Messages

76

General Discussion / Re: Added Optional Rules and Pieces

« on: November 23, 2007, 05:51:51 PM »

Thanks John!

Maybe before the end of 2008 we'll see that accomplishment, heh?  Or is it too soon to get in a completion date?

77

General Discussion / Added Optional Rules and Pieces

« on: November 21, 2007, 12:11:00 PM »

Greetings Grognards!

Mark and John, I was wondering if while you're working on an advanced WW2:  The Struggle . . ., how about getting a list going on one or another of the topics with possible additional/optional rules and pieces so that players could print them out and add them to their rules and then when their group plays, they can have mutually agreed to options.  Yes, I know various groups around the country have various rules, but this would help standardize some of them as well as provide options if you have any sort of tournement play. 

I've made some before,  and I have another one to add: 2 types of subs.
One type is coastal and can only operate in seazones either adjacent to or 2 zones from land, costing less than that listed.  And one type is ocean going, and can  go across the ocean to attack targets on the other side, each piece at full cost.

Yes, this might go with and Advanced WW2:tS, or it may just go on a list of optional rules which can be used with the basic game.  Just a thought.

78

Game Design / Re: Increase Build Limit with Factory Construction

« on: October 18, 2007, 05:51:36 PM »

Thanks for all the input.  We'll give it a go and pass along the results from our gameplay. 
 
And to address the question Bob brought up, let's say, with built units from one factory, the factory can only produce that one kind of unit and must continue to do so, unless it takes 1 turn out of production (knocked/laid on its side) to re-tool at a cost of 6 prod. pts., which is what a factory would have to do anyway.  That would be the case of each factory constructed, so two factories could build the same or different units, and would keep doing so to the end of the game, unless they retooled.

Mark, I'll be working on the oil field dimension too.  I've got some oil barrel models  (I got them on E-bay) and I think they're Axis and Allies Miniatures, even though i've not a clue where else you could get them from.

79

Game Design / Increase Build Limit with Factory Construction

« on: October 17, 2007, 10:08:14 AM »

While working on the previous item regarding incremental buildup, the thought came to mind, "What about increasing mechanized/air build limits by 1 with the construction of a factory?"

This would apply to all countries and happen following the construction of a factory, meaning 1 more armor or 1 more fighter would be able to be built for each new factory constructed.  It would involve either 1 unit or the other, not both at a time.

Any thoughts or comments?

80

Game Design / Re: Incremental US Buildup

« on: October 16, 2007, 02:18:46 PM »

Thanks for the flak, -er, responses.     I don't have too many others to discuss these things with, so the forum is the place for me.  And I do appreciate the responses.  WW2:  The Struggle . . . is a game.  And a simulation.  I've been historical wargaming for a few years and I understand the things that have to be done to balance game play and history.  And that is difficult if you want a playable game/simulation that will not take weeks and months to complete and not get bogged down in 1000+1 small print rules.  I like Bob's suggestions re: the use of factories.  I may incorporate them into the games my group plays.  And thanks Mark too for the input.   I fully understand.

And just for information purposes to give you more of an idea where I was coming from:

Aircraft Production During World War II
Country    1939    1940    1941       1942        1943         1944          1945
Ger.       8,295    10,826    12,401    15,409    24,807    40,593    7,540
Jap.       4,467    4,768    5,088       8,861    16,693    28,180    8,263
U.K.       7,940    15,049    20,094    23,672    26,263    26,461    12,070
USA       2,141    6,086    19,433     47,836    85,898    96,318    46,001
USSR    10,382    10,565    15,737    25,436    34,900    40,300    20,900
Source: U.S. Department of Defense

81

Game Design / Incremental US Buildup

« on: October 14, 2007, 06:05:35 PM »

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?

82

General Discussion / Night Strategic Bombing

« on: September 05, 2007, 01:27:11 PM »

Greetings!

Had an idea to bounce around with you all:  Night Strategic Bombing. 
To wit:
1.  Heavy Bombers fly at night and bomb at a 1d3;
2.  AAA fires only at 1-2 bomber(s);
3.  Heavy Fighters (twin engined--costing 5,5--with Air2Air combat factor rating of 2) have to be used to combat them.
4.  Hvy. Bmbrs. still get to roll a 1 for defence;
5.  and a special chip (black or white or whatever different color than the ones used have) is used to note if your bombers are going in daylight or at night.

Any thoughts?

83

General Discussion / Re: CONVENTIONS

« on: August 20, 2007, 04:15:37 PM »

I was the Italian player and I am not a real bad sore looser, but I did loose and I did get spanked pretty good, so I am sore.  A lways wanted to try that country for the game.  I played The War Game:  World War 2 on Saturday.  WW2:  The Struggle . . . has some similar things, but more detail.  TWG:WW2 is more like a pumped up Axis and Allies.

It was a blast, even though I choked.  If my life depended on it, I couldn't roll anything worth a shot of powder.  I realized what I did wrong:  I built a factory early on and should have waited to build it after Italy joined the conflict.  I just didn't have enough to take Greece and Crete.  And it was all down-hill after that.  I hope to make it back next year and take them or France.  I like trying the difficult country, that way, if I screw up, it won't be as long before I'm put out of my misery.  Of course, I will be trying to host a game too, with some ideas I have, so you guys better show up to answer any of the regular rule questions!

I hope to host a game at Rock-Con, Rockford, Illinois in November. 
If you guys who own WW2:The Struggle . . . aren't too disagreeable, I'd like to try and add Patrol Bombers, Float Fighters, and Cavalry to the game, when I host it. Not to worry, I won't sell it, and --well, if they work, --I'd even let you add them to the rules.

Remember the Flying Boats I showed you Mark and John?  I will have those and the other two units represented.  I've got the White Ensign Models resin 1/700 FW 200 Condors and Sunderlands and Pit-road models 1/700 Mavis' and Emily's and PBY Catalina. I hope to get Historifigs N Scale Anti-Tank guns, if they every answer my email/correspondence. I'm looking at some 10mm or 11mm figures for Cavalry.  6mm would be too small and 15mm too big.  Brookhurst is slow on getting the Japanese "Rufe's" to me, but then, "patience is a virture." (update 22082007:  they are in UPS' hands.  Will report on that soon.)

John and Mark, you have done a great job.  I'm really glad you made the work so well.  Kudos 2 U both.

Kriegspieler7 (aka Paul E. Speerbrecker  )

84

General Discussion / Re: Starting July 1940 Scenario

« on: July 03, 2007, 05:16:32 AM »

I'm leaning more to starting with June, 1940 for this set up, with France and its military still in place. 
With the idea of starting say in June, 1940, several options present themselves: 
1) We can go with the actual historical situation of Germany having defeated and occupied Poland (Western side--USSR, Eastern side), Denmark and Norway and having suffered loses due to those operations/campaigns.  An OoB wouldn't be too hard to come up with.
Building units can be dealt with by retracing income levels and each player decides what could have been in production; or
2) Denmark and Norway were never attacked or occupied.  Their forces are still intact.  And the Kriegsmarine wouldn't have gotten it's nose bloodied so bad. Again, an OoB would be easier. (I know this is kind of stupid, as that bohemian paper-hanging corporal would never have let those countries go free and miss out on the opportunity to really put the screws on England.)  And again units in production would be dealt with by retracing income levels and each player decides what could have been in production.
3) We make both options available to players. 
Anybody got any thoughts? 

85

Game Design / Re: Balanced frontlines

« on: June 27, 2007, 05:28:38 AM »

This is for Adm. General Mark:  Any thoughts/ideas as to when a Beta version of those D12 rules might be available for procurement.  The Wargame:  World War 2 by Jeff Stein uses D12's also, but as I look at it, he's simply extrapolated the results from using D6's.  Which is not a bad thing, necessarily.

86

General Discussion / Re: Missing Parts

« on: June 12, 2007, 06:52:31 AM »

I'm so glad you guys are there.  I feel so stupid at times  , usually as I'm reading the rules at 11:30 pm or later.  Thanks again for the input.  I can't wait to play and get beat!  It'll be so much fun! 

87

General Discussion / Re: Missing Parts

« on: June 12, 2007, 02:31:57 AM »

I forgot to say, Thanks for the card.  It fits in well.

This is on a slightly different note:  I missed Switzerland in the Neutrals set-up.
Is that an accident or do we just figure that the Germans are too smart to do something stupid like attack their bankers?

Inquiring minds, etc.

88

Game Design / Re: Strategic Bombing and the timing of AA fire

« on: June 06, 2007, 03:17:43 PM »

Greetings!

Here's another thought for a SBR round:

escorting fighters (if any) fire vs. defending fighters;
defending fighters fire vs. escorting fighters;
     casualties taken;
surviving escorting fighters fire vs. bombers;
bombers return fire;
     casualties taken;
AA fires on bombers;
some bombers drop payload on AA (AA supression drop);
     casualties taken;
surviving AA fires on remaining bombers;
remaining bombers drop payload on target;
     casualties taken;
SBR round ends.

What do you think? Too pendatic and/tedious?

89

Game Design / Re: Strategic Bombing and the timing of AA fire

« on: June 06, 2007, 08:53:24 AM »

Thought:

Is this the sequence you're talking about for SBR: defending fighters fire, bombers return fire, bombers deliver payloads, then AAA fires?

And, I forget, is SBR only one round of combat or three (as AAA can fire 3x/round)?

Thanks. k7

90

Game Design / Re: India produces more troops for Allies

« on: June 04, 2007, 04:50:30 PM »

Roger that.  It would be tough, like saying India is able to produce 1 extra infantry every other turn.  it would make it a little more tedious to try to keep track of something extra like that.

I made the suggestion as it would show the logistical problem the U.K. had in trying to defend it's far flung empire with the troups it had available, i.e. soldiers needed in north africa, but they have to be moved from India, etc.

What you've done will probably get the idea accross just as well.  I've not played the game for any amount of time, I hope to get 'er done 4 sure at Gen Con Indy.