Posts made by Chris_Henry

@Munck:

We think many of the Expansions go into a unnecessary level of detail. For example: SS Divisions, Minorities at War, almost all 3D printed units. Some people might like the extra detail, but we don’t. The extra level of detail restrict us from getting a fast-paced game going.

The ability to choose which Expansion you want to play with - if any - is an awesome concept.

I’m with you on both of the above.

Some of the expansions, while interesting ideas, went into a bit TOO much detail. SS Divisions, Minorities at War, Elite Fighter Squadrons, while all really interesting ideas, I think are a bit too much here. I think the scale of the game makes adding divisions like these a bit too much. And while I love all the sculpts and what not, having that much extra detail for multiple different units, that all have their own unique abilities, I fear may bog it down too much.

Similar reason to why the Bring in the Heavies expansions don’t interest me too much. There’s already a ton of pieces, adding more large ordnance isn’t something I think it necessarily needs. Same with the Ordnance expansions, though I may tries those at some point.

But you’re right! I LOVE having the options to add things to each game. First, I think it’s a great money making idea on their end. But yea, you can add or take away as you want. Some don’t do it for me (I don’t see myself EVER using Atlantis Rises Again or New Berlin), but others I can’t imagine not using. Turkey at War, DAK, Winter War, Spanish Civil War, Netherlands Fight Back, Croatia, Manchukuo are all automatics for me. Secret subs, Sealion, Gruppe Monsun, Fighting Railways are all serious consideration each time. A bit on the fence for Alaskan Warriors, Oil Wars, but could be convinced :). The rest I haven’t looked at a bunch.

Got it, I see what you mean! Yea, it really is something they should fix. As it is, I really don’t see a point at all to buying armored cars, besides adding flavor to the map!

@Munck:

We considered Croatia at War, but after scrutinising the rules, we realised it didn’t do anything for the game. It doesn’t matter if there is a partisan or two.

Interesting. I generally understand your point. In the wide scheme of the game, no real effect.

That said, you don’t think potential railroad supply path disruption in the Balkans/Greece area could be an issue for the Axis? That would probably take many games to really see the difference a lot, but I could see it.

Also, the fact that the Axis would need to garrison some troops in those territories, even if only a few, are that many less to terrorize the Eastern Front :)

Curious, given the fact that you use Turkey at War, you don’t also think using Croatia at War in tandem might be an even bigger thorn? If the Allies or Comintern “win” Turkey, that mixed with partisans in Yugoslavia would prove a decent destabilizing issue in that area of the map. Curious on your thoughts.

@SS:

But you could replace all naval bases at Capitals because thatÂ’s the only place you can build Capital ships. You want capital ship builds else where if not in setup pay 15. Naval bases would just defend sea zone and repair ships only.

Sorry SS, not sure I followed. You’re implying that you WANT to have the ability to build capital ships in other areas? My suggestion was simply if you wanted to ONLY repair capital ships at non-capital locations, not have the ability to build them elsewhere as well.

That’s what I thought we were discussing at least, was just the ability to repair capital ships elsewhere. Otherwise, what you’re saying definitely makes sense if the idea is to be able to build them elsewhere as well.

@sjelso:

So all of these units are OOB or Expansions?  Like Italy Amphib Lt. Armor….is that a house rule or a rule from HBG?

I haven’t heard of Italy Amphib Lt. Armor at all. But generally speaking there are a good amount of unit profiles from expansions. Partisans, armored cars, patrol boats, self-propelled artillery, commando’s, all the unit expansion profiles. It is a lot.

I recently suggested to HBG that they reconfigure their reference sheets to include ALL units available to a nation, including those in potential expansions being used. That way everything is in one place. You can have a notation saying “X” unit is only available if using “Y” expansion. That way you can still see what units wouldn’t be available too depending on your games. But you wouldn’t have to go digging through so many expansions/rules to figure it out.

What do you mean by the utility of it?

Also, I don’t follow on making it a scout unit. What would that entail in gaming mechanics? Like a first strike ability?

I’m in the same boat Midnight! It would be a monumental task. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating it! It would take an incredible amount of time to figure that out. And really, not sure it’s possible. What if the CSA won the American Civil War, for example. You’d severely weaken the USA for all iterations moving forward in the future campaigns!

What Midnight_Reaper said is probably the best solution. Just keep on going the way it is, re-dividing the sides from the victor.

Another option would be to essentially do a re-setup of the game post 1945 depending on how the game played out. This would be a rather herculean task I would think, as it would require multiple setup scenarios. What I mean is:

Different setups for different outcomes. If Allies/Comintern win, redistribute the map/money/pieces in a way that seems accurate to you (probably mostly on historical 1945/Cold War lines). If the Axis wins, same thing, split it up.

This will also depend on the level of victory I would think too. As in, if the Axis wins and totally runs over the USSR, but doesn’t take over the Western Powers, you could have a setup based on that. Reconfigure standing armies and placements, etc. So while Japan may split from Germany/Italy in the Axis, the US and UK would also still be alive and kicking. Maybe you’d also allow the USSR partisan rolls. Would be a miracle for them, but there’s nothing that says they don’t get lucky and could re-spawn everywhere and wreak havoc on the occupying forces.

Same with a Cold War scenario. Maybe Axis powers could be given partisan type abilities, undermining the Western Allies or Comintern occupations.

As I said though, this would require making multiple alternative setup scenarios that maybe you wouldn’t want to do. If maintaining the forces you had at the end of the game is desired, this wouldn’t work. Or, maybe you can just redistribute those surviving units, and give the other surviving powers money/units to balance the game out.

I do wonder if this is in any way what HBG has in mind with their spinoff games. 1861, 1914, 1920’s, 1936, Cold War, Modern, Future, etc. Will they all be linked based off of previous games, or are each stand alone games. I’ve always been a bit unclear which it is.

Yea, I’d agree with that as well. Makes sense to have different capabilities to drop into combat or just transport in a non-combat move.

Interesting. Thanks for the info GeneralHandGrenade.

I’d agree with what is said on jungle and desert movement. Don’t allow two space movement or blitzing generally. I’ve long thought of that as a house rule too. And agree, the same modifiers would be interesting. Would be kind of cool to say commandos or colonial infantry wouldn’t have the -1 defect in attacking/defending in jungle terrain too.

I also love the idea of tundra areas. I guess I’d have to see what parts of the map you’re saying would be impassable. Would it be parts of territories only, or entire territories on the map? I think with the advent of ski troops with the Winter War expansion, you could also have the same rules as jungle, desert, mountains. No blitzing/only one move, -1 attack and/or defense, but ski troops don’t have this negative effect.

Intriguing thought on the minor shipyard as well. I almost wonder, if the sole worry is UK ships having the ability to be repaired, if it doesn’t just make sense to make that a special rule. UK capital ships can be repaired and ANZAC, India, and maybe even South Africa capital territories. At the very least, minor ship yards shouldn’t be allowed to be built on captured territories.

Interesting Charles de Gaulle. I’d actually forgotten/not considered in my head that the Axis minors would move and attack separate from Germany. That does add differences, though in two directions I feel.

1. You’re absolutely right, that they will perform a great can-opening role in that regard. Arguably lets Italy more or less focus solely in the Med.

2. The downside here is that you’re taking IPC’s away from Germany. Again, I won’t sit here and say it unbalances a game that I haven’t tried, but just curious. Bulgaria is a good example. What if that 1 IPC a turn affects Germany from building one more tank, one more bomber, one more sub, etc. It’ll take 3 turns of Bulgaria to get one infantry built, when in those same three turns Germany (potentially) loses out on something stronger than an infantry. Again, just playing devils advocate.

I hadn’t realized your intentions with Finland either. Very interesting game mechanic there, to have them both help and hinder the Germans in that regard.

Again, the biggest question mark for me is the added minor complexes added. Those, now free, complexes will be massive targets for either side. You’re right about Finland too, take minor would be a huge prize for the USA maybe to nab for free and build troops from.

Definitely curious on others’ thoughts as well.

Just added a poll. Tried to hit on the ones you guys pointed out below.

I’m glad this morphed. I’d originally posted this in the Global 1940 thread, so apologies for it not being game specific in my question. But again, glad it sparked discussion in the other games as well, or the gaming mechanic overall.

I think the air transport is an awesome idea, really for all the reasons CWO Marc laid out. He’s right in that naval and ground forces both show this in some capacity, but air is lacking. Very interesting. I agree though, would need a bit more something to create some spice other than just transporting infantry. In terms of dropping infantry off in combat (ie, paratrooper), you could give the infantry unit some kind of negative effect on the first combat round, or something.

Maybe a stretch here, but what about nation specific special units? Might be interesting to have had one special unit per power (at least major powers) that maybe had a unique ability each.

Germany - SS Unit
Japan - SNLF/Veteran Unit
Italy - Bersaglieri Unit
USA - Ranger/Marine Unit
UK/ANZAC - Commando Unit
USSR - Home Guard Unit
France - Colonial Infantry/Foreign Legion Unit

I’m thinking like a unique special ability. USSR gets +1 defense in home territories, French Colonials could spawn in any French territory, Commando can re-roll one missed shot on offense, etc. This might be a bit outside the scope, as it may potentially alter gaming mechanics a bit.

Before I rant too long there, I do think another simple choice may also be in just creating a fortification piece. I could see something like that playing a decent roll, you could give a couple in starting spots, but also the ability to build. We’ve all discussed fortifications before I’m sure. But having a little extra boost to a Gibraltar or Malta, or a German Atlantic Wall, would be interesting choices than could maybe alter some decisions in certain theaters.

Made it hard on purpose in having to only choose one, so I think to get to the crux of it, an air transport may get my vote as well, giving the different aspects in really brings.

Well that sounds good at least. If it’s just cosmetic, so be it. Railways wouldn’t bother me, and I like using actual port facilities anyways (EBard on Shapeways has some great one’s btw). The Jungle is a bummer, as I’m not sure how I’d replicate that, but I’m sure could be figured out. Glad they are adding Jungle though, I always thought if mountains and rivers were present, for Jungle, and maybe desert, should have been shown as well for play purposes.

I sure wish they’d offer discounted prices for those of us that already have the 1936 map. If they did that in return with you shipping them back our original map, that would be nice.

As it stands, it’s really frustrating as a consumer to spend over around $180 on a game map, just for them to update the map and charge even more (presumably) for it. I sure couldn’t justify to myself buying a second map. It’s the exact same issue people had with 1st and 2nd editions of A&A 1940.

That’s really frustrating. What did they say was being done with the new map? Is it meant to fix errors on the existing map? Or is it meant for one of their other Global War variants?

I actually brought this up a couple months ago at the Global War Game site.

You’re right in that their abilities are the same there. There are a couple of differences though:

1. If using the Fighting Croatia Expansion/Partisans, Cavalry are one of the units that are capable of targeting Partisans, while armored cars can not.

2. Another thing to point out is Cavalry can be 1:1 supported by artillery but Armored Cars cannot.

So by the letter of these two exceptions, Cavalry are actually BETTER than armored cars, in my opinion.

The HBG guys did answer my post though:

“Both are 3/2s for a reason – that being they represent smaller, divisional scale units – not large formations – but their mobility gives them an advantage.
Armored Cars are armor-class units (and Cavs are for transports).  Cavalry have an advantage being used against Partisans in the upcoming Partisans expansion and also as people pointed out an armored car could be target-selected.
I would say that cav is better as they stand now but I could see armored cars having some kind of ability to follow a blitzkrieg that cavalry could not- the Germans used them to screen and probe pretty effectively which would make them reasonably good for casualties in a blitz.”

I think he mis-quotes the rules a couple of time:

1. I believe Cavalry are also considered armor, and so therefore they can also be target-selected.

2. He mentions Armored Cars potentially helping in blitz situations. To my knowledge, armored cars cannot blitz, and are no different than Cavalry in that regard.

Giving Armored Cars a blitzing ability would create a good enough difference between the two units to make them both worth buying. Armored Cars could blitz, but Cavalry can target Partisans. Both unique abilities.

As it stands though, I really see no reason to ever buy Armored Cars, unless I’m missing something someone else can point out.

Great ideas! I love the idea of small nations getting to play. It’ll make the games longer, of course, but I think it adds a bit of intrigue to everything.

I have one issue though, that I think may unbalance your game way too much in favor of the Axis. For all the Minor Axis powers: Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria, Romania, you add a decent chunk of units and, more importantly, industrial complexes, WITHOUT really giving much to the USSR to counter this.

What I mean by this is, my adding troops and complexes much closer to the Soviet borders, you’re allowing a quicker flow of reinforcements to the eastern front, making the Soviet position harder to maintain. Without balancing by adding something to the USSR, I fear it may be too overpowering.

I understand that you’ve added units, etc. to the Western Powers though in the form of South Africa, Canada, Poland, Belgium, etc., but it won’t help the USSR all that much until potentially too late. The rate it would take to get say an infantry and artillery to the front lines from Canada, for example, is much smaller than the rate the Axis minors can pump that out in the east. For Canada, you have to not only build the units, but also the transport to carry them, and then at least two turns to get to the front. For most Axis minors, they would be on the front the moment they are built.

I’m not necessarily saying this definitively unbalances your concept, but more asking if that’s something you considered?

Also, if you’re going to add all the little guys, I think you have to add Norway in some way as well. The Norwegian merchant fleet was one of the biggest in the world, and was huge in helping the Allied war effort.  :-)

Putting this here for now. Someone please yell at me if you think this should go under House Rules or somewhere else.

Thinking of the OOB pieces/rules. If you had to choose just one, what’s the ONE unit you think is was maybe missing from the OOB rules? Or, do you think nothing was missing? Marines? Paratrooper? A Heavy Tank? Maybe another facility type? Something else?

Just completely curious on anyone’s thoughts on this.

Wow EBard, sounds awesome! I definitely got to scrape the funds together to get these in my arsenal soon!

I really do think it’s too bad this was done with the A&A brand.

I could understand the appeal of some for this game (not me personally, but that’s because I’m a history game nut, a little less the fantastical), but that’s not what A&A is. WOTC, Hasbro, whoever, could have still made this game under it’s own auspices. They own the license for A&A, unless I’m mistaken. So they could borrowed stylistic/artistic liberties from it, with a new game all it’s own, from another brand they already control without legal issue, I would think.

I also do understand previous posts on what could be done with the A&A brand to attract newer/younger gamers to it, though. Be it a mix of shorter game play, as well as streamlined rules, are better for the casual gamer looking to fill up a Friday evening, and a Friday evening only.

I know they’re not the most popular with this forum, but I rather liked the individual battle A&A games of Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge, and D-Day, for their quicker pace. I still pull out the D-Day game if we want to get a craving in, but don’t have time or space to set up Global 1940. It’s a different game, unquestionably, but it’s still entertaining. A Stalingrad, El Alamein, Market Garden, etc. game would be appealing in that regard as well. Just because they’re different from the A&A games we know and love on a global scale, doesn’t make a localized theater game with a different/modified rule-set not fun in it’s own way!

But to play devils advocate again, I understand where the WWII/historical realm may not exactly excite the young gamer, so at that I’m at a bit of a loss as it comes to A&A in general.

djensen, I don’t blame you for contemplating opening up this forum to a wider array of games. You’d know more than I, but I’d imagine the traffic coming through, and amount of contributors would go up, making your life running this site much easier. All that means for us is one more sub click to get to the A&A section of a wider forum, not too hard I don’t think.  :-)

And I didn’t realize that was a 1939 setup rule, so that is cleared for me as well!

Thanks for pointing out 9.20 as well. I’ll be sure to point that out to others, as they seemed misinformed on that front.

Overall, I definitely agree with you. This is probably a one time chance it works against an opponent. But, it may still alter the way the Soviets are played early on a bit!