The Great War 1914-1918: Clash of Empires

I am at it again! Here I present to you A&A 1800 Napoleonic Wars! This game will provide several scenarios within the wider scope of the Napoleonic Wars, beginning in the year 1800. This game will include full diplomatic, combat, and economic systems; as well as the destructive variable of Napoleon himself.

Combat system:

Infantry- Atk 1/ Def 2/ Move 1/ Cost 3 ipc
Atk of 2 when paired 1 to 1 with cannon

Calvary- Atk 2/ Def 2/ Move 2/ Cost 4 ipc

Cannon- Atk 3/ Def 3/ Move 1/ Cost 5 ipc
May move 2 spaces if paired 1 to 1 with calvary

Frigate- Atk 3/ Def 3/ Move 2/ Cost 8 ipc
May carry up to 2 land units, 1 must be infantry

Economic system:

All nations collect the stated amount of ipc with each of their respective territories at the end of each of their turns.

Diplomatic System:

Every nation may earn and spend PPT (Political Power Tokens). +1 PPT for defeating an enemy army/fleet (either destroying it or forcing it to retreat from a territory/sea zone ). +1 PPT when having captured an enemy territory. +1 PPT when forming an alliance with another nation.

-1 PPT when breaking an alliance with another nation. -1 PPT when having lost a land or sea battle. -1 PPT when having lost your nations capital.

PPTs may be spent to ally a neutral nation to your cause; 1 PPT per allying neutral nation. 1 PPT can be used to delay a nations declaration of war upon you (may only be used ounce per round, per nation). 1 PPT may be spent to declare war on another nation.

Here is the map…
IMG_6924.jpg

I came up with an idea for one on one wars between two powers using the Global 1940 map. Here are the instructions for two versions (Soviet Union vs US and Germany vs Japan):

Common rules:

All other powers are neutral. No pro-Axis or pro-Allied neutrals are involved on either side. Attacking true neutrals is allowed with the usual effects of them siding with the other enemy of the attacker. Only territory of the belligerents (with exceptions detailed below) may be crossed.

For TripleA, use edit mode to make all powers neutral, including pro-Axis and pro-Allies.

An optional rule is to make pro-Axis and pro-Allied territories also true neutrals.

One side wins when all the units of the other side have been destroyed and all the territory of the enemy has been conquered.

Japan vs Germany:

To make the game faster, Trans-Jordan and Egypt will be under Japanese control and Gibraltar is under German rule.

All starting units and income is the same (Japan’s starting IPCs are still 26 even with the addition of Egypt and Trans-Jordan and the income effects of these two territories will only start at turn 2).

For TripleA, edit mode can be done to change the territories to their correct owners.

Additionally, Germany’s 10 IPC national objectives that are achieved (Iron Ore and Soviet trading) are kept, and no other national objectives are changed.

Japan’s trade with the US 10 IPC national objective is also kept.

For TripleA, edit mode is necessary for the US to be recorrected to be neutral as the US automatically declares war on turn 3.

Soviet Union vs US:

All starting units and income are the same.

The Soviets control Denmark, and like above the income change only applies starting at turn 2.

The US does not get their “at war” national objectives. This means that the US will only ever get 52 IPCs per turn until the US conquered Soviet territory.

Edit mode is required to make the US neutral with the Axis because the US automatically declares war on them at turn 3 for TripleA.

Soviet national objectives are the same. Due to not fighting the Axis, the Soviets will not achieve any. This intentional.

Remember to use edit mode to make all relationships between powers neutral.

Here are two test games I played on TripleA (TripleA is required to access these files) for both of these ideas. Keep in mind that since these were tests, what was done there may be inconsistent with what I outlined here, which are the definitive and final versions of the rules. Keep in mind I also used edit mode to change unit buys and to correct movement, but no moves or purchases were illegal. They might also give you some ideas of strategies.

Soviet Union vs US.tsvg

Germany vs Japan.tsvg

While I think having cuba be its own power would be cool, it would kind of like having New Zealand be its own power in g40. You would have to wonder how much they really contribute. Maybe you could make it so that the Warsaw Pact can pay to build units to support Castro and the gang in cuba, possibly at higher cost cuz of the blockades and embargoes and stuff, if the Warsaw pact is smart, like they were during the cold war, they’ll buff the hell out of cuba to prevent a traditional land invasion, and nukes aren’t always realistic. If they’re dumb then cuba will just be invaded and it will be an opportunity lost, which absolutely could have happened if the ussr wasn’t paying attention. I’m thinking about alternative rules where one or two players play each Nuetral category so it feels like they’re entities and not roadblocks, but I’ve got a ton of stuff I need to do before then soooooo… The setup for cuba will not change for balancing reasons, it accurately represents their power near it’s height, which was also the time when it was diplomatically plausible for the US to invade. For your expansion however, I recommend cuba starts the game Strict Nuetral with an army of one infantry.

@redrum making this into a playable triple a map is a goal of mine, but i have only just mow started to look into that process. I also want to get it printed on a roll up mat so i can take it to orgins and gencon in 2020. Also, i will need more of the italian, anzac, and french models. I have plenty of the other nation’s troup from multiple different versions of axis and allies.

This is an update on a project I began some time ago, Axis & Allies: World at War.

The goal is to create a single, custom game map, ruleset, and playset for use in private games. In short, creating an Axis & Allies variant similar to Global War, but without the intent to mass produce or sell the product commercially. This means that I will engage a professional mapmaker to create a high-quality play mat and play aids (e.g., charts, roundels, cards, etc.).

In terms of mechanics, this will be a card-driven game like Amateurs to Arms and Mr. Madison’s War bolted onto the Axis & Allies core rules. Basically, players will draw from decks of cards that set global conditions, activate neutral nations, and let them activate units in given territories. Rather than being able to move all units every turn, players will spend Operations Points to move specific armies. Additional Operations Points can be obtained through card play, from possession of strategic resources, and by building and placing supply columns. The latter are units that move along with armies, allowing the player to activate that stack every turn for free. They may, however, be captured by the enemy.

The game will feature both territories and point-to-point movement. Possession of a given number of points within a given territory translates to ownership, which yields a production value in IPCs. The game pieces will be a mixture of plastic pieces and traditional counters.

We will use an alternate history to bring all corners of the map into play. The map is inspired by both Harry Turtledove’s Great War series and an alternate history saga known as The Feast of Eagles, which imagined a world in which Europe remained largely divided after the Wars of Religion. The major conflict in North America is between the United States and the Confederate States. In South America, Argentina squares off in a naval race with Portugal, which retains its Brazilian colony. In Europe, a Franco-Russian alliance is opposed by the British and the Austrians. Minor powers include Castille (British-allied), the Two Sicilies (French-allied), Poland (allied with Sweden), and a restored Byzantine Empire. At the onset of the twentieth century, the French also dammed the Mediterranean, flooding the Lake Chad Basin. A similar project was undertaken in the Congo. Along with the Great Lakes, both African “world lakes” are accessible by a new canal infrastructure that admits oceangoing vessels. Japan squares off in the Far East against an ascendant Russia, a China of dubious strength, and the United Netherlands, not to mention the British.

At this point, I have a notional set of units. Again, feedback would be excellent, especially by folks that are good at optimizing builds. Which proposed units are unlikely every to be built?
Axis and Allies Units.pdf

Probably Confederate infantry attire would strongly resemble British or French kit, to include either the Adrian, or, even more likely, the Brodie helmet.

One imagines that the Union would take its cues from the Germans, or, even more likely, the Russians, meaning either no helmet, or else some version of the stahlhlem. It’s also possible that one might see a distinctive steel hat more akin to the M1, or even a kind of “stovepipe” or “top hat” in steel.

I’m trying hard to think up certain National Advantages. Perhaps Confederate cavalry would be able to execute a kind of blitzkrieg. Would it be likely that a nation without much native automobile production, but having to cover a long border with a relatively small standing army, would develop a heavy emphasis on motorization?

As early as Bull Run, both armies were learning the military value of railroads.

Good find, reloader-1.

Please do!