Re: Field Marshal Games Pieces Project Discussion thread

Awesome thanks to both of you for the quick replies.

@tomcoll67

Hello, I am interested in helping you create rules for such a scenario. To begin, I have some suggestions for unit and weapon rules.

D6 system

Land Units:

Infantry
cost-3 ipc A1/D2/M1 (A2 when supported 1 to 1 by artillery)

Mech Infantry
cost-4 ipc A/1/D2/M2 (A2 when supported 1 to 1 by artillery)

Artillery
cost-4 ipc A2/D2/M1 (first strike)

Self-propelled artillery
cost-5 ipc A2/D2/M2 (first strike)

Tank
cost-6 ipc A3/D3/M2 (can blitz)

Commando
cost-5 ipc A2/D2/M1 (target selection on a roll of 1)

Air Assault Infantry
cost-4 ipc A1/D2/M1 (M3 from airbase)

Surface to air missile
cost-6 ipc A2X3/D2X3/M1

Weapons:

Rockets

Cruise missile
cost-8 ipc M2 (launched from cruisers, destroyers, airbases and naval bases. Role 1 D6 for damage inflicted, 1-2= 1 hit, 3-4= 2 hits, 5-6= 3 hits.)

Anti-ship missile
cost-8 ipc M2 (launched from cruisers, destroyers and naval bases. Role 1 D6 for damage inflicted, 1-2= 1 hit, 3-4= 2 hits, 5-6= 3 hits.)

Sub launched ballistic missile
cost-12 ipc M2 (launched from subs. Role 1 D6 for damage inflicted.)

Intercontinental ballistic missile
cost-20 ipc M10 (launched from missile silos. Role 2 D6 for damage inflicted.)

Update September 2022:

I just found this one:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36740/1940-global-alternate-universe-g40-alt-universe/5

“The war is the same, but occurs in an alternate universe where the Earth’s land formation happened
differently.”

(From the Rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/assets/uploads/files/1661014153409-g40-alt-universe-rules-vb1.4-8.1.2022.pdf )

So Axis and Allies… just on another map.

Will check this one out asap…

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.

One idea I had that is similar to this is to play each of the Theatre games (Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge, D-Day) and then have the winner of those sub-games gain some advantage the following Global Session, at the appropriate juncture in the game.

So if Japan wins Guadalcanal, you put Japanese units and ships there, either at game start, or later, and if the US wins, vice versa
The winner of Dday gets bonus units before/after first atl landings
b o b winner gets help defeating/protecting Germany

Only problem is these games are sorta wonky and I don’t have B.o.B.

The picture is primarily about the chips, but I notice it includes a bonus piece of new information about the FMG Italian infantry units: they have the FMG star under the base.  Nice touch!

Anyone interested in being a part owner of a new board game company? I have produced a new board game that is basically a modern day axis & allies type game with serveral improvements and new pieces. Game is fully produced and in a few stores now.

Looking for people who are good with games to help run the business and promote the game, plus work out improvements for the next edition. Right now this is just a 1-man show, but i think this game has the potential to be even bigger than A&A.

The company is Superpower Games, LLC and the game is Superpowers. There is no cost in becoming an owner other than agreeing to help promote the game plus get 18 copies at the ultra low price of just $10/game to then resell at a profit for yourself.

Check out the details here:
http://www.superpowersgame.com/scripts/ownership_plan.php

http://www.superpowersgame.com