First post here, but glad to finally be a part of the A&A community. I was thinking about two possible game ideas, but was wondering if anyone else thinks its as good of an idea as I do. First off I was thinking of an Axis and Allies style game for Fallujah. USA Marines and Nato Forces against the Taliban. More of a strategic style game rather than theater level. Street to street and door to door. Any ideas to help further this would be great. Secondly, I was wondering why all entities involved in producing A&A doesn’t team up with Creative Assembly, and make a Total War style A&A game. I think it would be absolutely incredible if it was done right. Both the world map, with all rules and production, and then a break down into the actual battles. Any thoughts?
Hello Tater_07,
It sounds to me like, for the first game, you are describing more of a tactical level game, like the A&A Miniatures types where you have individual units. Personally, I don’t care for those games, but that’s just me. There are too many values to each unit, plus you have terrain effects, etc. I know it’s more realistic but that’s just too many things to remember for me. I think it makes the games take longer. However, I know that the A&A Mini games are very popular among some others so you may have a following for your idea of a game.
As for your second game idea, when you say Total War, are you meaning all countries against each other? With no allies, only temporary truces? I have tried that with Axis & Allies. I have also tried different alliances, like German, Italy and Russia against the US, UK and Japan. You can basically use most of the same rules, but you have to change the setup some. For example, if Russia and Germany are allies, they don’t need those huge forces along each other’s borders. Also, some of the NOs would have to be changed. It can be a fun change.
If this isn’t what you were talking about, then sorry for answering your question with something different.
It sounds to me like, for the first game, you are describing more of a tactical level game, like the A&A Miniatures types where you have individual units.
It actually even sounds closer to a skirmish-level game, which is the next level down from tactical. Door-to-door fighting would mean that the game is tracking individual soldiers firing individual weapons.
No I was talking about the computer game Total War, also based on different time throughout history. If you haven’t heard of it, I definitely encourage you to check it out. The idea you gave me though would be a fun and different way to try A&A. And CWO Marc, Would a skirmish type game even be possible or worth playing? Seems to me that certain elements could be lumped together. For instance, having a squad of six or seven marines going door to door, and if there is a battle then of course it would be down to the individual as to rolls of the dice. Elements such as IEDs, and different technology could be introduced to gameplay somehow as well. Seems like a fun game in my head, and there it make sense as well ;), but again I dont really know if its even feasible. Thanks for the replies and ideas guys. Hope to hear more.
Making the transition from computer to board can be rewarding, but keep in mind the complexities involved. Computer games do a lot of behind the scenes things that you’ll have to do manually on a board or with mini’s. Kind of like calculating without a calculator…
Your first idea sounds to me as well as though it’s more of a tactical level than a strategic-level game. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course, though it hasn’t ever really been my cup of tea either. I’d advise you to try some mini’s-type games, like A&A mini’s or Flames of War to get your feet wet and then experiment with modernizing them with contemporary weapons and situations; you really might have something there, but it sounds more like a mini’s game than a board game to me. You could also try the Memoir '44 series or the battle-level A&A variants (D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, & Guadalcanal) which move basically one level up. Think of these games as having 3 basic levels:
1. Skirmish/Mini’s (A&A mini’s, Flames of War)
2. Battle board games (A&A battle variants, Memoir '44 series)
3. Theater-level games (A&A Pacific & Europe variants)
4. Global games (the MB A&A and other Gamemaster series games, along A&A Revised, Anniversary, 1942, and Global 1940)
There’s nothing inherantly better or worse about being geared for one level or another, but the dynamics will be very different and the level needs to be borne in mind! For me, the more global the better, but that’s just a personal preference.
I was actually thinking of trying to get Avalon Hill to go the other way, making Axis and Allies into a computer game that has the same style as the Total War franchise, possibly even teaming up with them. I think it could possibly, if done right, be one of the highest grossing, and best in my opinion, computer strategy game ever made. If you take a look at how Total War is set up, it only makes sense. You start out in your turn looking at the entire world on a map type setting with towns and cities visible. You can build units, upgrade cities, and move your units across the map attempting to conquer territory. If a battle ensues you would go down to more of a tactical level where you can see each unit and move them effectively to win the battle. I think the idea would not only make a great game, but personally I learned ALOT playing all the different Total War games, such as historical events and figures.
As for your comment about the other idea, I will definitely have to take your advice and try some mini-type games and see how they work and how to put my idea, if at all possible, into action. Thanks for the insight!
Hi Tater_07,
Tell me, did you ever try the ‘Axis & Allies’ (RTS) game?
This was a really good game, in my opinion, but nothing like the board game.
From the Wikipedia article on wargaming:
Unit or map scale
Grand strategy — military strategy at the level of movement and use of an entire state or empire’s resources, with the focus being on a war (or series of wars) usually over a long period of time. Individual units, even armies, may not be represented; instead, attention is given to theaters of operation. All of the resources of the nations involved may be mobilized as part of a long-term struggle. This simulation almost always involves political, economic, and military conflict. At the most extreme end of this is the branch of strategy games in which the player assumes the role of an entire nation-state’s government where not conducting war is a possibility. Axis and Allies, Risk, and Empires in Arms are examples of this type of wargame.
Strategic — military units are typically division, corps, or army-sized, rated by raw strength. At this scale, economic production and diplomacy are significant. This sub-genre will often make use of all branches with the whole force of the engaging nations, covering entire wars or long campaigns.
Operational — common units are battalion to divisional size, carrying a value based on their overall strengths and weaknesses. Weather and logistics are significant factors, although a single army is the largest player-controlled element in most cases. Other branches of military force are more or less abstracted, having a mere campaign generally span the session of play.
Tactical — units range from individual vehicles and squads to platoons or companies, and are measured by the types and ranges of individual weaponry. A solitary force, others occasionally intervening, will usually cover the single battle or part of a large battle to be simulated.
Skirmish — represented by individual soldiers, units may have tracked wounding and ammunition count. A game is composed of a small firefight, introducing the “man-to-man” scale; the first of this type in the modern era of board wargames include Patrol and Sniper!. Early role-playing games were derived from skirmish wargames, and many are still played as such.
Lozmoid, I have not had the chance to play it myself, but I have watched a few people. It looked like a good game overall. I have been trying to find it, but I am stationed on Hawaii, and from where I have looked I can’t find it. I was actually thinking of buying it online soon.
CWO,
How exactly do the smaller skirmish games work. Are they easy to track or just overly complicated?
CWO, How exactly do the smaller skirmish games work. Are they easy to track or just overly complicated?
I don’t have any personal experience with such games, but it seems to me (from the Wikipedia definition) that the difference between tactical and skirmish games is that tactical ones involve a certain amount of unit abstraction while the skirmish ones don’t. To invent an example: in a tactical game, a squad of soldiers would be represented as a single collective unit, while in a skirmish game each soldier in the squad would be individually represented.
Sounds like it could be interesting. I will have to get into miniatures and see if I like it. Thanks for the help!
Sounds like it could be interesting. I will have to get into miniatures and see if I like it. Thanks for the help!
My pleasure. Something else to keep in mind is that there are additional differences between various game levels. The higher the game level, the more the combat process is abstracted; conversely, when you go all the way down to skirmish level, the combat processes can be so finely detailed that they can involve the effects of individual weapons being fired at individual targets and inflicting specific damage on them. Another difference is the level of command represented by the player himself. Way up at the grand strategy level, the player basically has the role of a country’s national command authorities (the top civilian and military leadership running the war). Down at the skirmish level, the player would probably have the role of a squad or platoon leader.
