New A&A chaos game C vs S

[Make_It_Round]

Italy Ptero 4

Rolling 1d8:
(5)

1-New Guinea
2-34
3-33
4-47
5-49
6-54
7-55
8-45

[Make_It_Round]

ANZAC Ptero 1

Rolling 1d8:
(4)

1-Solomon Islands
2-46
3-47
4-48
5-30
6-50
7-53
8-54

[Make_It_Round]

ANZAC Ptero 2

Rolling 1d6:
(5)

1-Gilbert Islands
2-32
3-30
4-49
5-47
6-33

[Make_It_Round]

ANZAC Ptero 3

Rolling 1d5:
(5)

1-New Britain
2-33
3-48
4-49
5-46

[Grendal]

There is one problem with the neutral set up. The Axis will win after one turn once allies declares war on the true neutrals.

[Make_It_Round]

@Grendal:

There is one problem with the neutral set up. The Axis will win after one turn once allies declares war on the true neutrals.

Untrue. Whoever declares war on the true neutrals makes all of the other neutrals ‘pro’ the other alignment. Which means they have to enter new territories during the non-combat movement instead of the attack phase. It’s actually better to be their enemies than their friends at this point, considering that all of their troops are DEAD.

ANZAC Ptero 4

Rolling 1d8:
(3)

1-New Guinea
2-34
3-33
4-47
5-49
6-54
7-55
8-45

Okay, I’ve done all of the work for the PTERO for the coming season, up until the point that it matters.

ANZAC will have to decide at this point whether or not it’s safe to build from this current position before the next rolls.

This means that new PTERO rolls are not required until the beginning of the French 8 turn.

[Grendal]

amerians buy a tank and next turn declare war on neutral to be able to get to western US. If not the Japanese will certainly have an eye on it. This declaration means eight turns before all the European VCs are on axis side one turn and the game is over.

[Grendal]

it is flawed chris. play it out on local game mode.

[Make_It_Round]

@Grendal:

amerians buy a tank and next turn declare war on neutral to be able to get to western US. If not the Japanese will certainly have an eye on it. This declaration means eight turns before all the European VCs are on axis side one turn and the game is over.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

It means the Allies are not free to declare war on the neutrals, they must let the Axis do it.

Since the Allies have more money than the Axis, it is in the Axis’ interest to break neutrality ASAP and get more IPCs.

If the Axis don’t break neutrality, then the Allies will have a great material advantage.

I don’t necessarily see this as a flaw, but it is an interesting wrinkle; the Allies have political restrictions that the Axis do not.

As the Axis have economic restrictions compared to the Allies, I don’t think that this is unbalanced.

[Make_It_Round]

@Grendal:

it is flawed chris. play it out on local game mode.

Hmm. It’s interesting, I didn’t realize that the game counted pro-Axis neutrals as Axis-controlled VCs for the purposes of winning the game… It doesn’t come up in normal games, so TripleA probably takes some programming shortcuts. Our little variant is stretching the parameters of the game!

I didn’t check the politics bar, but here’s a quick fix for the game just in case you already declared war on the neutrals as the Allies… simply take all the victory cities throughout the world that are not currently Axis-controlled, and change the territory ownership of those places to pro-Allied neutral. That way, the game shouldn’t declare an Axis winner at the end of the turn.

[Make_It_Round]

Anyway, the true focus of this variant is not winning or losing, but the simple joy of moving around a murderous band of pterodactyls…  :-D

[Grendal]

here is your file Carl. had to do some digging into old pages.

German postapocalyptic turn.tsvg

[Grendal]

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3, version: 3.7

Game History

Round: 7

Turn Complete - French
            Turning on Edit Mode
            EDIT: Removing units owned by Neutral_Allies from 43 Sea Zone: 1 battleship
            EDIT: Adding units owned by Neutral_Allies to 35 Sea Zone: 1 battleship
            EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
            Turning on Edit Mode
            EDIT: Removing units owned by Neutral_Allies from 35 Sea Zone: 1 battleship
            EDIT: Adding units owned by Neutral_True to 33 Sea Zone: 1 battleship
            EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
            Turning on Edit Mode
            EDIT: Changing ownership of Novgorod from Neutral_True to Neutral_Allies
            EDIT: Changing ownership of Poland from Neutral_True to Neutral_Allies
            EDIT: Changing ownership of Volgograd from Neutral_True to Neutral_Allies
            EDIT: Changing ownership of Egypt from Neutral_True to Neutral_Allies
            EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode

[Grendal]

These are the countries that affected the game outcome if Allies declares war on neutrals. The rest I did not change because only the European theatre caused the game to end quick.

[pr0c3ss]

n1 Matt…this is waaaaaay too complex Chris… I liked the variation with just zombies every turn… that in itself is simple to manage & good fun

Ger
Rolling 1d6:
(4)

[pr0c3ss]

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3, version: 3.7

Game History

Round: 8

Politics - Germans

Purchase Units - Germans
            Germans buy 1 armour and 1 mech_infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

Place Units - Germans
            1 armour and 2 mech_infantrys placed in Germany

Turn Complete - Germans
            Germans collect 9 PUs; end with 9 PUs total

[Grendal]

Russ chaos
Rolling 1d6:
(1)

[Grendal]

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Alpha 3, version: 3.7

Game History

Round: 8

Turn Complete - Russians

[Make_It_Round]

@pr0c3ss:

n1 Matt…this is waaaaaay too complex Chris… I liked the variation with just zombies every turn… that in itself is simple to manage & good fun

Ger
Rolling 1d6:
(4)

Thanks for the feedback.

Matt, where do you stand? Are Pterodactls, Kraken, Flying Saucers and the like more trouble than they’re worth?

There are two considerations that I’m keeping in mind for this playtest: fun vs. complexity. We know that the Kaiju are complex, because they require steady upkeep in terms of book-keeping. We don’t really know if they’re fun, and here’s the part that we might need to playtest, because we haven’t seen them interact with anyone’s units or strategies yet.

Maybe to make them fun, and less punishing, we could introduce some sort of reward or ‘bounty’ to the player that takes them down… That way, they’d be seen not only as threats, but also as opportunities. Thoughts?

[pr0c3ss]

that would make it more interesting…would prob find some naval battles that fighting to kill the ‘best’.  Would have to be a significant reward oh.

Jap
Rolling 1d6:
(6)