Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming

@general-6-stars I have a physical map that I have made. It’s mostly rules i am trying to develop. Thanks for showing me your map.

@all-encompassing-goose

Crazy!

You have some of the most interesting ideas on this forum.

I would only have the two boards fighting each other change and the part where the boards don’t wrap around, but not the Panama Canal or national objective rules-just a few questions and recommendations:

So I assume that West India is given back to UK Europe, and Western Canada is given back to UK Pacific-is that right? Thank you!

Is there a capital for the Soviet Far Eastern territories?

You might need to make a new map, as the proportions on the map do not allow for your idea to work effectively, unless they are already explained before playing, but that might be tough, especially with the sea zones.

For national objectives, change all references for the respective powers from Allies or Axis to the respective map alliance (of course, this means Japan get all their national objectives, but it also means that Italy and Germany get most of their national objectives as well).

Finally, all Soviet national objectives should be given to the Europe side (how the Soviets will get their Berlin national objective is if they liberate it, there is still the first time rule), and all Pacific related national objectives should go to the US Pacific, and all Europe related national objectives should go to Europe US. This assumes that all national objectives are for the global version. The 10 IPCs for the US control Eastern, Central, and Western United States is split evenly between US Europe and Pacific

It depends on what “work” means – in other words, on whether players would consider a Kursk scenario appealing.  Conceptually, Kursk would be similar to A&A D-Day (minus the water) in the sense that the battle was fundamentally a frontal assault on a heavily-defended static position, and similar to A&A Battle of the Bulge in the sense that it would involve ground forces driving into enemy lines, but different from both games in the sense that from the German point of view Kursk was a pincer movement aimed at pinching off a salient, and that from the Russian point of view it was a two-stage offensive-defensive battle.  Personally I think it has good potential to make an interesting game, if it’s designed properly.

Blacky’s WW1 map looks like it has The Great War map from TripleA as a base, then he probably used photoshop or similar software to change it.

Had to bump this. I’m looking forward to this set.

Yes, I just order it. A must for my 1939 gameboard but if I can get some other figuries as field commander I could introduce general rules such discuss in the other tread. A new rule as defender retreat should be cool.

My copies are of the 2nd version, otherwise I wouldn’t have recommended it.

The pieces are in the primary colours: red, blue, green & yellow.

Also the board is simpler, as you get a “console” for each player to store units, reserves etc:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/82252/power?size=original

Also browsing around my collection I noticed these planes from Airways:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/525846/airways?size=medium

Just wondered if people would prefer aircraft mounted on stands like this; you could have them on a peg that slotted into the stand or into a corresponding slot on a carrier.
More expensive to produce, but gives a more imposing impression of air power.

just beat me to it   :-D