The communication problem with Kickstarter has been resolved. Out of desperation I re-registered as a complete newbie and then everything worked properly. Kickstarter even recognized my backing of this project. Considering I had been getting Eric’s email updates this seems strange but it worked. It looks like some other backers may have had the same experience.
A big shout out to GEN MANSTEIN for offering to help! Thankfully it is resolved and good to go.
@delaja Thanks! Yeah, I thought it had a decent base to it. Just as you said, I was trying to think specifically in terms of an HBG expansion. I wanted it to stay localized to the area at hand.
My thought for requiring the planes on the islands was to force the player to have to do something to get the bonus convoy raid other than just possessing the territory. True, the overall goal is to bring those islands into the conflict in some way, and by eliminating the need to have a fighter present on either Malta or Sicily you’d still want to defend the islands with troops. But I figured this way either side would have to “give” something to “get” something. You want the convoy raid? Place a fighter in these spots, even if not optimal for potential offensive operations!
I’m certainly happy to chat more about it if you’d like as well! Will and Doug both implied they liked it. But like I said, they said it looked great, and asked if I play tested, and I didn’t hear anything after that. Not saying they had to or anything, but I don’t know how much stock they may have really put in it in the end!
No worries, didn’t think you were saying that! Sometimes I feel like a complain too much about these same issues on the boards, it probably makes me look like I enjoy the game less than I really do haha.
Naw. I get it where your coming from. We went through same thing. Lol. Or maybe not. Lol
Sweet! Well, maybe I’ll give it a day or two to see if anyone else shows interest.
I know I would like to start a game soon, and would be happy to post something. Once we’re all vaccinated and can get together I think we’d like to get one going! I have a 10 month old now, so will be harder for a while, but the game is meant to be kept up anyways haha.
I’ve seen a lot of guys in the past post turn by turn action, and sometimes it’s just a post game wrap up. But I think a lot of people find them fun to read, and can probably glean a lot of tips that way too.
@chris_henry A thought of mine is that even if separate threads are made, we could have a pinned thread with links. That would allow somewhat easy access without tons of overlap.
@Trig That’s a good point, that would also work, and is I suppose the most realistic scenario. I might still ask Dave what he suggests, but that is a good idea!
@GeneralHandGrenade Unsurprising that you have the intel GHG! And ultimately unsurprising this is in the works. They’ve done such a great job with diverse expansions, this was bound to be an area for one. Very intrigued it’s the same designer as Latin America, as I think that Expansion (and China at War) was one of the best thought out ones they’ve done yet! Will be very interested in seeing this in the future, I think it could hold a lot!
I completely agree, I think the Med/North Africa could be a great standalone game. I posted on the forums here years ago how cool it would be to see an A&A game like that done, though really any similar game like that would be great. There’s so much that can be done.
The biggest criticisms I’ve really heard on the topic was that you couldn’t really do a true “final victory”, since any map would obviously not actually include a Berlin as a final destination to take, and that this game wouldn’t feel like you “won the war”. Well, I guess that’s true, but who cares! One needs to look at is as a Theater-level game. You’re objective is victory in the Theater. That might mean taking Rome and Tunis for the Allies, or taking Cairo as the Axis, or it could just mean surviving a certain amount of time.
The other part of this would be how to incorporate the US. Do you start a game on the eve of Operation Torch? Or have a game similar to Global 1940, where the US joins starting a certain turn? I personally would advocate for the later. I’d love to play out a game where I do what I can with British and Commonwealth forces early on, and then see the tide turn with a US entry. I’ve seen complaints of how people think it would be dumb to just have US forces bought/appear from the edge of a map (since the US would presumably not be represented here). Again, I say you’ve got to be able to have fun with a game!
So, this might be a question for those who have played some games with the V3 rules a few times, and/or those who helped play test or help refine (like GHG).
I’m just wondering what changes between the two versions of the game people are bummed about that were taken out of V2, or just altered a lot. I don’t have any experience with V3 yet, other than reading the beta rules on their website once or twice. Would love to get others’ takes on what they might miss or not agree with. Just thinking ahead to the potential of house ruling a bit to revert to V2 if anyone wanted.
A couple potential talking points (and sorry, it’s been a minute since I read through the V3 beta rules, so I might be misremembering):
Variations in unit costs by nation? I think I read that all units of the same type will now cost the same for every nation, right? Does everyone like this rule? My gut reaction is I kind of liked having a little variable there, as it gave different nations different advantages. But on the flip side, I understand from a level playing field perspective how making all the same makes sense. Not to mention it probably simplifies the rules a bit. Any opinions?
Special units. I might be misremembering here, but I thought there were no longer special units, like Volkstrum, Black Shirts, etc. for some nations. How do people feel about that? Do they miss that variation a bit, or is it pointless?
Naval options. I’ve mentioned this before, and have heard how others feel. But again, just curious on thoughts. Do people like all the different naval base and naval unit options now in V3? Or has anyone found it might bog the game down a bit at times? Just curious.
Any missed opportunities for improvement that you think would have been beneficial?
@Credulous Wow. You know, I definitely forgot that the V3 reference sheets have the ships on a separate page. So I was comparing the V2 sheet to the V3 page that had all units EXCEPT naval on them haha. My mistake, thanks for pointing that out.
Now that I’ve actually paid attention to the differences, I definitely agree with you. Cruisers are much more appealing, and allow smaller nations a bigger punch that they may not have had otherwise.
Great point on battleships, The cost difference may otherwise have been worth it, but yeah, if you already have slower ships in your fleet, there’s no reason to pay more for one that can’t move as quickly anyways!
@GeneralHandGrenade thanks GHG. I’m going to have to make that assumption as well. I have a feeling it’s a contradiction though, as they mention what you say above specifically in the “Declarations of War” section. But I’d have to go with your assumption, as there would be no point in any kind of truce being signed otherwise.
Do you have any insight to my second question about the use of CCP income?
@HMS-Serapis Ahhhh there’s our mix up. I’m referring to the Version 2 rules. I don’t plan on playing with Version 3 until they are completed and there’s a full rule set and not a beta draft available! So I hadn’t looked too closely at those.
So yeah, I’m talking about the current Version 2 rules still. But, it sounds like with what Version 3 is going off of, that the rule should probably be that things cannot begin to be researched even until July 1939, in answer to my question. That would be quite the deviation from the Version 2 rules if that were not the case.
@GeneralHandGrenade Thanks GHG, good to know! I’m in no rush for them to be done, was just curious if they’d been on HBG’s radar to update the existing ones, since they would need it to reflect changes. Not surprising this would wait until after V3’s realease!
@GeneralHandGrenade very good point. Hadn’t considered it would negate the bonus Germany gets that first turn at war. Very interesting. Something more to think about for future games! I appreciate you clarifying that whole thing for me.
I definitely get your point, I think it’s a lot of fun to be able to select what you’d want to buy as the minor power. But I guess I understand from a “simplifying the rules” standpoint to make this happen.
That said, I wonder what’s more helpful to those nations. Take Greece for example. Do they have better odds of building a unit with their 1 IPP a turn (assuming that territory wasn’t captured right away, that is)? Or are they better off rolling a D12 and needing a 1, 2 or 3 (again, depending on what was or wasn’t taken) to get an infantry/2 militia? Greece conceivably has as a 25% chance to get a unit if no territory lost right away. Those are pretty decent odds.
I know. I said that if being at war with Abyssinia meant that Italy was at “war” and therefore received their “wartime income”, THEN Italy would have no incentive to attack. Because if they attacked and won then they would cease to be at “war” and would go back down to “peacetime income”. To counter this, I assume the creator made the rule that one must be at war with a Major Power to receive “wartime income”.
I believe “wartime income” should be changed to “Total Mobilization”, or “Total War Economy”, or something of the sort as to avoid confusion.
Heck, perhaps there should be three levels of income. Peacetime (limited troop types can be built), wartime (all troops can be built but you’re not at total war and don’t yet receive “wartime economy” or what I proposed to be “Total War Economy” income bonuses), and “Total War Economy” (you can build anything and receive wartime bonus income).