General 6 Stars 1941 WW2 Game

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.

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.

When is the new english version coming out.

How do you intend to play test? Like in your area, or online? Because with the latter I’m sure the community would love to help you out.

I played my first game of Amerika last night. It was pretty easy to learn once I was finally able to remember which sculpts were the self propelled anti-aircraft units and and which ones were the self propelled artillery units. It took awhile to play because I was carefully going through every step and double checking to make sure I didn’t develop any bad habits as far as the rules go. I can see being able to play a game in under 2 hours including setup if you had 2 or 3 players who already knew how to play. That would be perfect for the lake in the summer when you go into the cabin to wait out a rainstorm. A&A on the other hand would be more of a whole day this is never going to clear up type of game.

It’s a good game and very well made. I picked up the Strategic Markers expansion set with the game but didn’t use any of the extra rules that come with the pieces so I could learn the game first and decide which rules and extra pieces would be appropriate to make it a better game. I did find the map a little small so I am going to get a bigger one for use at home on the big table. I like lots of elbow room and space to line up my tanks without using chips. In the game the Japanese got bogged down in the northwest with the allies holding the line at Hanford Nuclear Research Facility. They had better luck in the south moving inland and taking out Los Alamos NRF. The Germans made it as far as Detroit in the north and Nashville in the south but couldn’t capture Oak Ridge NRF. On the fifth turn the allies were lucky enough to roll big and go first, which meant that they had 2 turns in a row and were able to take back Los Alamos and 3 cities and accumulating enough points to win the game. If the axis would’ve went first on the fifth turn it would have been a different outcome and they might have won on the fifth or sixth turn. It all came down to that one roll…

If their are battle in the atlantic only  and say the next player is Japan, let them go at the same time. we do this all the time, saves time!

I think you should add cavalry because the British had a cavalry division at the start of the war. Also the ANZAC’s had cavalry divisions even though the did not use them in Gallopoli and will you include rules about terrain such as the hills in turkey that meant the ANZAC infantry became fodder. Also will there be sea units used for transportation? You could also create a tech that meant Art could fire poison rounds that decreased Inf def and also killed halve of Inf stack.

no way. That map is bigger than huge.