Interesting . Thanks Flashman.
The War Game - Massive Axis and Allies Variant
-
@Imperious:
AARHE is only based on the actual Revised AA map. It offers minor improvements because it was intended to be playable for normal Revised AA.
Yeah in fact I’ve now added a note to clarify. In the still-slowly-changing not-yet-released-for-a-while rule file.
No Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This is essential if you want a game playing out anything like WWII.
So to create an artificial rule ( e.g. if either attacks the other side immediately can place 4 infantry for free) type of thing is not very historical anyway.
Japanese-Soviet non-agression pact is a tough one. We could not come up with anything in AARHE neither as we didn’t want artificial rules.
I feel the pact has little backing behind it anyway.For me its not important a variant plays out like WWII. Just model all the issues as far as you could and give the player decisions.
I feel the way to address it is via national victory conditions. Japan didnt have much to gain from soviet far east. Japan just need oil right?
There might be a good non-agreesion pact house rule out there though. One that is better than 4 free inf lol.
-
There is - mine!
Japan and USSR are not permitted to attack each other until at least one enemy capital has fallen/enemy power has surrendered. The logic being that Stalin would never have attacked Japan until the European war was effectively won; and the Japanese, having decided to attack the western powers to grab their oil and minerals, would not have risked war with Russia until their Pacific front was secure.
This needs some additions regarding the Xenophobia rules and ability of allies to use airspace etc, but I think this works fine as a general principle.
-
Yes i suspect that would work but forcing such a requirement is still artificial. Japan or the axis is hardly going to invade and defeat either the US or capture London. which reduces it to something basically “cant be done” in an abstracted game this effects playability more then a typical a hard core wargame which has specific combat and terrain justifications to make an attack very costly… This comes back to the solution of “the side thats attacked gets 4 extra infantry” as a measure to safeguard.
So basically theirs no right or wrong way of doing it but rather to minimally impact the games balance.
-
If we have to use an artificial rule I would make it Japan and USSR each get like 4 extra IPC income per turn until they break the pact.
-
Whatever route you go down, the biggest difficulty with NAT/Xenophobia rules is this:
Suppose the Germans have occupied Leningrad and are threatening Moscow. Xenophobes or not, it is clearly in the Soviet’s interests that the Western Allies invade German held Leningrad to take the pressure off the Russians defence of Moscow. But if they do so are they violating the Xenophobia rule by entering Soviet home territory?
If not (they are “liberating” it), what is to stop them sitting there and building a stack of infantry just like they normally do in defiance of the Xenophbia rules? The Soviets forfeit the right to build units there, but still collect income and can concentrate on other battles.
-
The Soviets would never allow the western allies to set one foot on Russian soil. That alliance was one of convenience. Stalin thought at any moment the western allies were secretly making a separate peace (avoiding spilling more Anglo blood) or outright collaboration and a united attack in together with Germany. Stalin remembers the time in 1919 when the former allies of Russia of WW1 invaded all parts of Russia to throw off the communists and nearly succeeded. Stalin was prepared to die fighting than allow any possibility of such a thing ever happening again.
NO sir their is not way in hell of that happening.
-
This is another issue of having a rigid axis-allies team system.
It is not realistic except for US-UK relations.Simple.
Let them go in I say. Let them piss off Stalin. Rule would be USSR now becomes a third team and may attack US/UK territories. -
But this effectively breaks the xenophobia rule.
I prefer a Soviet sphere of influence which is no-go for the Western Allies. Using the War Game map as a reference this would include all Soviet brown territories and all those territories bordering them by direct land routes.* Only if USSR is out of the game can the other Allies go here.
Otherwise Russia is virtually encouraged to abandon areas to the Germans in the hope that the West will liberate them and take over their defence, which puts us right back in AAR territory. Also, it seems harsh that a Soviet unit, attacked by Germany with nowhere to retreat but into UK occupied Russian areas, cannot do so. At the very least the Soviet should not collect income for liberated territory until it regains control, but even here it means ALL allies emptying the area for the hand over, so perhaps a round of coexistence is acceptable after liberation.
- possible exception Norway. Can’t quite make it out on the map, but Norway and USSR should not have a land border.
-
I just have two questions, why is’nt this Jeff character more active in this thread ? Why he need IL to talk his case ? And have there been a message board for this new game ? I mean IL has his Gamedreamers side, do Jeff plan to do anything like that ?
-
And if I order this game, I want to know exactely how much it will cost to ship it to Norway. I want to get a price with all includet, so I go to my local post office and pay and pick up my game. I love this new game, and I agree with IL on most subjects, but I dont afford to pay like $ 400 just for shippping
-
They have a website.
http://www.thewargame.com/game_page.htmlBut is “Gamer’s Forum” is “Coming Soon!”.
-
why is’nt this Jeff character more active in this thread ? Why he need IL to talk his case ? And have there been a message board for this new game ? I mean IL has his Gamedreamers side, do Jeff plan to do anything like that ?
Yes he will soon get involved himself. Hes not the type to be posting and living on these boards like we are. I asked him to show up and he is short of time… but he will. He will start his own site soon. Right now hes sorting out his orders and shipping out games. Hes a one man show at the moment. I do most of his talking because that is what he asked of me knowing he wont have much time.
-
Having read the comments on this thread, I have a few thoughts.
Having Pakistan on the map in a WWII game would put me off a bit, too. It would be sort of like having a game on the Civil War and having the states of Oklahoma and Nebraska on it. It is annoying – but neither situation involves an area that is likely to see much game play.
Having all the units, Allies AND Axis, be German would give me considerable pause as well. This seems like an unfortunate choice to me; I would have thought it would be better to go with more generic units like in the original game – or default to US if nothing else. I realize this is rather nitpicky to some, but it would bug me. On the other hand, I’m assuming that most, if not everyone, who is a potential buyer of this game has other games with more appropriate units that they could sub in. Still, I think this is a legitimate gripe, and one that the creator should have considered before production.
As to the other gripes – really, has anyone ever produced a game that didn’t raise objections from people about something that was in the game, be it a rule, the map, a component, etc.? I’m not trying to start a fight or anything – personally, I have pretty high standards myself for things I’m going to spend money for. But ultimately, isn’t the question of whether or not it’s a good game the most important thing? From what I’ve read about The Wargame, it seems that just about everyone agrees that it’s a good game, with good rules and a lot of fun.
Here’s a test – which game has a more accurate map – Axis & Allies or The Wargame? Axis & Allies? OK. Now, which game is a better GAME – Axis & Allies or The Wargame? I’m guessing most people here would say that The Wargame is better. If The Wargame is the better game, does it really matter if there’s a minor glitch or 2 on the map? Another way to look at it is this – which of the two games are you most likely to want to play?
I have Axis & Allies and Axis & Allies Revised at home. I played A&A for years back in the 80’s when the Milton Bradley edition came out, and got a lot of enjoyment out of it. I’m not for a moment saying that A&A isn’t a good game. But after buying and playing WWII: The Struggle it’s unlikely that I’ll ever play A&A again. Not because A&A isn’t a good game, but because The Struggle is a better one, and I’d rather spend my gaming time playing it.
I think everyone who likes the A&A-style games and is interested in a more complex game should buy The Wargame if they can afford it, and if they think they’ll get enough play out of it to justify the cost. My reasoning for this is quite simple.
I think it’s extremely unlikely that you will ever see a major game company produce an “Axis & Allies On Steroids” kind of game.
The problem is that such a game is going to have a limited appeal. Sure, wargamers are always at least interested in a game that takes an existing game system to the next level. But I’d wager that isn’t the attitude of the average Joe who has the game. How many people who own A&A are going to want to go out and buy a bigger and better version of a game they already own? My guess is not very many – I’d say a very optimistic figure would be 10%. That kind of number isn’t enough for an established company to take a chance on. I suspect that companies that are pitched that sort of idea would say “There’s already a game like that in the market – Axis & Allies.” I also wonder if the failure of Eagle Games might discourage efforts of this sort.
The point is, if we want “bigger and better” designs they’re going to be games like The Wargame and WWII: The Struggle – games that are the dream of a guy like us who has the creativity and determination to put an idea together and see it all the way through to completion. They’re going to be labors of love that are developed in the basements of guys like this, not creations motivated in the interest of pure profit in the offices of a company like WotC. Because of this, I think we should do all we can to support these sorts of efforts. It rewards them for their efforts, and encourages them and others to create more games – which also is to the benefit of us all.
-
I would love to buy the Wargame, but it pisses me off that this Jeff ruined Atlantic with art. Pictures of tanks and infantry all over the Atlantic sea, was he smoking weed when he made the map ?
I propably buy it anyway, and cannibalize the Tiger tanks for my A&A Revised houserules. -
Try to accept those pictures as some artistic embellishments. When you played those eagle games you had to put up with whales and octopus and other crappy things and you didn’t complain then. Why you complaining now? At least they lend some humor to the game and relate to the theme of the game. I would have altered the opacity on those pictures but it was something he wanted. When you actually play the game those pictures don’t bother anybody.
Having Pakistan on the map in a WWII game would put me off a bit, too. It would be sort of like having a game on the Civil War and having the states of Oklahoma and Nebraska on it. It is annoying – but neither situation involves an area that is likely to see much game play.
Well im sorry you and Pakistan don’t get along. :-P
Having all the units, Allies AND Axis, be German would give me considerable pause as well. This seems like an unfortunate choice to me; I would have thought it would be better to go with more generic units like in the original game – or default to US if nothing else. I realize this is rather nitpicky to some, but it would bug me. On the other hand, I’m assuming that most, if not everyone, who is a potential buyer of this game has other games with more appropriate units that they could sub in. Still, I think this is a legitimate gripe, and one that the creator should have considered before production.
Everything was considered. The game will ( since you have read this thread) feature all the different national units after they recoup their investment. They don’t want to reinvent the wheel by introducing those silly generic pieces and have to do the same job over again like what happened with Milton Bradley edition and Hasbro edition. Since Germany by far has the best looking equipment it was an easy choice to put them first and after latter prints of the game feature all sorts of new pieces… But its very expensive to do this.
As to the other gripes – really, has anyone ever produced a game that didn’t raise objections from people about something that was in the game, be it a rule, the map, a component, etc.? I’m not trying to start a fight or anything – personally, I have pretty high standards myself for things I’m going to spend money for. But ultimately, isn’t the question of whether or not it’s a good game the most important thing? From what I’ve read about The Wargame, it seems that just about everyone agrees that it’s a good game, with good rules and a lot of fun.
Yes it is indeed.
Here’s a test – which game has a more accurate map – Axis & Allies or The Wargame? Axis & Allies? OK. Now, which game is a better GAME – Axis & Allies or The Wargame? I’m guessing most people here would say that The Wargame is better. If The Wargame is the better game, does it really matter if there’s a minor glitch or 2 on the map? Another way to look at it is this – which of the two games are you most likely to want to play?
Yes the idea was to get the game very playable rather than historically accurate. Play testing for this game has been like 14 years so its had enough time to mature. Its got alot of replay value as well.
I think everyone who likes the A&A-style games and is interested in a more complex game should buy The Wargame if they can afford it, and if they think they’ll get enough play out of it to justify the cost. My reasoning for this is quite simple.
The Wargame is not really complex at all. Its on the same level as AAR. It takes only 15 minutes to explain the rules.
I think it’s extremely unlikely that you will ever see a major game company produce an “Axis & Allies On Steroids” kind of game.
Right nobody is going to spend the kind of money on real cardboard because they have to pay hundreds of hungry mouths… Jeff is a one man show …so so he can afford to put so much into a box you wont need a gym membership if you lift the box 5 times a day.
The problem is that such a game is going to have a limited appeal. Sure, wargamers are always at least interested in a game that takes an existing game system to the next level. But I’d wager that isn’t the attitude of the average Joe who has the game. How many people who own A&A are going to want to go out and buy a bigger and better version of a game they already own? My guess is not very many – I’d say a very optimistic figure would be 10%. That kind of number isn’t enough for an established company to take a chance on. I suspect that companies that are pitched that sort of idea would say “There’s already a game like that in the market – Axis & Allies.” I also wonder if the failure of Eagle Games might discourage efforts of this sort.
I think Eagle games failed when they made that silly poker computer game and paid that lady ( Anne Duke) way too much to support it. I knew that company would fail. I posted it many years before it actually did fail…because their games are too much like 1970’s comic book games ( ala Helen of Toy)
The point is, if we want “bigger and better” designs they’re going to be games like The Wargame and WWII: The Struggle – games that are the dream of a guy like us who has the creativity and determination to put an idea together and see it all the way through to completion. They’re going to be labors of love that are developed in the basements of guys like this, not creations motivated in the interest of pure profit in the offices of a company like WotC. Because of this, I think we should do all we can to support these sorts of efforts. It rewards them for their efforts, and encourages them and others to create more games – which also is to the benefit of us all.
Yes we should support these creative people and reward them for creating good games. Without them this genre of games will not move forward.
-
Jeff is obviously not a history buff
Pakistan was a territory in 1939, but its correkt name then was Baluchistan. Also Thailand should be Siam. Its a lot of historic wrong names, but mayabe he print a revised map later.
IL, is this map stiff or soft rolling ?
How large is the box ?
How much it cost to ship to Norway ?
-
Pakistan was a territory in 1939, but its correkt name then was Baluchistan. Also Thailand should be Siam. Its a lot of historic wrong names, but mayabe he print a revised map later.
dude everybody knows this. You can put a line thru the word and write underneath “Baluchistan” I dont think it effects play very much.
IL, is this map stiff or soft rolling ?
Its cardboard nice and thick…how is it supposed to roll?
How large is the box ?
3 feet long and 1.5 feet wide about 10 inches tall
How much it cost to ship to Norway ?
Ask Jeff… haven’t you done this already?
-
IL, my thinking was that if you post the shipping cost to Europe here in this poen thread, you will save Jeff the work of answering hundreds of e-mails from european gamers.
-
OK ill do just that!
-
Now fair thing to Jeff he was right about Thailand which changed it’s name from Siam on June 24th 1939 and as I understand it the map starts 1st september 1939 correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand
Also, Baluchistan is NOT Pakistan, but just one of several provinces which were merged into Pakistan in 1947.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
Of course I have other issues with the names, like “West Africa” in the central Sahara. But never let it be said i don’t give credit where it’s due.
Suggested Topics
_The Conflict is a global-strategy based game designed around the economic and military conditions of Europe in 1914. Players play in one of two alliances, The Central Powers or The Allied Powers, to defeat their opponents. Players choose among seven nations (Austria-Hungary, Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Ottoman Empire, and Russia). After selecting a nation, players take turns completing their objectives during each round.
The Conflict has been extensively tested and designed by gamers for gamers. Players will take their turn each round to strengthen their tactical advantages and defend the borders of their nation. Each turn is broken down into Phases. Players must complete each previous phase in order to proceed onward with the rest of their turn. If a player decides to enter into combat with another player, they must, along with their opponent, roll a set number of D12 dice to determine the outcome of each individual battle. The Conflict uniquely deducts a combat penalty from the player with the weakest military strength in a territory. This combat penalty is taken off all of their dice rolls during the individual combat. The combat penalty allows for the strongest opponent to have a real-world advantage over their enemy, if they have a larger military presence in the area. Players can develop multiple (land, naval, and air) strategies to succeed. They can utilize 11 military units with unique capabilities to complete specific goals, upgrade technology, play one of three victory scenarios, as well as try a variety of player preferences.
