Fortunes of Victory - New Cards

  • '16

    Thanks for the advice.

    I think HBG’s been out of stock on the Italian pieces for about a month.

    Is there a thread on which we can suggest new pieces? I think that horse cavalry, torpedo boats, and combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.

    I’ve also picked up a copy of the old Civilization boardgame by Eagle Games, a well as some 1:72 pieces by HIT.

    Anyway, more cards tonight.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Trenacker:

    I think HBG’s been out of stock on the Italian pieces for about a month.

    I just checked, they still have some. You have to click on each individual unit to see if there are any left in stock. Some are out though. I clicked on the transport and they have like 153 left or something.

    @Trenacker:

    Is there a thread on which we can suggest new pieces? I think that horse cavalry, torpedo boats, and combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27911.1080    This is more or less the de facto HBG thread on updates and new pieces, both commentary and requests.

    The three you suggested above are cool ideas, but to me they wouldn’t really fit with A&A or Global War. Horse Cavalry may work in A&A 1914, but they played a small role in WWII and are highly inferior to any of the other units you could purchase. The other two just have problems with scale. A torpedo boat force is just too small, un-noteworthy and ineffective on a strategic level compared to all the other sea units in the game. Same with engineers; they are a small, tactical level unit. Axis & Allies as it is has no way to differentiate them from ordinary infantry… the game is just too big for that. If you have some ideas drawn up for them, I would be interested to listen, but in general, I just don’t see how engineers or torpedo boats fit in.

  • '16

    Yeah. I’m waiting for the Italian trucks. Gosh darn it, I want those so badly. They’re on the silhouettes for Global 1940, but the Italian pieces OOB are German copies in dark brown.

    Horse cavalry made an appearance for minor powers. I think it was certainly decisive in many of the secondary theaters.

    I admit that the current set of units mostly accounts for all the strategic level considerations. Nonetheless, smaller “auxiliary” craft would still be neat. And combat engineers are no less tactical than, say, self-propelled artillery, which is a popular addition.

  • Customizer

    Trenacker & others,

    @Trenacker:

    combat engineers are obvious next sculpts.
    ––After closely studying HBG’s evolution of their Global Warfare-1939 and then their up-coming 1936 / 1939 version I think that there’s a very good chance of having Engineers / Naval “Sea Bees” to go along with their emphasis on several levels of
    air field / air base / seaplane bases.

    Tall Paul

  • '16

    Where can I learn more about their 1936 version?

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Trenacker:

    Horse cavalry made an appearance for minor powers. I think it was certainly decisive in many of the secondary theaters.

    Sure, I agree… I would say perhaps even tertiary theaters as opposed to secondary though. Axis & Allies does not have the scale to focus on third-rate theaters. Why would you have mounted cavalry in a given territory when you could more easily have a tank or mechanized infantry unit in the same place with better attack, defend and movement attributes?

    @Trenacker:

    I admit that the current set of units mostly accounts for all the strategic level considerations. Nonetheless, smaller “auxiliary” craft would still be neat. And combat engineers are no less tactical than, say, self-propelled artillery, which is a popular addition.

    The difference with self-propelled artillery is that it is easily distinguished from normal artillery: you simply add +1 to movement capability. Adding SPA also does not further complicate the game as engineers would. You would need a whole new set of rules for engineers.

    Not that this is impossible to implement or wrong to attempt, my point is only that SPA is far more seamlessly integrated to existing play at the strategic level than engineers would be.

    What would you intend for the role of engineers to be? Does having their presence imply the use of fortifications also? If so, we are not entirely on the same page of what level of customization we are talking about.

  • '16

    @LHoffman:

    Sure, I agree… I would say perhaps even tertiary theaters as opposed to secondary though. Axis & Allies does not have the scale to focus on third-rate theaters. Why would you have mounted cavalry in a given territory when you could more easily have a tank or mechanized infantry unit in the same place with better attack, defend and movement attributes?

    I think it’s a question of placing horse cavalry in certain theaters at the start of the game. I agree that this is really viable only on the Global maps sold by HBG and the larger maps possible in TripleA.

    @LHoffman:

    The difference with self-propelled artillery is that it is easily distinguished from normal artillery: you simply add +1 to movement capability. Adding SPA also does not further complicate the game as engineers would. You would need a whole new set of rules for engineers.

    Not that this is impossible to implement or wrong to attempt, my point is only that SPA is far more seamlessly integrated to existing play at the strategic level than engineers would be.

    Sure, I would agree with that.

    @LHoffman:

    What would you intend for the role of engineers to be? Does having their presence imply the use of fortifications also? If so, we are not entirely on the same page of what level of customization we are talking about.

    The other evening, I added Combat Engineers to my card list, with rules. They can clear the “minefields” improvement and also build both entrenchments and fortifications.

    A lot of the secondary units offered by HBG, FMG, and other retailers are superfluous to the current game design and functionally redundant on the current maps. Their addition is also hampered by the d6 system. I’m envisioning something much larger, working with at least a d12, as well as a much larger map. My theory is that if people are willing to play a 10+ hour game, they will be willing to play a much longer one also.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Trenacker:

    I think it’s a question of placing horse cavalry in certain theaters at the start of the game. I agree that this is really viable only on the Global maps sold by HBG and the larger maps possible in TripleA.

    I could understand having mounted cavalry units to begin the game… however not in A&A/HBG Global War. Again, the global scale is far too big to include such a (relatively) limited use unit. Now as for a much larger and more detailed game…

    @Trenacker:

    The other evening, I added Combat Engineers to my card list, with rules. They can clear the “minefields” improvement and also build both entrenchments and fortifications.

    A lot of the secondary units offered by HBG, FMG, and other retailers are superfluous to the current game design and functionally redundant on the current maps. Their addition is also hampered by the d6 system. I’m envisioning something much larger, working with at least a d12, as well as a much larger map. My theory is that if people are willing to play a 10+ hour game, they will be willing to play a much longer one also.

    … Now I see where the disconnect is. My frame of reference for ‘customization’ related to modifying A&A/HBG Global War roughly on the scale they currently are. That means D6, same/similar number of territories and general map size and global strategic level gameplay.

    Your ambition is big and very cool. I would count myself among many who always want for a bigger map with more units, more territories and more detail. I am one of those who is willing to play a 10-hour game and would also play one far longer. But my design (for my own purposes) is a little more practical. I return to my comment about simplicity… Axis&Allies is already a relatively complex boardgame, but it is quite user-friendly with some experience. The more you add phases, space and options, the more you will slow down individual turns and the game. The simpler and more straightforward the rules and units are, the more fun the game will be. I do believe that there is a sweet spot of ideal gameplay between basic and gigantic. (Basic being the A&A Original/Revised scale and gigantic being something larger and more detailed than Global 40/Global War.)

    Your “much larger map” will have to be truly gigantic if you intend to model fortifications, entrenchments and minefields. There may be limited ways to model an amalgamation of these things at the Global War scale, but you are suggesting something that is very tactical. You would almost have to have a game on the scale of a region (A&A D-Day) or an individual city to make minefields, entrenchments and engineers to be individual game components.

  • '16

    I’m thinking of some of the maps already seen on TripleA.

    Minefields are perhaps too much. I think cavalry are quite viable for a game that covers the WW1 or interwar eras.

    In this case, enrichments and fortifications will mean a fortified territory or a trench network of very large scale. More like a series of forts and strongpoints.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Trenacker:

    I’m thinking of some of the maps already seen on TripleA.

    Minefields are perhaps too much. I think cavalry are quite viable for a game that covers the WW1 or interwar eras.

    In this case, enrichments and fortifications will mean a fortified territory or a trench network of very large scale. More like a series of forts and strongpoints.

    Been a very long time since I played TripleA, and I did not experiment much, so your horizons are broader than mine.

    And I wondered after the fact if you meant fortifications on the scale of the Maginot Line or Atlantic Wall as opposed to something much more localized. That does make sense.

  • '16

    Some pieces and counters out of Memoir 44 and Tides of Iron have proved inspiring, although both are tactical games.

    I don’t think it can be overstated to what degree adding new units is superfluous. I think that needs to be accepted up front. The current games are really complete in themselves. Even cruisers are really unnecessary. Probably tac bombers too. What’s really missing are transport aircraft.

    The HBG map does include city regions. For example, the island of Singapore.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Trenacker:

    I don’t think it can be overstated to what degree adding new units is superfluous. I think that needs to be accepted up front. The current games are really complete in themselves. Even cruisers are really unnecessary. Probably tac bombers too. What’s really missing are transport aircraft.

    Oh, I do agree. A&A was, and is, entirely playable in the Revised (2001/02) format. Tac bombers and cruisers are superfluous particularly for that version. However, with a larger map and more money to spend, they gain a level of usefulness even if they are not essential.

    But, as customizers, everything we are doing is superfluous almost by definition.  :roll:

    @Trenacker:

    The HBG map does include city regions. For example, the island of Singapore.

    Yes, but it is still an entire territory without urban definition. The territory may be named for the city-region itself, but it is exactly like any other territory on the board and geographically far larger than the actual city itself.

  • '16

    You’ve got it. If the territory is “Washington, D.C.,” then we’re approximating the National Capital Region, for example. In terms of fortifications, a Civil War-era analogy would be the ring of defensive forts and strongpoints around the capital city, which extended as far south as Northern Virginia.

    Also, has anyone gotten to take a gander at the card list yet?

  • '16

    So… anybody? xD Is it that nobody’s had a chance to look, or nobody thinks it’s worthwhile?

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Trenacker:

    Also, has anyone gotten to take a gander at the card list yet?

    I assume these are the ones you sent to me?

  • '16

    No. I am referring to the list on the GoogeDrive to which I linked a few posts ago.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    Oh, I will go back and take a look.

  • '16

    I’ve also begun to write up some house rules for use with the deck, and I’ll post that once I’ve made a bit more progress.

    Again, the draft deck can be reviewed here.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    Going to be out of touch for a few days. Will review when able.

  • '16

    Sure. Enjoy! 🙂

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    First off, I think your cards require some amount of background information on rules and map you intend to use.

    Secondly, even though these responses may appear critical, I do not mean to come off as completely condemning. I tend to point out holes or questions that immediately come to mind.

    Third, to help others understand my comments or participate, you may want to repost your cards as images embedded in the thread. Will just make it a bit easier.

    Fourth, I am going to address only the ones I attached as files earlier in the thread.

    Auxiliary Cruisers
    Purely as a card, I like this one. It is beautifully underpowered, if I may describe it so. In a big ocean, with isolated transports this would be kinda cool. Unfortunately in A&A, that rarely, if ever, happens. It may actually be too underpowered for its own good (A1 D1). To increase utility a bit, I might bump that up to A2 D1.
    Also the name is a little misleading for how weak the ship is. This should probably be called an Aux Destroyer or Destroyer Escort rather than Cruiser. If this is a Germany only card, it might be better to call it a Commerce Raider.
    I like the Withdraw and False Flag special abilities. Neutral Ports basically ensures that the ship will always get to move 3 because of how many neutral countries are on the board. Although 3 specials for one unit may be a bit much.
    In the grand scheme of things, this ship will likely be utterly insignificant if there are only one of these on the board.

    Deutsches Afrika Korps
    Attack and defense are high for a mechanized unit (A2 D3). By attacking at +1 first round of combat do you mean rnd 1 attack is 3?
    Why is move only 1 for a mechanized unit?
    Tripoli is not even denoted on the G40 map? Are you using different territories?
    The name Deutsches Afrika Korps for a single unit seems a little inappropriate. Other than the unit being playable in Africa, I do not understand the name of an entire expeditionary army being used for a single unit.

    General “Vinegar Joe” Stillwell
    Is this a one-time use card or does it count for the whole game? If for the whole game then it is pretty significant. Also, I am not partial to “leader” type cards, but that is a personal preference.

    King’s African Rifles
    Again, I do not mind this card. It is probably a good representation of native troops (A1 D1) versus normal army infantry (A1 D2). How do you intend to distinguish this unit from others? As with the Aux. Cruiser, this will likely be insignificant in the grand scheme. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    Legion Entrengere
    Is this the French Foreign Legion? This is a good card. These infantry are the same as regular infantry. It is one time only. Defending at 3 during first rnd of combat is pretty powerful.

    Salvage Operations
    Interesting card. I assume this can be used for anyone. Looks exactly like the Soviet NA from Revised “Salvage” except that it is you get one if you lose one rather than you get one if you kill one.

    Torpedo Squadron
    This one is a little odd. First, it is a downgrade from a regular tactical bomber: Defense 2, Move 1?! By “Attack 3 (Naval units only)” I am assuming you are relegating this unit to only attacking ships. You are also implying that you have dedicated naval and land based planes.

    Undersea Cruisers
    I don’t really get this one. It is a cruiser but counts as a submarine? It has better attack and defense values (A3 D2) than a sub.
    Floatplane:  “May re-roll one attack die during first round of combat.”… This sounds rather redundant since you only get one roll during the first round of combat.

  • '16

    Thanks for the feedback!

    I intend that these would be used on the HBG Global 1939 map, or else on a map of similar size.

    I’d love your feedback on the larger list of cards found on my Google Drive. Are you having trouble accessing that?

    Commerce raiding was traditionally carried out by vessels known as auxiliary cruisers. It is, in fact, a commerce raider. I agree that this unit would probably not be worthwhile unless there were quite a lot of sea zones added to the standard map.

    The DAK unit is intended to simulate a corps. That’s consistent with A&A’s level of abstraction. I agree that the speed is “off.” I wasn’t looking at the G40 map when I made the card, but at the HBG G1939 map, although I can easily change “Tripoli” to “Libya.”

    Vinegar Joe is actually a unit that grants a +1 to attack and defense in the territory that he occupies. He moves 1. It is intended to be used the whole game.

    The KAR is a flavor unit and is not really meant to influence the game in a major way.

    The Legion Etrengere is indeed the French Foreign Legion.

    Salvage Operations is just a knock-off, yeah.

    The Torpedo Squadron is intended to be geared toward naval combat. Again, on a much bigger map.

    The Undersea Cruiser was a concept pioneered by the French Surcouf. The idea is that it would be somewhere between a sub and a cruiser in strength.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    If I have time, I will go back to the google drive and look the others over. However, as I said, it would be much easier for me and others to participate in the discussion if you just embedded the cards here. Or even attached them to posts, something you should have privileges to do by now.

    It is difficult for me to give you accurate feedback on the cards without a more defined scope of the game you intend for them to be used in. My impression is that this game or board does not truly exist yet, since you like the GW39 map but would like a bigger one. That is not wrong, it just poses problems because it can be difficult to evaluate individual unit or card value if you don’t know what they will be played on… or, more importantly, the rule set used. I am not saying you must define this completely, it just appears that your scale is much grander than G40 and some of the unit characteristics are different.

    All that said, there are elements here that I do like and others that don’t really fit my tastes.

    Salvage may be a ripoff, but it is a good and simple little advantage. I would impose some more qualifiers to the card though. Only in one territory per round, only so many times a game… something like that. Unless you intend for it to be unlimited, which may become kinda ridiculous. Like a self-regenerating army.

    The French Foreign Legion is also simple and readily implemented. Gives France a minute amount of added purpose and puts a few pebbles in the way of the Axis advance.

    You are correct about the Afrika Korps unit name.

    The Torpedo Squadron card name just seems kind of generic. Do you intend that there will be more than one of these cards? Or that it is usable by multiple Powers?

  • '16

    There are so many ideas, I don’t want to invest in developing full cards for them until they’re vetted.

    And yes, the first thing to do probably would be to design a new map. Do you know of anybody who is interested in that sort of thing? I’m afraid I wouldn’t know where to start.

    Yes, the Torpedo Squadrons were supposed to be generic. They are a general unit.

    Basically, the player plays X IPC’s to play a card from their hand. If it’s a unit, that unit is placed during the deployment phase. If it is an action like Salvage, they get to do that once, unless otherwise specified. I have tried to cost out everything appropriately.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Trenacker:

    And yes, the first thing to do probably would be to design a new map. Do you know of anybody who is interested in that sort of thing? I’m afraid I wouldn’t know where to start.

    A lot of people here modify existing maps like G40 and earlier ones, but those keep essentially the same size and number of territories, so I doubt it would suit your purposes.

    I am very interested in re-drawing a map and in fact have already begun. I am not satisfied with G40 OOB map as I would like many of the territories revised and a slightly larger size. I like the HBG Global War 39 map; size is better and territories are better, but it still has flaws (for my purposes). I am not completely confident in HBGs GW39 2nd Ed. map yet either, though the design has improved.

    Anyway, I have blown up a picture of the GW39 map and have been tracing out the territories and sea zones so I have a base from which to modify things. I am still early in the process. I imagine the end size will be the same as HBGs large map 47" x 96"… although I am considering revising the aspect ratio so that certain landforms are not so distorted.

    @Trenacker:

    Basically, the player plays X IPC’s to play a card from their hand. If it’s a unit, that unit is placed during the deployment phase. If it is an action like Salvage, they get to do that once, unless otherwise specified. I have tried to cost out everything appropriately.

    I see. I didn’t know there was a cost to play the card. Did you say how cards are collected? Are they just one per turn or do you get them after completing objectives? I hope you don’t have to buy them, because it would be less worthwhile if you have to pay for the card and then pay again to use it.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

72
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts