What's next for A&A?

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: What's next for A&A?

Post by Imperious leader » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:41 pm

Here's an idea how to make the Civil War game interesting:

Attack , Defend, Move

Infantry 1-1-1
Skirmisher 3-1-1
Cavalry 2-2-2 except Confederate cavalry always attack at 3-2-2
Artillery 4-3-1 ( moves 2 with matching Cavalry)
Generals- Cant move w/o these units, they roll a 4 and move 2, perhaps generals could have different ratings rating = attack value in combat

Infantry defending in City, Mountains or behind major river are at 2
All infantry are considered conscript, except in battle the winner can promote one infantry to "veteran", which allows certain bonuses ( e.g.attack at 2). The southern player will start with a number of veteran infantry

Attacker then defender fire alternative by unit type:
Artillery fire first- remove loses
Cavalry fire second- remove loses
Infantry fire last

Rail movement possible rail-points assigned, each city gives you one point and allows total units to be moved to any city anywhere you control.

Naval units:
gunboats/steamships 1-2 ( can carry one infantry and one other unit along river or at sea)
Ironclads 3-3 ( fire first- very expensive)

Forts: ( token) fire at passing ships like AA gun, allow ships in port safety from attack.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: What's next for A&A?

Post by Caractacus » Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:00 am

pellulo wrote:The problem with 1939, unless you are going to deal with the end of the Spanish Civil War, or, actual Western Allies in Poland during the GE. & Soviet invasion, is not much, except for the "Phony War".
I couldn't disagree more. One thing I specifically dislike about the games is that they never begin at the beginning (due to needing an early American presence to avoid the US player getting bored, finishing his crisps and beer and going home before Turn 8 or whatever), and drop one into the war with Axis power either at or approaching its apogee. Then it's just a race between the two sides to see if the Axis can tip the balance of power sufficiently their way to force a win. The Axis player doesn't get to direct the game from the start and have the fun of conquest, and the Allied player just gets stronger and stronger (in most games) until the Axis side realises that it isn't going to happen. As a result, just as the Allied player is looking forward to his/her rightful string of victories after defending so hard, the Axis player calls it a day.
pellulo wrote:You could get a 1939 game, but, somehow eliminate "Then Phony War", thanks, Pellulo
I couldn't agree more. :mrgreen:

I very much like variants where the Axis players can direct the war from the start - do you want to invade Poland first? Do you want to invade Denmark and Norway at all? if there are consequences for NOT invading them, then the Axis player will feel them, but, then again, s/he will also have spare troops - and not only that, they can be in completely different areas of the continent than they are in the OotB set-up.

Neither side knows how the game will look after even three turns since the options are so varied for the Axis.

Naturally, this system needs a bit of work for minor neutrals - who do they join, how do they join, how many units do they get and of what type, etc. There are many ways of resolving this in a manner that isn't too damaging to the reality of the day and allows good game-play. It also brings in the need for real rules addressing the two BIIIIG neutrals - the US and the USSR. The USSR needs to be a separate side with its own goals that it can realise through its wartime policies. The US should be much the same, but with a genuine sympathy for the Allied cause - how it comes into the war can be tied to game events (for flexibility) or to game turns (for simplicity).

I have a variant for 1939 (too complex for casual players but my friends enjoy it) which incorporates many of the features above - a streamlined version would be nice for quicker play.

The big issue for a 1939 game is balancing the game out - Germany needs to be strong enough at the beginning to make real progress, but not so strong that the game collapses. Similarly, the Allies need to start relatively weak but gain in strength at a rate that can check the Axis - assuming that their strategy is good. These issues are the same as those faced with any of the games, however, so I believe that they can be solved though play-testing.

I am certain that no such game will appear though - the reasons have been outlined in this discussion with the main one being the law of diminishing returns. The late appearance of a US player would also perhaps impact upon the US market.

A US Civil War game would be nice for me as I know too little about it and boardgames always stimulate extra reading for me as I want to check the accuracy of the set-up and rules etc. I have already quite a few changes to the WWI game to nudge it towards a greater conformity with the reality of the day whilst keeping it playable.

The War Room idea sounds intriguing, too... I just hope I can afford to buy all these fun games when they come out! :cry:
Caractacus.

timerover51
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:31 am

Re: What's next for A&A?

Post by timerover51 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:10 pm

I have run a variant of A&A using a start date of September 1, 19139. A couple of additional house rules were that, as Japan, in the Real World, had just been badly chewed up by the Russians at Nomonhan, they were not going to attack the USSR at all, could not attack south until France and the Netherlands were overrun, and needed to get their two new carriers finished before attacking the US. That was based on a cumulative die roll. The players were expanded to include the Netherlands, for the Netherlands East Indies forces, the Australians, the Chinese as an active player, and the Italian player having the choice at to when he/she joined the war and also the choice on which side.

If you back the Order of Battle for Japan to 1939, it is significantly weaker, with only one carrier available, along with having a much smaller army, no tanks, and a serious shortage of aircraft. During the Nomonhan Affair in the summer of 1939, the Japanese Army was using Italian-built Fiat BR-20 Bombers to attack the Russians, having no heavy bombers of their own. Both the Japanese and the US players got pretty bored quickly.

In one game, Italy joined France and Britain in attacking Germany, with immediate disastrous results for German. Instead of attacking Poland, the USSR grabbed Romania.

If you want to back it up to September, 1939, be careful what you wish for unless you lock all players into an historic straight jacket.

I should note that I worked up a more accurate historical order of battle in terms of units Both the British and the US fleets are significantly stronger

User avatar
Chacmool
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:52 am

Re: What's next for A&A?

Post by Chacmool » Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:58 am

I am hoping for

1. A&A 1914 Second Edition
2. American Civil War
3. A&A 1918 Kaiserschlacht
"Books and bullets have their own destinies"

Ernst Jünger

pellulo
Posts: 1282
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:12 pm
Location: P.R.
Contact:

Re: What's next for A&A?

Post by pellulo » Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:12 pm

I would take one and three, also maybe some minis would be welcome, thanks, Pellulo
Pellulo

LyrandisX
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:52 pm

Re: What's next for A&A?

Post by LyrandisX » Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:11 pm

The roles of the allies is always wrong: USA is the decisive player, USSR is hanging by a thread, and UK is the support

The USSR is the actual decisive power, the USA was the support, and the UK hanged by a thread

I hope that the War Room, if its set in WW2, changes the overblown anglo-american nationalist status quo that bothered me with these games

USSR was at its best in Classic, and has gotten weaker each game, while USA and UK keeping getting stronger, I know the A&A games are not strictly historical with each nation, but please dont change the role each nation played in history too

Also a 1939 game simply needs the right setup and national objectives to work, its not that hard, its may take time, but still not hard, simply setup France and the Neutrals to encourage a slightly, but not strictly historical path for the Axis

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: What's next for A&A?

Post by Caractacus » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:56 pm

timerover51 wrote:I have run a variant of A&A using a start date of September 1, 19139. A couple of additional house rules were that, as Japan, in the Real World, had just been badly chewed up by the Russians at Nomonhan, they were not going to attack the USSR at all, could not attack south until France and the Netherlands were overrun, and needed to get their two new carriers finished before attacking the US. That was based on a cumulative die roll. The players were expanded to include the Netherlands, for the Netherlands East Indies forces, the Australians, the Chinese as an active player, and the Italian player having the choice at to when he/she joined the war and also the choice on which side.

If you back the Order of Battle for Japan to 1939, it is significantly weaker, with only one carrier available, along with having a much smaller army, no tanks, and a serious shortage of aircraft. During the Nomonhan Affair in the summer of 1939, the Japanese Army was using Italian-built Fiat BR-20 Bombers to attack the Russians, having no heavy bombers of their own. Both the Japanese and the US players got pretty bored quickly.
This sounds very nice. It is exactly what I do. The downside with historical strengths is that often the reason they were adjusted was to allow good game-play, so things can collapse quickly. however, this is only part of the story - frequently, since the rules are easy-play, many things are possible in the game that just are not in real life, amongst them having an enormous amphibious invasion fleet sit floating in the ocean for a few years, or driving one's Japanese tanks to Moscow. There are no oil rules, no training rules, no morale rules, no supply rules, etc ad nauseam.
timerover51 wrote:In one game, Italy joined France and Britain in attacking Germany, with immediate disastrous results for German. Instead of attacking Poland, the USSR grabbed Romania.

If you want to back it up to September, 1939, be careful what you wish for unless you lock all players into an historic straight jacket.
There is a world of difference between allowing the Italian player to suddenly join the Allies and a historical straight-jacket... After all, this is not WWI.Nothing in allmy years of reading has given me any reason to believe that Mussolini's Italy would have been capable of doing more than sitting out á la Franco.
timerover51 wrote:I should note that I worked up a more accurate historical order of battle in terms of units Both the British and the US fleets are significantly stronger
Well, so I should think. The Royal Navy in particular is usually very hard done by in these games.
Caractacus.

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: What's next for A&A?

Post by Caractacus » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:05 pm

With apologies for double-posting, I think that the greatest single problem with running a wargame closely based on historical events is the foreknowledge. What US player would leave a fleet in Hawaii when the Japanese fleet gets in range even though there is no war yet? What Russian player would not attack Germany in 1940 when the war with France is at its height? (Only true in the game though if unit numbers for the USSR are addressed).

One rule I have for our games is that each (player) nation can spend half its income in a Turn 0 that exists for this purpose. This Income can be spent on new units (placed on IC spaces), or to move units to new locations (1 IPC/unit/space), or to research technology (our own rules), upgrade Inferior units (I have these for certain nations) or Influence Minor Nations (rules for this, too).

These points are allocated in secret and then revealed, thus preventing simple counters (or partial counters) to other players' spends.

The result of this is that each game necessarily has different starting points, and the players have different capabilities in different theatres. The 'half your income' rule also prevents the games from being totally and radically different from the real world. You don't get to move whole armies, but slight positional changes can make the world of difference to what you can do on Turn 1 - or perhaps Turn 2...

We like it, but I know that it isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Caractacus.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests