Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

Part Five:

Errata & Optional Rules: Discussion

Upon reviewing the rules a bit, naturally the ones that stick out and cause problems are the ones that don’t pertain to RISK’s core combat mechanics.

Indonesia

Let’s say the USSR attacks the Arab League: Indonesia is supposed to stay neutral in this case, but can NATO still influence them, somehow? Does WE have to be the one to do it, or could it be UK? The ‘quick and dirty’ solution would just be to reverse the rule treating Indonesia as a separate entity, and say that the territory sides with NATO, if the Arab League is attacked by the USSR. Since they are aligned with WE, their troops should be replaced with WE (blue) troops, if/when this happens.

An obvious optional rule in this situation might be that Arab League territories join WE but Indonesia joins the UK; chalk this up to representing Singapore, Malaya, etc. or just with the continent of Australia being aligned with UK, in this game.

The alternate solution is to clarify the rule to be “an attack on Indonesia is not treated as an attack on the Arab League, but an attack on the Arab League DOES count as an attack on Indonesia.” I think this probably most closely reflects the intention of the mechanics.

Possibly a better (albeit more complicated) solution would be to allow NATO to use their influence roll towards their affiliated neutral alliance OR towards Indonesia. If they successfully influence Indonesia, they would replace Indonesia’s troops with their own. This treats Indonesia more like a “minor neutral” such as they would be in E&W; the reason I don’t like this is that it creates a new set of rules around a single territory, instead of just conforming to the existing/general rules.

Since the USSR has the option to ATTACK Indonesia, they can always gain the territory that way; this rule would simply address the fact that NATO does not have such a mechanism to gain the territory.

Influence

Since the opening-game balance is presupposed around the OAS being at +1 to US and China being at +1 to the USSR, the obvious optional rule to include would be one not allowing diplomacy until the 2nd round of play. This would reflect the mechanical realities in E&W, of everybody starting the game with no spies in play (barring the USSR spending their “round zero” mobilization cash on spies.)

The rule limiting NATO to influencing only their affiliated neutral could also be changed… Although it might have to be limited to “once you’re already receiving +2 from them” to prevent dogpiling.
The intention of the limitation is to keep the game simple and fast; it’s also meant to avoid some of the pitfalls of E&W’s system, whereby there’s really only one correct choice, so just hammer that option as early and often as possible.

Nukes vs. Capitols

An interesting thing with the mechanic of nuclear weapons being added to a RISK game, is that it creates the possibility of a territory being cleared of armies. Since armies are used to denote territory ownership (serving the function performed by control markers, in A&A-type games) it stands to reason that a territory with no armies on it is controlled by no one. But what if the territory has a capitol on it?

This is an interesting thing, because the existence of a capitol implies ownership of the territory, corresponding to a specific faction, without there being troops in the territory (i.e. which would be the normal way to denote ownership of the territory.)

Obviously, a territory with a city but no armies is not controlled by anyone; this makes targeting cities with nukes more appealing, since it doubles the loss in “income” – similar to how targeting Industrial Complexes with nukes in E&W effectively doubles the reduction in infantry production, on that territory.

So the questions seem to be:

Can you place troops on your capitol, if there are currently no troops there? Do you get credit for “controlling” your capitol, if there are no troops in its territory? Does your capitol allow you to get credit for “controlling” the territory it resides in (including the bonus for a city)?

I think my answers to these would be: yes, maybe, and no (respectively.)

If a nuke wipes all of the armies off of a territory without a capitol, my general assumption was that this works the same as if a nuke in E&W reduced the IPC value of the territory to zero – meaning it cannot produce any infantry. The question then is, do capitols provide some immunity to this? Does not providing this immunity make nuking capitols (exclusively) too powerful in the overall meta? Again, these would have to be born out with more playtesting.

Now have 2 sets of rules with optional rules.

Standard rules use a more Axis & Allies turn based system.

In standard rules, all Axis move first simultaneously, followed by Allies.  That would encompass 1 entire season (4 seasons to a year).

Defender withdrawing still allowed, but can no longer move units into space the attacker is attacking (except for air units).

No more initiative in standard rules.

PM me to get an updated copy of the rules.

Cheers

Those are bleachers (houses) from NFL Monopoly. I glued short dowels to the back and painted them brick red to use as minor factories.

What I really want Larry Harris to do is make a new Axis & Allies game with the Revised rules and Tech tokens.

I recently got a copy of Conquest Gaming’s “A House Divided The Brothers War”.  It is an area movement game that uses miniatures and, because of the railroad movement in addition to regular movement, 6 distinct theaters (3 per side),general and event cards that modify the fighting troops abilities, is a very interesting game to play.  It is tough for the North to survive the opening rounds because of their relatively weak starting generals and troop levels, but because of the reinforcement advantage, if it can hang on the game becomes winable for it.  Another interesting and historical feature is that many of the South’s generals have good infantry, cavalry and artillery modifiers while many of the North’s generals are lesser, but all the main generals are represented so eventually the North draws Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Grant, etc. But, of course, the South continues to draw generals each turn so Longstreet, Stuart, Pemberton and Lee appear (Beauregard and Jackson start the game in play).  You have to provide your own pieces, the pieces from the Napoleon Risk will work, but I had enough pieces from Battle Cry to play the game.  The game is only $13 and with about $10 shipping is still are good buy for such an interesting game.

One could do the Spanish Nationalist/Loyalist war of the early/mid 30’s

Hello All,

The Balkans - 1999 Revision has been completed.

1.) New railroad system.
2.) Cities act as Industrial Complexes.
3.) New and Updated National Advantages.
4.) New IPC values for all nations.

Also, my next project is Operation Sea Lion - 1940. This game will play like Axis & Allies: D-Day with a few added details that will hopefully add more fun to the game dinamics. It should be completed in November as I have pretty much have the whole map drawn. Enjoy!

Rune Blade

I suppose it’s possbile that they play blind, but it sounded like you could shift alliances and such, which would mean you would have to have an extra board for every player, and I think they only used two.