Larry hints at next game.


  • @rjpeters70:

    I’ve long argued for a Civil War game, but I don’t see how it would be more than two players

    Easy: Get a group of between three and six players, assign command of the Confederate side to one player, and keep rotating command of the Union side between the other players at every turn.  This would not only allow a whole group of people to play, it would also be an accurate and fun simulation of how the Army of the Potomac was led until U.S. Grant came along.

    “Yes, sir. I’ve a message here from the new commanding general. George Meade, sir, that’s right! Our very own general of our very own corps has been promoted to command of the whole army. The latest, if you keep track of them as they go by.”

    – Private Buster Kilrain, Gettysburg

  • Customizer

    The only problem I see with this is that there are tons of Civil War games already. A 1914 style Civil War game might be cool and I might buy it.


  • @CWO:

    @rjpeters70:

    I’ve long argued for a Civil War game, but I don’t see how it would be more than two players

    Easy: Get a group of between three and six players, assign command of the Confederate side to one player, and keep rotating command of the Union side between the other players at every turn.  This would not only allow a whole group of people to play, it would also be an accurate and fun simulation of how the Army of the Potomac was led until U.S. Grant came along.

    “Yes, sir. I’ve a message here from the new commanding general. George Meade, sir, that’s right! Our very own general of our very own corps has been promoted to command of the whole army. The latest, if you keep track of them as they go by.”

    – Private Buster Kilrain, Gettysburg

    don’t forget to add that the North players aren’t allowed to tell each other what there plans are.

  • Customizer

    @FieldMarshalGames:

    Seems from his comments he is taking a break from WWII games?  WW1…  back to CONQUEST OF THE EMPIRE, and now maybe some early American History games?  Civil War?

    Back to Conquest of the Empire?  Interesting, especially after Eagle Games released it with both original (fixed) rules and the new second edition rules.  And the Civil War?  I very much like Eagle Games’ attempt - especially with the tactical battle board just as their Napoleon in Europe had (and Conquest of the Empire SHOULD have had!).

    In other words, Larry is looking at ‘been there, done that’ games.  He would have to offer products much superior than what Eagle Games put out to entice me.

    I had thought he was doing something set in the crusades time?  At least that WAS the case a couple years ago.


  • @rjpeters70:

    @Yavid:

    don’t forget to add that the North players aren’t allowed to tell each other what there plans are.

    That would be a given.

    Alternately:

    1. The successive Union commanders are only allowed to boast to each other that their plan is foolproof, that the war is as good as won, that they’ll soon be hanging Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree, etc.

    2. The Union commanders aren’t allowed to have plans.

    3. The Unions commanders are only allowed to have bad plans.

    4. The Union commanders have to reveal their plans beforehand to the Confederate player, so that he can simulate Robert E. Lee’s uncanny ability to size up his oppenents and anticipate what they’ll do.

  • Customizer

    Not very romanesque if it is medeival ages.

    Regardless, I would want to see a battle like Eagle Games had for their games.  Maybe I should start posting over there again.

  • Customizer

    It will be Roman Empire, basically a tweaked version of COTE:

    http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18463

    I’d like to see a medieval version, but feel that the thunder has been stolen somewhat by Warlords of Europe:

    http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/46323/warlords-of-europe

  • Customizer

    I hadn’t seen Warlords before.  Looks very interesting.  I may have to pick it up.

  • Customizer

    So no Eagle Games style battle board?

    That is really too bad.  And a missed opportunity.


  • @jim010:

    I hadn’t seen Warlords before.  Looks very interesting.  I may have to pick it up.

    Its out of print- but I’m selling a double copy, check out the AA marketplace.



  • @Snackbar:

    What A&A game is displayed in the http://www.axisandallies.org/p/event-hbgcon-may-16-18-2014/ thread?

    It looks like the Global War version produced by Historical Board Gaming.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Snackbar:

    What A&A game is displayed in the http://www.axisandallies.org/p/event-hbgcon-may-16-18-2014/ thread?

    http://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/iphone-766.jpeg

    Yes. that is the Global 1939 game, you are looking at. :-)

  • '16 '15 '10

    I would think a “Civil War” A&A style game could potentially host up to 6-8 players.

    Army of the Potomac (NE USA)–many commanders
    Army of Northern Virginia (SE)–Johnston, Lee
    Army of the Cumberland (NW)–Grant, Sherman
    Army of the Tennessee (SW)–Bragg, Johnston

    Confederate forces west of the Mississippi
    Union forces west of the Mississippi
    Union navy
    Confederate navy

    That’s at least 4 players and up to 8.


  • This would be my favourite game, but Larry has said on his site that he has not yet reconciled how the economics can work. The South cannot compete financially.
    I see his point.( And feel his pain.)
    It has to be turn based and have a cut off point. The November 64 election is the obvious one.
    I would love to help.

    Are you a Civil War buff, Zhukov?


  • The South cannot compete financially.

    If Japan can get 100 IPCs, the Confederates can compete with the Union!

    In all seriousness, the Civil War would make a great A&A-style game. I would expect interesting political rules for the border states, and Confederate national objectives to represent aid from Europe.


  • Morning Lt Stove.
    Please do not get me started on how silly Japan (and Italy) can become in comparison to the US in Global.

    For a Civil war game, I can see there are difficulties balancing the sides from an economic point of view and have not given the solution much thought. That said, I know such a game  would be  of immense interest to your continent. (Excuse me if I presume you are American.)I know most of you cannot wait for Amerika. Playing a game of which you know both the history and the geography is a great bonus.
    I am sorry I do not own a copy of Napoleon and that I have never found a good English Civil War game.


  • Yes I’m American. But a Cavaliers and Roundheads game would appeal to me too  :-D

    I don’t think the historical truth (huge economic advantage of the North) should get in the way of a potentially amazing game. Or, if you want a more accurate game, perhaps a D-Day or Bulge scale game where economics won’t come into play. Gettysburg, Antietam. Many possibilities.

    I think a Civil War game would bring a new batch of history buffs into the A&A community.


  • @wittmann:

    This would be my favourite game, but Larry has said on his site that he has not yet reconciled how the economics can work. The South cannot compete financially. I see his point.( And feel his pain.)  It has to be turn based and have a cut off point. The November 64 election is the obvious one.

    How an A&A-style Civil War game could work is an interesting theoretical question.  As you’ve mentioned, the economic element would be a tough nut to crack. In very general terms, perhaps the rough parallel with A&A would be that, in A&A, the Axis starts out militarily strong but economically weak, and thus needs to hit hard and fast before the Allies can crank up their economic output and overwhelm the Axis with sheer numbers.  This is a bit similar to the situation that existed at the beginning of the Civil War, but with important differences too.  At the start of the conflict, the Confederacy wasn’t really militarily stronger than the Union from a numeric point of view, and wasn’t in a position to invade and conquer Union territory on a large scale (something which, in any case, wasn’t its strategic objective).  Rather, the Confederacy was in a fairly good position to fight a defensive war to hold its own territory (this being its actual strategic objective), in part because its armed forces had high motivation and good leadership (especially when compared with the Union side, which was lacking in both areas in the first half of the war).  This point, however, raises another difficult issue: should the game system “force” the Union player to replicate the Union’s command deficiencies for the 1861-1863 period, and if so how?  I for one would be unhappy with built-in “idiocy rules” that forced me to make the Union’s mistakes.

    Your idea about the November 1864 election serving as an end-point is a good one.  Instead of the game having A&A-type victory cities for both sides, perhaps it could have political victory conditions on the Confederate side and geographic victory conditions on the Union side.  The Confederate objective would be to convince the North that it could never win militarily, i.e. that the best it could ever achieve against the South would be a stalemate.  This could be tracked on some sort of political points scale, with a victory being achieved on the Confederate side either by reaching a very high level at any point in the game (at which point the Union quits), or by reaching a somewhat lower level by the November 1864 election (at which point Lincoln loses the election, and his successor is presumed to make peace with the Confederacy).  For the Union, victory could be achieved either by occupying a large percentage of the Confederacy’s territory, or by occupying and holding a smaller number of territories that have a higher political value (Virginia would be a key objective).


  • Thanks and afternoon Marc.
    I think that is Larry’s problem with a Civil War game.
    It worked for us in original Pacific. If would have to be the only way here too. The North has to win the war(like Japan) and the South hold those all important cities and states.
    There would have to be fortifications and there would not be many different kinds of units. Maybe supply tokens, which lessen as territory is lost, would reflect the South’s inability to prosecute an aggressive second half Of the war.
    Not easy is it?
    But we would buy and love it.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 10
  • 2
  • 2
  • 16
  • 179
  • 1
  • 46
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts