Your a good man Grenade. Much success to you!
Global War, 2nd edition - due 1\. November 2015
-
@coachofmany:
Global War 2025-2031: After years of rising tensions, the Russian Federation, People�s Republic of China and the Islamic Caliphate launch a global attack on the West and its Allies. The United States, NATO and the Pacific Coalition (Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Japan and India) fight to beat them back before they destroy the free world.
This sounds really cool. I am highly intrigued.
-
Thanks for the info Coach and Will… I am very excited for all of this!
(e) Soviet Union as a third alliance
Can you explain this a little bit, to the extent you can without divulging whatever is prohibited?
I have recently become an advocate of separating the USSR from the Allies to better model real war interactions. I am just wondering if your mechanics are along the lines I have been imagining.
I assume this is an integral part of the game? Meaning the game is designed to play this way and you cannot choose to play classic A&A USSR-UK-USA alliance. Seems like it would be very hard to design the game so you have an option here.
-
Instead of making a bunch of more games can’t you just make Global War better and have rules that everyone understands? If people are still having trouble understanding 7.2 it doesn’t make much sense to make more games.
-
There is a great book to read about companies that take on too much. It’s called “How the Mighty Fall”. Only 1 or 2 great products are needed. 10 or 20 (or in this case it sounds like 50) products just means people lose focus. I’m sure it’s not a money grab because there is too little money to be made on games but if it is clear and makes sense people will buy it and a whole company can explode in sales from a single item. Why not just perfect your 1 or 2 best products instead of taking on more products? You could never find enough time to play test everything if you had a family or job.
-
There is a great book to read about companies that take on too much. It’s called “How the Mighty Fall”. Only 1 or 2 great products are needed. 10 or 20 (or in this case it sounds like 50) products just means people lose focus. I’m sure it’s not a money grab because there is too little money to be made on games but if it is clear and makes sense people will buy it and a whole company can explode in sales from a single item. Why not just perfect your 1 or 2 best products instead of taking on more products? You could never find enough time to play test everything if you had a family or job.
We offer many different games for many different people, we do not expect our customers to buy every game we put out but certain people like certain games.
-
Thanks for the info Coach and Will… I am very excited for all of this!
(e) Soviet Union as a third alliance
Can you explain this a little bit, to the extent you can without divulging whatever is prohibited?
I have recently become an advocate of separating the USSR from the Allies to better model real war interactions. I am just wondering if your mechanics are along the lines I have been imagining.
I assume this is an integral part of the game? Meaning the game is designed to play this way and you cannot choose to play classic A&A USSR-UK-USA alliance. Seems like it would be very hard to design the game so you have an option here.
The Soviet Union as a third alliance should be interesting. So to start there are 3 Alliances and each nation within that alliance has victory objectives to accomplish. The Soviets are expansive, by in large (save for a few) they want to expand the influence of communism - in spain, in china etc….Both the Allies and the Axis want to prevent this but they have other issues - that the Axis are also wanting to expand, so this sets up the dilemma of exactly how much to help the USSR. Too much help and the USSR can roll through Europe at the end of the game. Too little and they can get crushed. So, it is the same dance the Allies did in World War II. Many games can end without the USSR and USA going to war, but they can go to war once one Axis capital falls. The USA loses a victory condition if they do go to war, so it really has to be worth it for the USA to take on the USSR.
-
Instead of making a bunch of more games can’t you just make Global War better and have rules that everyone understands? If people are still having trouble understanding 7.2 it doesn’t make much sense to make more games.
Bill - Global War-2nd edition IS the improvement to Global War.
-
The Soviet Union as a third alliance should be interesting. So to start there are 3 Alliances and each nation within that alliance has victory objectives to accomplish. The Soviets are expansive, by in large (save for a few) they want to expand the influence of communism - in spain, in china etc….Both the Allies and the Axis want to prevent this but they have other issues - that the Axis are also wanting to expand, so this sets up the dilemma of exactly how much to help the USSR. Too much help and the USSR can roll through Europe at the end of the game. Too little and they can get crushed. So, it is the same dance the Allies did in World War II. Many games can end without the USSR and USA going to war, but they can go to war once one Axis capital falls. The USA loses a victory condition if they do go to war, so it really has to be worth it for the USA to take on the USSR.
Thanks for the info Will.
-
But it sounds like its losing the KISS affect.
-
@SS:
But it sounds like its losing the KISS affect.
It is not a basic game, HBG has several on the website for simple, Operation Unthinkable, Operation Hercules, and Amerika are easy games.
-
@SS:
But it sounds like its losing the KISS affect.
?
-
@SS:
But it sounds like its losing the KISS affect.
?
KISS is a design principle (“keep it simple, stupid”) which argues that things should not be made more complicated than they have to be. I think SS was arguing that the added features of the new version of Global War might perhaps be making the game too unwieldy. On the other hand, I note that HBGWILL’s post said that a lot of the new features are optional extras. Using a few extras per game would probably be fine. Trying to use all of them at once might be another story.
-
@CWO:
KISS is a design principle (“keep it simple, stupid”) which argues that things should not be made more complicated than they have to be. I think SS was arguing that the added features of the new version of Global War might perhaps be making the game too unwieldy. On the other hand, I note that HBGWILL’s post said that a lot of the new features are optional extras. Using a few extras per game would probably be fine. Trying to use all of them at once might be another story.
Ah, thank you for the clarification.
I was encouraged to see that some of the advanced rules were optional, since, generally speaking, I don’t see the need to introduce more phases, players or mechanics which add little worth to the game experience. I am very interested to read the rulebook for GW 1936 and see exactly what the game adds or improves upon.
-
@CWO:
@SS:
But it sounds like its losing the KISS affect.
?
KISS is a design principle (“keep it simple, stupid”) which argues that things should not be made more complicated than they have to be. I think SS was arguing that the added features of the new version of Global War might perhaps be making the game too unwieldy. On the other hand, I note that HBGWILL’s post said that a lot of the new features are optional extras. Using a few extras per game would probably be fine. Trying to use all of them at once might be another story.
LHoffman we posted same time.
CWO is correct on the KISS. As we already know a lot of people just want simple rules.
But really not arguing about it. Just making a statement. Also how do you know if some options you use makes the game unbalanced more or less.
I’m not knocking the game. I will buy it too. Hope there is some body to answer questions for game right away. :wink:
I’m sure a few things have changed in 2nd Edition, may use some of them rules if it makes the 1st Edition better. I hope there’s at least a non drastic land lease rule.
Also waiting for Bud’s rules.
-
@SS:
LHoffman we posted same time.
But really not arguing about it. Just making a statement. Also how do you know if some options you use makes the game unbalanced more or less.
Ha, no worries.
Yes, I believe that Balance is (or at least has become regarded as) THE most important aspect of A&A. Most complaints seem to revolve around it because it is not as simple a fix as editing unit values, for example. The only way to ensure that a game is balanced is to have a group (or preferably multiple groups) playtest the game many times and studiously log data of the game. Even before that, I guess you have to define what balance even means. Is it 50/50 chance of winning based mostly on die rolls? Is it 70/30 in favor of the Allies, meaning that the Axis must both have good strategy and good rolls to beat the more powerful Allies? Or is balance a variable metric that changes as the game goes on?
The very premise of A&A makes it different from many boardgames, where total fairness or even playing field, is expected. There are historical considerations (inequalities) to model as well as a truly complex and interwoven elements of gameplay including politics, multiple unit types and geographic movement. There is little transparent equality in the game (besides perhaps unit values and costs).
If Global War 1936 institutes essentially a 3-team structure (Western Allies, Communists, Axis)… or even if they split Axis victory conditions… the notions of balance as we have understood them in A&A will change dramatically. Maybe they will become more manageable? Maybe they will be harder to reconcile? I am not sure.
I only hope that HBG has playtested the game enough to be confident in the way it is built.
-
I agree. Its just that you guys can write it better than I can. :-D
-
@SS:
I agree. Its just that you guys can write it better than I can. :-D
I did quite a bit in college. I need to work on my brevity. :wink:
-
Is GW2 a traditional turn order based game, or is it all powers simultaneous? I have dabbled with games that do the later and they are pretty cool, but sea movement gets complicated. Is there a mechanic that allows powers of the same alliance to move and attack at the same time?
PS to HBGWILL or coach:
I have already per-ordered GW2 (large map BTW). I know it wont be shipped until the first week of Nov, but is it possible to down load the rules now so I can get familiar with how the game plays? -
@WILD:
Is GW2 a traditional turn order based game, or is it all powers simultaneous?
My impression is that you play in turns as per normal.
-
@WILD:
Is GW2 a traditional turn order based game, or is it all powers simultaneous?
My impression is that you play in turns as per normal.
Yes, That is correct
Suggested Topics
