Fortifications

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:42 am

Comments noted

TMTM
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:28 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by TMTM » Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:51 am

High cost might be good if they give all infantry in that area a better defense. What they might be could be adjusted upon setting up the wholegame first and see how well the terms fit... and be edited out if you see fit... this goes for all new peices. Build all the idea's and see how it all fits and make adjustments to make the game fair etc. All these idea's are exciting Larry and thanks for doing all this!

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:20 pm

Comments noted
TMTM -That’s pretty much my approach to new pieces. The entire system is like one of the most complicated spider webs of interrelationships. It can blow your mind sometimes.

Guerrilla Guy
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Texas Baby!

Post by Guerrilla Guy » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:13 pm

The only thing I wish about forts is limited support...The difference between Iwo Jima Bunkers and the massive Antlantik Wall is several thousands of Tos of concrete and barb wire :o ... and I think it is kind of ridiculous to have a 6 IPC Fort cover a 600 mile coast and the same one cover 25 miles...

my two cents...


GG
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."

Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne

Games are like my Avatar...

Guerrilla Guy
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Texas Baby!

Post by Guerrilla Guy » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:31 pm

I agree with my brother.. opps.. hello all :P and to you mr. harris yes this is GGs brother .. hes been talking to me about all these rules and ideas so I got fed up and came to see (and post alittle or maybe alot)

refering to the above post it makes sense so why not make forts stackable that way larry you can have your expensive "true" fortification of or weak easier to get through defences
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."

Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne

Games are like my Avatar...

Guerrilla Guy
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Texas Baby!

Post by Guerrilla Guy » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:44 pm

also if you dont mind sinse I dont make a habit of posting on forums my bro, gg said it was fine with him to use his idenity but to tell us apart I will sign off like this.... ( GG's brother ) I would hate to get my ideas mixed up with GGs my most illustrious game design junky brother ...

GG's brother
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."

Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne

Games are like my Avatar...

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:44 am

GG and GG’s brother – interesting idea ((stackable forts)). What I’m a little bit concerned about is the game becoming a bunch of stacked up forts. If Axis & Allies is anything it’s abstract. I don’t think I want to distinguish between Atlantic Wall defenses and Bunkers in Iwo Jima. They are both fortified positions. You as a player have paid the same amount for each and thus you should get the same defense factors. The presence of the fortifications represents a certain expense and effort (undefined granted).

The Old Soldier
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:10 pm
Location: Cincinnati Area USA

Post by The Old Soldier » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:36 pm

My first reaction to forts was cool!! But, with more thought I do not like where it is headed.

Forts should only be 1 per territory.
Forts represent a variety of different networks. So they work both as coastal defences or heavy fortified positions.
Forts should have a set value for defence and take a certain number of hits. either two or three to destroy.

One suggestion is to that forts only defend in their frontal facing. That way if you face it toward sea, it acts as a coastal defence, if you face it in land it act only as a defence against frontal assault.

One reason I like the idea of forts having it own defence is that it represent the manpower it would take to use without adding more troops, and second giving all units a bonus because of the fort may cause infantry stacking problems that you are trying to avoid.

Another reason for making a fort face in a pernament direction is it allows armies to attempt pincer moves. Which is the main way of removing the threat of a fort. Hit em where they ain't!!

I would simplify the game, which is always good. I leave other to discuss what the fort should cost but the idea of say less than a battleship but the defence of one and as mentioned at least the hits of one.

Should islands have forts?? Maybe the facing issue is solved if you state it may face the direction of that the fleet is moving from to attack. I'm not sure if it is wise to allow forts in islands, but there is Australia and Japan to concider.

A different view is to have forts less powerful. Your call.

Sean

Sean

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests