Cold War: It's Finally Done

@the-captain said in GEN’S Advanced Global 40 Game:

Nice,

How is the starting setup and IPC level for each Nation?

Ha, Haven’t got that far yet. Been busy and besides I ran across your rules in the mean time and now was thinking of not doing it. But I would like to try it with rules from my 41 game.

@ossel:

@1Bean432:

Are we talking full-fledged rule changes or are we just changing the map around?

This particular thread is devoted to SIMPLE map changes (moving a border here or there) in order to make the OOB map more accurate to the actual borders at the time. No rules changes.

Alrighty.

The size of Tunsia, Morroco, Gold coast, and Togoland should be increased.

Angola should connect to Kamerun. I know its historically accurate the way it is now, but it just feels so strange to have two territorys so close to each other, but have to spend an entire turn in Belgian Congo.

Munich border with Switzerland should be a bit more obvious.

Another SZ that splits up SZ 17. This new SZ is connected to Sicily, Naples, Rome, Tuscany, Piedmont, Sardinia, SZ 16, and the other SZ 17. This new SZ houses all of the Italian navy.

Okay gang,

Paul and I are going to start two separate projects from this point forward. Paul will do his best to preserve the info from this thread as it pertains to his game which you can follow here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24848.0

As far as my game (simplified version using more or less OOB pieces) you can follow it in this thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24875.0

Thank you everyone and we both encourage full participation and idea sharing in both our ventures. As Paul says, we want to have MORE FUN!

there wont be much money in this game. i actually like that better makes a little more cotios(sp?) of loses.

Honestly, if you play the board game for the map and pieces, then you should avoid most of the board games out there.

As far as 4 revisions in 10 years, maybe that’s a bit high, granted, but….  I can tell you a fact that in 10 years, Dell has gone through more server revisions in those same 10 years.  Does that make their products (or substitute Apple, IBM, HP, etc) any worse?  That’s the worst comment I’ve ever heard.  Not only that, but revisions are there to help make the game better.

Ok, rant off.  Talking about World at War 2005 now.  The game is ok, but unfortunately when combining the latest rules from Axis & Allies (which this is based off of), the Allies has too much of an advantage.  Especially when comparing this version with the 3rd version.  There are now factories in India and Australia for Britain to use, you can still purchase infantry off of factory sites, but at a max of 1 per land and they cost 1 IPC more, which hurts Germany a ton since they can’t keep Africa.  Then again, Britain got a bump in Africa as well with the tank defending on a 3 now and they get an extra artillery piece, so you really have to commit in Africa to take it and hold it.

The technology rolls are interesting, but kind of confusing to understand at first.

I’m actually on this forum to see if anyone has brought up house rules or variants to make the game a little bit more balanced.  I believe the Allies should win about 60-65% to keep in line with history, but this version (and the previous ones as well) gives the allies about 80% chance to win.  This is assuming average dice rolls.  We’ve played around with giving Germany super subs and Japan get fighters to start, but it didn’t help all that much.  Japan usually never has a problem and the jet fighters were just the icing on the cake.  Super subs really didn’t help Germany as much as we had thought it would.

Anyone else try to do something different with this game?

Why not add them as a possible penalty for occupying enemy colored territoy. Roll a D6 for each territory, if it’s 3 or less, they lose an ipc to sabotage, partisan activity, holding POW’s and the such.