Posts made by Emperor_Taiki

Wow, that game looks pretty sweet!
I wonder how the making your one unit rules work?

Your minefields seem to overpowerd compared to their historical couterpart, but if it adds to the game play

Also, why not add fuel rules in, Rommel was always running out of fuel for his tanks and having to steal from the Brits.
It may overcomplicate the game, but it could be interesting.

When my firends and I play A&AR we use a house rule for anti-tank guns like yours, except we use AA guns.

At the beginning  of a combat in a territory with an AA gun, instead of using it to fire at aircraft, you can instead chose to fire it against tanks
Roll one dice for every tank and on a 1 there hit.

You may want to take your original AT gun rules out to replace with this one, because it is more realistic,
The 88 was not deisigned as an artillery piece, but as a anti-aircraft gun, but later it was discovered that it was a good AT gun too.
so it is only logical that in an A&A Africa game, AA guns can also be used as AT guns.

Mauser bob I sent you an email with my email
please could you email me the rules

I would like to play this game

1. direct weapons
     2) advisors who help the nation get organise
   I like this Idea, although this aid would be given to countries in civil war.
   Okay I have a new Idea, see if you like it, instead of the game consisting of improbable wars between major countries in the world, what if it just mostly consisted of the major powers having proxy wars with one another. you could have multiply tactical maps which represent the geography of regions in the world like the:
   Middle East
   Central Asia
   Southwest Asia
   Korea
   Africa
   Latin America
   Then the major powers would send their units to these location and fight a war with anyone who whanted to challege them in that region.

I now have decided on six player nations
US
China
Russia
EU
India
Brazil

Nations will be able to build four main types of military units
Army’s
Naives
Airforce
Nukes

Certain locations on the map will have special graphics representing major cities and ports, and religious locations
Optional rules could include a seventh player who acts as Al_Queda and other Islamic Terrorists

I was also thinking about how you could spice up the economical side of the game buy moving different types of recourses I was thinking
Capital
Food
Oil
Weapons

Feedback?

@jsp4563:

I like the Idea.  A couple of thoughts.

5 Major powers seems optimal, my picks:
US duh? - (w/Britian & Canada)
European Union (Including the former Soviet Satellite states)
Russia (The old USSR not including Sateliite countries-I doubt the countries of the Eastern Bloc (the old Warsaw pact) would be eager to realign with Russia, more likely they would ally with the EU.)
China
ASEAN (Association of S.E. Asian Nations-Japan, Korea, Taiwan, South Pacific)

This leaves alot of territory unassigned, some sort of “Economic Spheres of Influence” or Trade could be incorporated to handle these.

In a free for all game of 5 players max, how will you handle a game with less than the max # of players?

Nukes…these are a problem.

Good choices, what do you thing about India as a major nation

When players are not avalible to play certain major nations they wwillremain neutral until some one pays a certain amount of money an etemptto sway that non player major nation to their side, then they controll that nation until another player sways the non player major nation away from their side.

Nukes, a problem maybe, I aactuallylike the idea of having super destructive weapons with unlimited range, not because a like games that end the first turn but because I like games that are realistic. I doubt that in the real world a war between to major powers with nuclear ccapabilities would result in nuclear war, most of the fighting would probable involve mass tank battle with air and naval mmissilesupport. Even if one side was losing, using nuclear missiles would make situation iinfinitelyworse for them and their enemy. The only real nuclear treat in the world to day is not from Iran or North Korea or any ccountryfor that matter, it is from a group of people who are insane, crazy, and uunreasonable that if they did got their hands on a nuke they would use it iimmediately
Al-Queda
I think this should be represented the game

thanks a lot
I’ll start working on the rules and OOB
I think each unit should represent a corp
How about you guys!

lol

OK, fine, what military units would be in a d12 2006 game

I like Imperious Leaders Idea with the ant wars thing, as do I love the movie them especially once the army starts flamethrowering the giant ants

A few nights ago I saw this show on the national geographic channel called insect wars,
it showed this bee hive being slaughtered by an evil horde of hornets
However a few hornets were downed when the bees swarmed all around them making a huge ball of bees which heated the center some much it killed the hornet.

It showed this horde of ants that attack a termite cave
The termites had made small opening when designing their home so when the ants broke threw the entrances the termites could force the ants in to a bottle neck
this worked! and so eventually the ants were force to retreat and fight another day.
      it appears insects have great military minds, however, even though the termites did win, I saw one flaw in their defence, they put the warrior termites on the outside of the caves ware they were swarmed by the ants and killed easily and only buying the termites inside the cave a little amount of time. If I were the termite queen I would place a few worker termites ways off from the caves to act a recon termites and report any ant movements, then instead of placing the warrior ants on the outside I would place them at the bottle necks so the ants are forced to fight my best troops and so I would not lose so many worker ants.

Wow , did I just right a paragraph on termite military doctrine, i need some sleep

2025, d12

thx

What od you think about milatary units in the game

@Imperious:

United States: Greatest Country ever, duh?
US should include at the very least : Canada, Japan, South Korea and UK

China: Growing economy, huge army, huge country, huge population
China includes Vietnam, North Korea, and Mongolia

Russia: Actually this country lacks everything I require for a country to be a player nation. And it wouldn’t a player nations unless it wasn’t the biggest country in the world. It is just to much space for a single Neutral Nation
Russia includes all affiliate nations and some eastern bloc nations.

European Union: Although the dream of a Unified Europe travels farther away each day it would be to complicated to split Europe up amongst its many powerful nations.
Germany, Spain, central Europe, poland, Italy,Austria… France is on its own or aligned with them. this coalition is very volital because France cant make up its mind from one day to the next. I would consider a large seperate map for Europe for warfare in these nations because you would want to have more global territories.

India: It has the army, the nukes, the population, the land, the economy, etc., Why not.
On its own they hate China and Pakistan but are not aggressive

Brazil: mentioned above.
All south America is open to either independent or allies of USA… the US player has best chance to convert them.

Japan: although small, very powerfull and a much needed counter balance to China in the south pacific.
Their existence depends on USA the threat of China pushes them as US ally. japan has no natural ally in Asia anymore. At least until China is destroyed…

best book on this… but its 1985 when the war starts. This book is complete with OOB for both sides. You may want to get SPI’s third world war which has a rather good game. its a good starting point for research. The problem is too far in the future had no adeduate research and secondly, the viability of such a conflict is very speculative. At least a 1985 scenario has a complete Soviet Union and other realistic allies and enemies.
Also note you can obtain nice plastic pieces for this game that are cold war styles of equipment from table tactics. Not to mention the other companies that offer pieces of current and past tanks and planes.
The Third World War, August 1985, by General Sir John Hackett, set in a 1980s war based on the NATO scenario

You both bring up good points, but what i think it comes down to is what type of game it’s going to be. And sense its partially a diplomacy game choosing sides in a global conflict should represented in the game. I think I’ll make Brazil a player nation and make the rest of south America neutral regions that will either submit to players though force or peaceful means like in the game War! Age of Imperialism by Eagle games.
Player Nations and why they are player nations
United States: Greatest Country ever, duh?
China: Growing economy, huge army, huge country, huge population
Russia: Actually this country lacks everything I require for a country to be a player nation. And it wouldn’t a player nations unless it wasn’t the biggest country in the world. It is just to much space for a single Neutral Nation
European Union: Although the dream of a Unified Europe travels farther away each day it would be to complicated to split Europe up amongst its many powerful nations.
India: It has the army, the nukes, the population, the land, the economy, etc., Why not.
Brazil: mentioned above.
Japan: although small, very powerfull and a much needed counter balance to China in the south pacific.

Why no Mid East Coalition?: Its to unrealistic and out there. Osamas dreams of a New Muslim Caliphate are far from materializing. I think in this game The mideast and Africa should be a huge battle ground for the player-nations to fight over and claim satellite states.

PS: Remember the player nations can and will change over the course of making this game. If you disagree with this selection of nations please say why.

I’d like to hear what you guys think of military units in modern warfare and which ones should be represented in the game.

That clears a lot up, you seem to know a lot about history

Interesting, I like it, could you come up with other satilite states for other nations, or maybe the US player good be a super power and the game could be designed so the US purposly has an advantage over the other nations. Of course other players resentment of the US player having more would likly lead to alliences against the US. Then the game would naturally balence out.

I conda like this idea of one player having an unfair “advatage” at the begining of the game. What do you think?

2010, 2020 some time in the near future

I may be wrong, but wasn’t Egypt controlled by the Ottoman Empire at the this time in history. I know latter in the 19th century Egypt became a territory of the English but at the turn of the century I am almost positive Egypt was under Ottoman rule.
Also,
As I understand it, the player countries are, Great Britain, France, Spain, Saxony(make neutral or replace it with making all those white regions on the map the German Federation) Kingdom of Naples, Austria-Hungary, Prussia, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire (nine playable nations total, to much!)
In your pics I did not see any turks although their provinces take up nearly a quarter of the board. If your out of colors I would get rid of the Kingdom of Naples and use their pieces as Ottoman ones. Most of Napoleans battles in France were with Austria not with Naples, nor did Naples use guerrilla tactics after they were conquered, unlike Spain and Russia. Naples is just not an important enough to have a player play it. Even though the Ottoman Empire did not involve itself in the Napoleonic wars much either (save Napoleons expedition to Egypt and Palestine) The Ottoman Empire was still a major power in the region and it would be cool if player got into debates trying to convince the Ottoman player to join their side. Having an unhistorical out come in a game is what historical wargaming is all a bought for me. Sorry for all the run-ons
:-)