital ships often.
Hence, no destroyers accompanied Bismark and Prince Eugen in their run through the North Atlantic, even though some had a range of 11K miles.
That was part of the problem for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and off Midway, too, because if they wanted to continue the fight, it would put their smaller ships in a difficult spot.
Running up and down the Slot in the Solomons wasn't a big problem as they usually were back in port the next day or two.
That's my 2cents.
Hence, no destroyers accompanied Bismark and Prince Eugen in their run through the North Atlantic, even though some had a range of 11K miles.
That was part of the problem for the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and off Midway, too, because if they wanted to continue the fight, it would put their smaller ships in a difficult spot.
Running up and down the Slot in the Solomons wasn't a big problem as they usually were back in port the next day or two.
That's my 2cents.
39
General Discussion / Re: Hey Mark
« on: August 21, 2008, 06:29:58 AM »
Mark and John, just to let you know, Larry was smiling when he spoke about the check.
He and you guys, of course, are entitled to make a living, and you do bring a lot of enjoyment to a lot of wargamers. Though, if anyone expected to make a lot of money doing this, well, in my opinion, they must live in "another dimension of of time and space: The Twilight Zone."
Paul E. Speer . . .
He and you guys, of course, are entitled to make a living, and you do bring a lot of enjoyment to a lot of wargamers. Though, if anyone expected to make a lot of money doing this, well, in my opinion, they must live in "another dimension of of time and space: The Twilight Zone."
Paul E. Speer . . .
40
Game Design / Re: Tactical submarine movement
« on: August 20, 2008, 10:41:17 AM »
Thanks Mark. I always appreciate you comments and clarifications.
I guess I'm missing something here. The rule is on pg. 15 states,
A Naval unit (as well as planes on carriers) utilizing strategic movement may not participate in any form of combat during the following combat phase.
My take is that any unit that makes strategic movement may not be involved in combat, hence, if a submarine makes strategic movent in one turn, it must wait until the next to enter combat. I don't see the need for waiting for the next turn for fleet subs due to what I said before. Do you see what I'm referring to?
P. S. Take a look at the Hey Mark section when you can.
I guess I'm missing something here. The rule is on pg. 15 states,
A Naval unit (as well as planes on carriers) utilizing strategic movement may not participate in any form of combat during the following combat phase.
My take is that any unit that makes strategic movement may not be involved in combat, hence, if a submarine makes strategic movent in one turn, it must wait until the next to enter combat. I don't see the need for waiting for the next turn for fleet subs due to what I said before. Do you see what I'm referring to?
P. S. Take a look at the Hey Mark section when you can.
41
Game Design / Re: Dutch East Indies
« on: August 20, 2008, 04:58:36 AM »
You are really on to something there Bobsalt.
To add a note, yes, there seems to be a problem with the Netherlands East Indies. I've gotten a few more games under my belt and it seems that the Japanese player in games I've played ignored the resources available in the NEI and just tried to slug it out with the USA. I'm thinking about re-arrainging the V. P.'s to make the NEI a little more valuable. It would mean adding one to each of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra, but keeping all the rest where they are. I'm not so sure that's such a bad thing. Or is it? What do you think?
P.S. I call it Netherlands East Indies, as back in the '80's I lived in Minnesota and took a geography class, Conflict Simulation, under Dr. James Goff, who did SPI's Winter War. Maybe you heard of it. I made up a wargame on the Japanese advance on the NEI in 1942. It was not a large campaign, but was critically important. In my study of the campaign, NEI was the term used through out the documents. That's what I'm gona' use. You all can do as you want.
To add a note, yes, there seems to be a problem with the Netherlands East Indies. I've gotten a few more games under my belt and it seems that the Japanese player in games I've played ignored the resources available in the NEI and just tried to slug it out with the USA. I'm thinking about re-arrainging the V. P.'s to make the NEI a little more valuable. It would mean adding one to each of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra, but keeping all the rest where they are. I'm not so sure that's such a bad thing. Or is it? What do you think?
P.S. I call it Netherlands East Indies, as back in the '80's I lived in Minnesota and took a geography class, Conflict Simulation, under Dr. James Goff, who did SPI's Winter War. Maybe you heard of it. I made up a wargame on the Japanese advance on the NEI in 1942. It was not a large campaign, but was critically important. In my study of the campaign, NEI was the term used through out the documents. That's what I'm gona' use. You all can do as you want.
42
General Discussion / Re: Hey Mark
« on: August 19, 2008, 03:58:36 PM »
Hey Mark and John!
While at GenConIndy, Larry Harris was there with the Beta version of the Anniversary Edition of Axis and Alliescoming out in October. Italy is a big player now with their own italian tanks! The US has Hellcats and there are Cruisers for various nations, too. The map is bigger, though not as big as tS4EnA, of course.
He stopped by to look at the tS4E game I was trying to GM. I told him it was a cross between Axis and Allies and World in Flames using elements of each. He responded by saying he's still waiting for his check.
Hmmm--
While at GenConIndy, Larry Harris was there with the Beta version of the Anniversary Edition of Axis and Alliescoming out in October. Italy is a big player now with their own italian tanks! The US has Hellcats and there are Cruisers for various nations, too. The map is bigger, though not as big as tS4EnA, of course.
He stopped by to look at the tS4E game I was trying to GM. I told him it was a cross between Axis and Allies and World in Flames using elements of each. He responded by saying he's still waiting for his check.
Hmmm--
43
Game Design / Re: Tactical submarine movement
« on: August 19, 2008, 03:50:46 PM »
No, am not using the strategic movement for that. Thanks for the input Craig. Good point. Shows why you're a general!
We're (the group I game with) going to try it anyway as I got all sorts of Axis and Allies pieces from the old and the new editions and I own the game. (This way, I feel better about not throwing them out or trying to sell them on ebay {-which I don't know how and don't want to learn}). And for the group, it's a work in progress to learn and "tweak" as we play.
For what it's worth and, while we're at it, here is some info re: USN Gato class subs I got from a USN submarine website:
Lead Boat: SS-212, U.S.S. Gato
Speed: 20-1/4 knots (surfaced); 8-3/4 knots (submerged)
Diving Depth: 300' (test depth); 450' (emergency)
Range: 20,000 miles
Endurance: 75 days
If it could only be at sea for a little over 10 weeks and go around the world a few times (referring to range), I don't think it's too much off to give the boat the extra tactical movement range of 8-10 sea zones. This way, the subs can move right into combat on the same turn and go "once more into the breech, dear friend."
We're (the group I game with) going to try it anyway as I got all sorts of Axis and Allies pieces from the old and the new editions and I own the game. (This way, I feel better about not throwing them out or trying to sell them on ebay {-which I don't know how and don't want to learn}). And for the group, it's a work in progress to learn and "tweak" as we play.
For what it's worth and, while we're at it, here is some info re: USN Gato class subs I got from a USN submarine website:
Lead Boat: SS-212, U.S.S. Gato
Speed: 20-1/4 knots (surfaced); 8-3/4 knots (submerged)
Diving Depth: 300' (test depth); 450' (emergency)
Range: 20,000 miles
Endurance: 75 days
If it could only be at sea for a little over 10 weeks and go around the world a few times (referring to range), I don't think it's too much off to give the boat the extra tactical movement range of 8-10 sea zones. This way, the subs can move right into combat on the same turn and go "once more into the breech, dear friend."
44
Game Design / Re: 6 turns per year instead of 4
« on: August 18, 2008, 04:30:29 PM »
Caught this going through the forums. Here's a thought: how about 10 week turns? 2 could be winter and 3 summer. It would cut down on the mech usefulness, of course. Having lived in the upper midwestern USA for most of my life, winter usaually lasts longer than just 3 months. Not 9 months either for all you Gulf and California Coast types.
Anybody else?
Anybody else?
45
Game Design / Tactical submarine movement
« on: August 18, 2008, 10:33:49 AM »
I've been thinking about tactical sub movement. This came up in Gen Con Indy where a US sub tried to sink a IJN transport in the Sea of Japan --which he did, BTW. 2 sea zones is very limiting for US Subs if they are going to try to reach the Japanese convoy centers from Pearl Harbor.
This is what we're going to experiment in my group of gamers here, with two kinds of submarines:
--Coastal Submarines, with same combat abilities as regular subs, but cost 3,3 and have a tactical range of 2.
--Fleet Submarines, have a tactical range of either 8 or 10. (Whichever works so US subs can get to the coast of China/Japan from Pearl and U-boats can reach the Gulf Coast.)
This is what we're going to experiment in my group of gamers here, with two kinds of submarines:
--Coastal Submarines, with same combat abilities as regular subs, but cost 3,3 and have a tactical range of 2.
--Fleet Submarines, have a tactical range of either 8 or 10. (Whichever works so US subs can get to the coast of China/Japan from Pearl and U-boats can reach the Gulf Coast.)