cross pollination


  • 2019 2018

    Sooooooo, cross pollination between AnA and War Room?


  • 2019 2018

    In what sense? Using A&A units/rules on the war room map or vice versa?


  • 2017 Customizer

    Yeah…not sure understand the statement…


  • 2019 2018

    Variable turn order to start. Double blind orders/fog of war. Air battles as separate events.rails


  • 2019 2018

    UBidding for turn order, simultaneous resolution


  • 2019 2018

    Command tokens, limited moves


  • 2019 2018

    I think bidding for turn order could be useful in the A&A system. More often than not the static turn order is what enables a lot of the dumber strategies out there (Italy-Germany can-openers against Russia, UK/US can-openers against Germany, etc., sinking entire fleets on the first turn of the game, etc.).

    EDIT: In future A&A games, I mean.


  • 2017 Customizer

    War Room is a different game. I think A&A players, like myself, are trying to tweak and combine the games but I do not see much opportunity. A&A has been around for so long a lot of house rules are out there or have been tried. Instead, I would say Sireblood’s Bloodbath rules for A&A. Not sure we should try to merge the two, let each be its own game.



  • Axis and Allies G40 is a game unto itself.

    War Room is a game unto itself.

    I understand the compulsion to cross pollinate the games because the main core of players who have War Room are fans of Larry and his A&A line of games.

    I think the games have different motivations and mechanics that make them stand on their own. Now that is just MO. You do what you want when it comes to house rules.

    The one thing that I caution against is that War Room is a new experience for all of us. No need to knee jerk react to certain aspects of War Room and say Game X does it better so I will house rule Game X’s “view” into War Room.

    I think World in Flames variable ending to turns, where you have no idea when a turn will end is superior to every WWII game that I have played. Yet, I feel that is a unique feature to WiF and feel there is no need to import that aspect into lets say G40 or War Room.

    For people to understand one of the unique aspects of War Room, that you can only move 9 commands. Import that into AA G40 and see how much it changes the game. Because if you import the G40 idea that on your turn you can move every unit on the board if you so desire will totally destroy War Room as a game.

    One negative of G40 and War Room is that Larry never put a finite end to these “games”. Thus that ensures the Allies will always win in less the Axis go hog wild early in the game. Thus the Axis never have to actually think ahead and play a defensive game. Games like WiF, SPI ETO, and Third Reich have a finite end to the war. If the Allies have not won and the Axis have not won by Sept of 1945 the “game” ends in a draw. Larry is obviously not a fan of a draw in his games, :}

    Imagine if G40 or War Room had a finite end to the game. If the Allies have not won by the end of Turn #18 the game is a draw.


  • 2019 2018

    @PainState While I agree that you can’t just go slapping rules from one game to another haphazardly, it’s a bit disingenuous to disqualify all discussion of the idea. People have house-rule’d G40 to hell and back over the years. There’s no reason why examining the ideas presented by another game can’t be beneficial to communities that want to spice up their game.

    This is a bit off-topic, but while I disagree with the concept of limited turns for a WW2 Game (neither side in that conflict would have accepted a truce, especially not the Allies or the Nazis), I do enjoy the extra dynamic of “racing against the clock” that it adds to games. Face-to-Face Tournaments for Axis and Allies games impose a time-limit, which usually roughly equates to 5-6 full rounds. This results in strategies being employed by both sides that are noticeably different than “standard” play you’d see in an online league where games continue indefinitely. IMO, the time limit works great and ensures that more unique or “gimmicky” strategies have the potential to be viable.

    Interested to hear more about WiF’s end-of-turn mechanic, if you don’t mind. I haven’t played that game before so I’m interested to hear your take.

    EDIT: Typos.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13

    I do agree with the last 2 comments.
    As far as combined let that be for now.
    As far as axis winning out right I believe takes to long. But every body has there perfected way of playing. As a host of 100 games now the best scenario is a game being played in 1 day.
    Like my game starts dec 41-42
    So every 3 turns is one year = 11-12 turns
    But they mostly don’t get that far in games. If axis are gonna win it will be mostly T6-T9
    I’m just saying as mentioned where if it’s end of 45 and neither side has won it’s a draw but technically it’s not. It’s an Allies win IMO.
    As I said I respect everybody’s way how they want to play whether it’s for just game play or a bit more historically.


  • 2019 2018 2017

    @DoManMacgee said in cross pollination:

    {snip}
    Interested to hear more about WiF’s end-of-turn mechanic, if you don’t mind. I haven’t played that game before so I’m interested to hear your take.

    EDIT: Typos.

    Here is a short blurb about WiF’s end-of-turn mechanic. For reference, every turn in the game lasts two months, from Jan/Feb to Nov/Dec, with set starting dates for the different scenarios in the base game:
    “D) Action stage: (Steps D1 through D3 are repeated until the action stage ends)
    D1) Determine Weather
    {snip}
    D2) First side’s impulse
    {snip}
    D2.1) Declare war
    {snip}
    D2.2) Choose one of the actions: Pass, Naval, Air, Land, or Combined.
    {snip}
    D2.3) Perform actions
    {snip}
    D2.4) End of Action stage. The acting side rolls a d10 and compares it to the number on the Impulse track. If the rolled number is less than or equal to the impulse track the turn will end. Some sides may both start and end the turn with an impulse. If the occurs, the initiative goes -1 toward the other side. If all major countries on one side pass, the die roll is -2, if all but one pass, the die roll is -1. Each side must play two impulses each before the turn may end.[i] Here is what the impulse track looks like, the small number in the bottom right is what is used to roll for the end of a turn.”
    A screenshot of the impulse track:
    A picture of the impulse track from World in Flames(Source)

    I hope that helps.

    -Midnight_Reaper


  • 2019 2018

    War room isn’t a new game to me. I’ve also house ruled a game of ana with fog of war years ago. A year ago I played with multinational forces. Some of the components will fit into ana seamlessly. Much Ado about nothing. Others like limited with ana or unlimited orders with war Room will create a third or fourth thing. I, for one, will enjoy taking them out for a spin.


  • 2019 2018

    @Midnight_Reaper Thanks for this. Sounds like it would suck to lose actions to bad RNG but I imagine there must be some kind of way you can mitigate it by paying resources or whatever.


  • 2019 2018 2017

    @DoManMacgee: The only mitigation is that both sides get at least two turns of orders before the turn might end. First one side (either Axis or Allied) gets a turn to do 1 of 4 things, then the other side gets a turn, then back, then forth, and then back again and things might end on that turn, they might keep going.

    Still, before taking that snippet as gospel, you might want to read the whole “World in Flames” rule book, all infinty-1 pages of them…

    -Midnight_Reaper



  • I would like to see a future edition of Axis & Allies adopt War Room’s economic setup (Oil, Iron, OSR) could use cardboard token chips for resources instead of printed IPCs. Helps create differentiation between the powers. Some have certain resources in vulnerable places.

    I would also perhaps like to see contested territory (like A&A 1914) be adopted for a Anniversary Edition successor game. Perhaps battles would last 2 rounds maximum, rather than the one of 1914 or limitless combat of older A&A. Perhaps instead of variable turn order, oil could be spent to make a crucial battle go one more round.

    I have also wanted attacker targeting in A&A for a while, and that could be a variant on the colored dice.
    (Attacker targeting means rolling units in groups by value. A roll of ‘2’ to hit means you can assign it to an enemy unit of equal or lesser value. Planes can shoot planes down, tanks shoot tanks, etc)


  • 2019 2018

    Great thoughts



  • @oztea

    My group did play one game of Global using the A&A 1914 contested territory concept and it did change up the game dramatically. The biggest change was the concept of you just push all in with everything you have and you either win/lose.

    Way back in the day we use to play A&A with the blind set up. Two tables, axis on one side and allies the other. There would be a ref or moderator to run the game. Neither side knew what the other side was building or how they where moving. There were rules for recon missions and so forth. It did change up the game big time with the fog of war dynamic of playing blind.


  • 2019 2018

    @PainState tremendous! That’ll keep 'em coming back for more!


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts