Next Sets from Historical Board Gaming

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.

I have it, but am holding onto it for further playtesting on the set-ups.

Europe is being slightly changed in terms of the map, and there will be some minor additions to the rules.  These changes will probably be part of the map/rule package I am looking into producing.  Pacific would be released this way as well if all falls together.

Cheers

Nice tray and nice map.

I have been considering this question privately for some time too.  My own particular anoyance is that islands are completely surrounded by a single sea zone.  I think many islands should have more than one sea zone touching them.  For examnple, I think the Phillipine Islands should at least have an Asian side and a Pacific Ocean side.  I think Japan should have one sea zone with Korea, one to the south and another to the north and east.  While we are on the subject, I also do not understand why the sea zones have to end coincident with several (most) adjacent land borders.  This forces many strategic manuvers and I would appreciate some more tactical flexibility.  However, I see that the game is very delicately balanced (at least until someone finds a real deal breaker) so such tactical choices may make the game difficult to balance.

I would be interested in a more accurate Pacific map, including the expansion of the Pacific Ocean to its true size.  The biggest problem I see is that it may become unplayable for the Japanese.  Two factors that made it tenable for them was the hidden movement (for of war) of sea forces in general, and the benefit they received from their attack on Pearl Harbour.

@Fishmoto37:

I AGREE. The cardboard may take up less space but they are too hard to see with plastic chips and units stacked all around. @Bob_A_Mickelson:

I must say that I cant get over my disappointment that the new A&A Pacific and Europe 1940 games will now feature cardboard units for the Major and Minor industrial complexes as well as cardboard AA guns, Air and Navy bases. I hope that creating plastic versions of these units will be a project that FMG will be willing to take up in the future.
Do any of you agree?

Yes another good reason that I hate cardboard.

The map to supremacy is horrible and they have nothing like the unit varation or number of terriotries axis and allies has. plus their is no reason the countries are fighting each other

Sorry I’m late, Adlertag.  +1 Karma

I’ve seen all the boardgame geek stuff.  I was thinking more along the lines of a pdf file.  I’m mostly currious about the “new” techs and commando rules.  I guess I’ll just have to buy it off e-bay if I’m really that interested.