Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

Mexico was not independent during the civil war. It was under French control.

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.
I should probably mention in this space that allowing NATO to use its influence roll to gain Indonesia, would allow for the possibility of the US gaining the territory. This would be an interesting wrinkle, as I’ve often said that in classic E&W the US needs to be able to gain Thailand in the event that the USSR goes nuclear; this would sort of serve to simulate that scenario, of the US needing to use its influence to try and gain a base of operations on mainland Eurasia.

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.

@CWO:

@empireman:

Light Tank (remove tank)

What does “remove tank” mean?

the tank unit is gone, it is replaced by light and heavy tanks

Well, if we have a Cold War game, then how about after the USA and USSR nuke everything we have a new game of “Rise of the Machines”, humanity struggles to survive against the Terminators.

From BGG:

I have not yet played this game but thought I would review the components and rules prior to playing. These are my initial impressions which may change after playing the game.

I was intrigued enough to purchase this game for several reasons: 1) the publisher is offering a significant discount on the game - $25.00 plus shipping (wow!), 2) it has 438 component pieces (I love little plastic armies), 3) it plays on a world map, and finally 4) I love Axis and Allies and have been nostalgic for games like Supremacy ever since I dug it out of storage last month.

In summary, I have not been disappointed yet. I feel I got superior value for my money and would recommend this game to other fans of world domination games. I can’t wait to play!

The Components
The main playing pieces come on plastic sprues and should be removed with an exacto knife. Seven colors came with the set: White (use by all players for factories, air defense, generals, nuclear bombs, and leaders), and colors for six players - Gray, Blue, Red, Purple, Green, and Yellow. These pieces represent infantry, tanks, fighters, bombers, battleships (now called battlecruisers), aircraft carriers, artillery, subs, and transport ships. It doesn’t matter which superpower uses which color. The plastic is good quality.

The game actually allows for up to eight players and the rulebook mentions an expansion pack. I am guessing Brown and Orange would be in the upcoming expansion pack.

The pieces are very good and remind me a lot of Axis and Allies pieces. The one drawback seems to be the tanks which are much smaller than those pictured. In fact, they are almost teeny-tiny. I’m not sure if the small size will hinder or help gameplay at this time.

Other components include circle territory markers, plastic poker chips for stacking under the pieces, dice, plastic container trays, plastic bags, and cards for each superpower, development tracking, and conducting battles.

The gameboard is beautifully illustrated on a heavy, large tri-fold board. It reminded me so much of Axis and Allies I had to go back and look at it to make sure it wasn’t the exact same board!

Finally, the box is heavy duty and will hold up for years. Somewhat surprisingly, the game was shipped to me via Fed Ex with a shipping label slapped on the clear shrinkwrap! Most games would never make the journey but my set survived with a minor dent on a corner. However, if you are at all concerned about getting your set “Mint in Box” I’d highly recommend requesting some type of shipping container when ordering your set from the publisher. They may charge you more but it may be worth it to you. I couldn’t care less.

Rules
I think the rulebook could have been written better. You can view a copy of the rulebook on the superpowergames.com website. The website also clarifies some errors in the Errata section.

Play mostly works like Axis and Allies with players attempting to gain control of enough capitals to win the game. There are a few interesting twists that have been created to make the game fit in a more contemporary setting: Alliances can be formed and broken, technology can be researched, and money is eliminated (technically still in the game just not represented with paper currency). Additional minor concepts have been added like Encirclement which allows players to resolve battles without rolling the dice in certain situations. Clearly the designer is attempting to speed play and focus the game on the fun aspects of world domination rather than the tedium of counting out paper money and fighting insignificant battles.

Final Thoughts
Some of the graphics and illustrations lend the feel of an upstart game maker pursuing his passion with an invention created with a low budget in his garage and home personal computer. Part of that makes me instantly like the game even more. In fact, the creator emailed me shortly after purchasing the game asking for feedback. Very nice personal touch!

If you like Axis and Allies, I think this game may be for you. It looks fun, the components are great, and for $25.00 you are getting a tremendous value. There might be some minor polish issues here and there but it’s got all the goods where it really counts.

I will do another review after I have a chance to play!

Fishing line sinker, how clever!!

Right you cant have image posted directly w/o a link. We don’t need porn on this site so we decline to allow this type of situation from developing

@GeZe:

good,
but i’ll probebly be overloaded with homework till about hmmmmm, grade 12.

ouch…