Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Trenacker
    3. Posts
    T
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 20
    • Posts 172
    • Best 5
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 1

    Posts made by Trenacker

    • HBG Global 1914 Map

      I took a gander at HBG’s global 1914 map today. And I realized something.

      The 1914 map actually accommodates more potential players than A&A G1940, 2nd ed. At present, G1940 includes nine powers, two of which are “full” minors that usually do not survive the first round of play: US, China, UK, ANZAC, Soviet Russia, and France. They are arrayed against Germany, Italy, and Japan. Some players add a UK FEC as another, major power.

      On the 1914 map, all of these powers are viable, plus at least two more: Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. You also get a more robust China. Further, I think it would be possible to add the Portuguese Empire, giving them Brazil, along with Argentina. Given that France will presumably stick around a few more turns, you can then add the BeneLux, with its colonies in Africa and the DEI.

      You can, of course, by adding HBG pieces, play from '14 through '45.

      Has anybody ever tried this?

      posted in Customizations
      T
      Trenacker
    • FMG Issue

      Has anybody else had trouble checking out from their site using the “pay with PayPal” option? I can’t seem to figure out how to get from my electronic shopping cart to the point where I actually transmit payment. I’ve e-mailed them, but nobody’s responded.

      posted in Marketplace
      T
      Trenacker
    • RE: Fortunes of Victory - New Cards

      Those are indeed pretty awesome.

      I’ll send my samples over now. I’m especially interested in feedback on style, to begin with. I designed these with Microsoft PowerPoint 2013 and the trial version of SnagIt. I have no skill in Photoshop, but I’m open to suggestions about how to improve the appearance of the cards. I want to be able to create a template that can be easily edited.

      The roundels are all images from a Google search. I sometimes add a white base to make them easier to identify against the various backgrounds.

      The diagonal stripes running across the left corner of each card is color-coded according to card type, although there is also a silhouette that communicates the same information. Probably the stripes are more elegant, but the silhouettes were too neat to remove without soliciting additional feedback.

      I’d love to add flavor text, but the cards seem crowded enough as is.

      The idea is that there will be cards corresponding to units, leaders, events or conditions, and technologies.

      Every player begins with a selection of cards representing various units, leaders, events, and technologies specific to their nation. They may later draw from both national and generic decks.

      Figure, every card has got to have:

      • A nifty picture corresponding to the unit, event, or technology in question.

      • A short, crisp, clear instruction that explains how it affects gameplay.

      • A roundel or other device indicating which nation is eligible to play the card.

      • A symbol corresponding to the type of card.

      • A cost.

      I am, of course, open to input on the gameplay impact of the various cards.

      My intent is that the “unit” cards will represent army divisions, naval squadrons, or air groups. Special units can be represented with special markers or pieces obtained from the secondary market.

      posted in Customizations
      T
      Trenacker
    • RE: Fortunes of Victory - New Cards

      Aside from Danny Boy’s 2012 proposals and the old Fortunes of Victory set, I haven’t seen any other card sets. I’d love to.

      I’ll send you a PM.

      posted in Customizations
      T
      Trenacker
    • RE: Cards for Axis and Allies 1940

      I’ve put together a sample card for General “Vinegar Joe” Stillwell, if anyone’s interested.

      posted in House Rules
      T
      Trenacker
    • Fortunes of Victory - New Cards

      Inspired by Dreadnaughts “Fortunes of Victory” concept, I made a few cards of my own.

      The idea is that each player will begin the game with a random hand of cards that provide certain bonuses. There are unit cards, tactics cards, and technology cards. Unit cards allow the player to pay some cost for the creation of a unit. Tactics cards allow the player to perform a certain action (e.g., re-rolls, place a unit for free under certain conditions). Technology cards allow the player to invest in a specific Breakthrough.

      The idea is that each player will begin the game with a random hand of between three and five cards specific to their nation and then draw one card from any of three common decks each round during their Income phase. Players will be able to play cards at any time.

      I don’t have anyplace to upload the images, but if people want to share their e-mail addresses, I’m more than happy to send the cards.

      I made them in PowerPoint and snipped them with SnagIt. They aren’t perfect, and could probably use some attention from somebody with Photoshop or a similar program, although I think they’d be just fine for House Rules play.

      posted in Customizations
      T
      Trenacker
    • RE: Axis and Allies Battle at the Lakeside

      I’m looking forward to attending the new event this year.

      Any tips on what to bring and what to expect in terms of amenities on-site?

      It looks as if you can get a room with a kitchenette. I’ve had success with crock pots in the past. Should I bring cash for pizza or group meals?

      Also, do we game in a conference room?

      Thanks!

      posted in Events
      T
      Trenacker
    • RE: Adding Minor Powers and New Units

      Thanks for all the terrific responses.

      CWO Marc, I think that there are enough games out there that prosper in terms of obliging collectors to buy all the little pieces (see HeroClix, for example) that a pay-to-print format for games sales would probably prove sustainable.

      There’s been a boardgaming boom the past few years, and while I agree that A&A requires more investment than the average gamer is willing to commit, I don’t see how the market gets any more primed from here on out.

      I appreciate the comments about the trajectory of A&A from a design and marketing standpoint. I’ve heard informally from more in-tune players that the problem is financial. A&A sells, but the return-on-investment is dramatically less than other WoTC properties, specifically Magic: The Gathering. As a result, company resources are being front-loaded elsewhere, leaving A&A to wither on the vine.

      In terms of gameplay mechanics, I feel that the best players of A&A (and all similar games) do commit to the math. That is, they know exactly how much “oomph!” they’re going to glean from every IPC spent, and they choose the optimal mix of units on that basis, rather than on what “seems” wise. I’ve never been able to do it myself, but I know that, from a design perspective, it would dramatically impact new unit design.

      There are various different options for new units. They could simply have different stats and costs as compared to existing options. They could have different special abilities. They could have new special abilities, such as the ability to attack at a different weight during the initial round or attack or defense, or the ability to select targets.

      The “What If?” factor is, I think, a good reason for introducing Siam and Finland, at least, as playable nations, and I don’t think that either are worth the squeeze without being paired with Manchukuo and the Balkan/Carthapian Axis powers, respectively. I do feel that Italy and France can stand more or less alone, especially in games played by amateurs.

      posted in Customizations
      T
      Trenacker
    • Adding Minor Powers and New Units

      What’s the probability that, in some future version of A&A, we’ll get new minors?

      • First, the span of play is reduced. Even if the nation is a colonial power, the number of units is few enough to constrain the potential strategies. I find them easier to manage than larger counterparts that are expected to drive gameplay.

      • Second, there is a higher premium placed upon coordination, which I find both fun and challenging. While it is inadvisible for the German and Japanese players not to coordinate, or the U.S. and the Soviets, it is essential that Germany and Italy or Britain and France do so.

      • Third, the smaller nations are especially interesting from a political perspective. What if Italy had remained neutral? What if Finland had been reoccupied by the Soviets in 1940?

      1. British Far East Command.

      2. Axis Minors (Europe).

      3. Axis Minors (Asia).

      4. Brazil (and Argentina).

      • Adding new minors will divert essential IPCs from more consequential nations. Not so. In the case of the bFEC, the point is moot: the British would have to spend some of those IPCs in Asia anyway if they intended to hold the line against the Japanese. In the case of the Axis Minors, I think the problem could be solved by adding additional territories on the game board to bolster the economies of the major powers relative to the new additions. It’s certainly been done in some of the scenarios developed for the Triple A software, as well as on the Global 1939 map by HBG.com.

      • Adding new minors will make an already long game that much longer. If you’re playing A&A 1940 Global 2nd ed., you’re already investing ten hours of your day. At that point, you’re so fully committed that even three or four more hours of gameplay becomes a negligible addition. If the original game, involving five powers, could be played by just two players in a pinch, then it shouldn’t be too much trouble to incorporate variant rules that would do away with the lesser nations and allow the British player to control the Empire, or Germany to control all of Europe.

      • Adding rules and pieces for new minors, and expanding the map to accommodate them, will be too costly in terms of production. This is the strongest counter to the existing arguments, but the new print-on-demand sales format pioneered by Fantasy Flight provides one obvious solution to the new pieces problem: sell expansion sets with unique pieces for minor powers in a manner that obliges players to commit to purchase before the product goes to print. As much as it hurts to say it, the rules can also be relegated to electronic format and posted online. To compensate, they should have high production value. Some of the electronic documents included in Triple A scenarios already rise to the right level.

      Well, okay. I’m at least interested in hearing more. Tell me about your ideas for new units.

      Land Units

      • Airborne Infantry. Paratroopers. Cost: 3 Attack: 1 Defense: 1 Move: 1. Unique sculpt included for all nations. Available only when technology is purchased.

      • Commando. Cost: 4 Attack: 2 Defense: 2 Move: 1. U.K. special unit. May use Paratrooper special ability immediately.

      • Commonwealth Infantry. Cost: 2 Attack: 1 Defense: 1 Move: 1. bFEC special unit. One unit appears free in Calcutta HQ every other turn, beginning on the placement phase immediately following hostilities between bFEC and Japan.

      • Panzergrenadier. Cost: 5 Attack: 2 Defense: 2 Move: 1. German special unit. When paired with tank, +1 to attack. When paired with artillery, +1 to defense.

      • Foreign Legionnaire. Cost: - Attack: 2 Defense: 3 Move: 1. French special unit. Cannot be produced. During setup, one each in Algeria, Indochina, and Syria.

      • Marine. Cost: 4 Attack: 1 Defense: 2 Move: 1. U.S. special unit. Attacks at 2 for the first round of an amphibious assault.

      • Mechanized Infantry. Name changed to Motorized Infantry.

      • Self-Propelled Artillery. Cost: 5 Attack: 2 Defense: 2 Move: 2. Blitz. Can support Infantry and Motorized Infantry. May choose casualties during combat phase.

      Air Units

      • Torpedo Bomber. Cost: 11 Attack: 3 Defense: 1 Move: 3.  May attack sea units only. May choose casualties during combat phase.

      • Air Transport. Cost: 7 Attack: 0 Defense: 0 Move: 4. Can transport 1 Infantry. Chosen last in combat.

      Sea Units

      • Torpedo Boat. Cost: 6 Attack: 2 Defense: 0 Move: 1. Chance to Evade sea units.

      • Torpedo Boat. Cost: 6 Attack: 2 Defense: 0 Move: 1. Italian special unit. May choose casualties during combat phase.

      posted in Customizations
      T
      Trenacker
    • RE: The American Front: An Alternate History Map For A&A 1914

      Probably Confederate infantry attire would strongly resemble British or French kit, to include either the Adrian, or, even more likely, the Brodie helmet.

      One imagines that the Union would take its cues from the Germans, or, even more likely, the Russians, meaning either no helmet, or else some version of the stahlhlem. It’s also possible that one might see a distinctive steel hat more akin to the M1, or even a kind of “stovepipe” or “top hat” in steel.

      I’m trying hard to think up certain National Advantages. Perhaps Confederate cavalry would be able to execute a kind of blitzkrieg. Would it be likely that a nation without much native automobile production, but having to cover a long border with a relatively small standing army, would develop a heavy emphasis on motorization?

      As early as Bull Run, both armies were learning the military value of railroads.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      T
      Trenacker
    • RE: The American Front: An Alternate History Map For A&A 1914

      Given their traditional experimentation with cutting-edge naval technologies during the Civil War (e.g., ironclads, submarines, and naval mines), the Confederacy might be expected to continue that tradition in subsequent years. I could see early adoption of torpedo boats and continued interest in submarine warfare, for example. Given their relatively smaller economy and strong relationship with the British, I don’t see the Confederacy attempting to construct a battle fleet of any significance, however.

      Battlecruisers, or ships of that style, fit the character of the Confederacy more than do dreadnaughts, although your point is well taken that the battlecruiser is a much later design.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      T
      Trenacker
    • RE: The American Front: An Alternate History Map For A&A 1914

      For several years, I’ve worked on design teams for political-military simulations that include alternate histories of the Civil War.

      Generally speaking, the design teams have always agreed that the die is already cast by 1860 for reasons of economy and political economy: if the United States is in the hands of a skilled played, the Confederate States can have no chance of winning a general war. The idea is that they will simply be out-produced and out-governed by a much more populous, much richer, much more industrial, much more cohesive northern neighbor. We therefore tend to design the alternate history for North America with the intention of providing the South with as much an advantage as possible. Since your intent is to develop a fun wargame that leaves some possibility for a Southern victory, you may find my comments interesting. (I certainly hope that you do!)

      We begin, like Turtledove, with a Southern victory at Antietam. We then followed that with Anglo-French intervention by land and sea. As in Turtledove’s narrative, the South manages to leave the Union with Kentucky, portions of what is today West Virginia, the Unorganized (later, Indian) Territory, and the Confederate Arizona Territory (south of the 34th parallel). Significant populations of southern sympathizers are presumed to remain in Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri.

      Like Turtledove, we also posit that a second war sometime in the early 1880s legitimized Confederate annexation of Chihuahua and Sonora. We judged that the Confederate Army would have benefited from a more pronounced martial culture, whereas institutional military training would have languished in the North owing to the bitterness felt over the resignation from the regular army of so many West Point graduates in 1861. As a consequence of obtaining British and French intercession, the Confederacy was forced to effect manumission, although it is quickly replaced by a system of what would today be called petty apartheid and debt peonage. (In other the words, Southern society, and the black predicament, are essentially unchanged.)

      Before, during, and after the Second War Between the States, the Confederacy builds substantial fixed defenses along the Ohio and Potomac Rivers. During the war, they effectively employ cavalry (and a small camelry) in the West, along with commerce raiders that prey on Northern whaling fleets.

      By 1914, the Confederacy has industrialized, but only to an extent. It is held back by (A) the weakness and poverty of its federal government, (B) the high number of uneducated persons relative to the total Southern population, and © studied attempts by both the British and French to keep the Confederacy from emerging as an independent competitor, as well as to prevent intrusion of Confederate raw goods into markets reserved for trade from imperial colonies. Nonetheless, the Confederacy has a small arms industry centered around the Tredegar Iron Works at Richmond and the industrial city of Birmingham, Alabama. Additional (minor) centers of industry have been established in Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans. There is mining in Confederate Arizona, oil in Confederate Texas, and helium in Confederate Arkansas. Like the U.S., the Confederacy would have built a trans-continental railroad by the turn of the century, linking Richmond and Guaymas. It is up to you whether the Confederacy would have invaded Cuba. There was certainly precedent in the form of the filibusters. For the sake of bolstering the fortunes of an imperial Castille, I did not give Cuba to the Confederacy in my game design, instead awarding Richmond a client regime in the form of a Nicaragua overrun by William Walker’s filibusters (the point-of-diverge that I used was well before the Civil War; as a point of interest, we retained both Byzantium and the Crusader States in the Near East). You might give Cuba to the South to enhance their economy, although left in Spanish (or even placed in British) hands, it could become a convenient crossroads for contraband.

      Probably both the Union and Confederacy sponsor Indian raids across their mutual border. One imagines that cavalry, camelry, armored cars, armored trains, airships, and aeroplanes will be the preferred weapons of war in the West, with the occasional armored car making an appearance. In the East, expect to see trench warfare.

      Fighting a mostly defensive war, the South would have an early advantage – important given a relative dearth of heavy artillery. Richmond would also expect the British to substantially reinforce the Canadian garrison as a counterweight to Northern might. Probably the Great Lakes would be teeming with pocket battleships specially designed for those waters.

      The South might be expected to be a pioneer in airship and aeroplane use given its size, including, perhaps, the first to attempt to launch planes from a converted merchantman or cruiser. I imagine that they would have borrowed from the French concept of the merchant cruiser. Probably, given the cost of heavier battlewagons, their few capital ships would have be no better than battlecruisers.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      T
      Trenacker
    • 1 / 1