Posts made by Hepps01

Shouldn’t there be some kind of risk vs. reward situation if you are going to create something other than what already exists?  It seems in keeping with the idea of re-thinking the Strict Neutral rules.  If you are going to re-define the role of neutral nations (and their willingness to join one side over the other) shouldn’t the same metrics be used to determine the fate of Vichy territories?

Shouldn’t there be the same level of “Boon” advantage potentially available to both teams?

I was just suggesting something slightly different.  Something that offered both sides the potential for an increased opportunity other than what already exists within the game.

Just curious?  Why would you go to any length to create a new set of rules that doesn’t change the game environment at all?  Doesn’t create more volatility rather than less?

What’s the point?

A basic Alcohol solution would be good to clean any oils or other residues off the pieces.  As long as you give them time to allow them to dry and evaporate then it wouldn’t hurt.  Not that I’d think it’s all that necessary unless you’ve been playing with them for a long time drinking, spilling, smoking, and god knows what else!  :wink:

From what I’ve seen so far I think you’ve got a good concept here.

The versatility of the the system seems to be on the right track.  Ensuring the system works for even the largest of map boards currently on the market would certainly be a plus.

If you are trying to suite your product to an A&A crowd then might I suggest you post some pic’s here that demonstrate the practical application of your product in terms of the needs of the (potential) consumer base.  ie. use the prototype(s) you have to take pictures of the compartments actually holding all the individual units for a given Global team…. show the Global map fitting into the “chamber” (or whatever you call it).

As the old saying goes… “the proof is in the pudding!”

Good luck in your venture.  I’m 100% certain there is a niche market for this item(s).

Hmm… what is the point of creating Vichy rules if the end result is to not change anything at all?

And if having a role of 1 or 6 add units to either side, then how is that any different?  Now you’re changing the game in 1 role without any risk/expenditure to either side?  That seems more like a planned imbalance then anything else.

Both are quality movies.  There would be no reason to leave those off a comprehensive list of movies that are impeccably done.

And can we sticky this thread?  Instead of having to hunt it down all the time?

Now that several of the Round 1 match-ups have been finished can we start to look at matching those people together for the round 2 matches?

Well there is no BB on the board anyway… I was just saying that French vessels were converted to serve Allied purposes.  As were a number of smaller vessels for Axis purposes.

I understand that having the “turning” of vessels can change the course of the game…  isn’t that kind of the idea of creating “Neutral Diplomacy rules”?  Creating options and variability?

However, the attempts to turn any such vessels requires an investment of I.P.C.  Those investments are also taking away from other units that could be produced with said money.  Therefore attempting (or even being successful) does not come without a real cost to other fronts and or strategies.  And since both teams have the opportunity to acquire said units (and they are essentially being paid for at a 1:1 basis of cost) you’re not really disturbing the balance of the game.  Instead what you’d be doing is adding a good element of variability to the predictability of each game.  The real difference for game play would not come from being successful (as essentially you are already “paying” for the units… the real cost to game-play would be the effects of every attempt that was unsuccessful.

Wasn’t a French Battleship (and possibly others) taken back to New York, repaired and used in the war in the Atlantic?

I know there was also an Aircraft Carriers in the Caribbean Islands at (or near the start) of the war.

As far as the Naval units in Dakar,  wouldn’t it make a lot of sense to change those to strict Neutral and attach them to the Territory of French West Africa?  Then you could add the unit IPC totals to that terr. for Diplomacy… or make that sea zone a diplomatic entity of its own.

There-by making it a VERY costly affair to persuade (giving the Advantage to the Allies) while at the same time making it a bit of a bigger obstacle  attacking players (Needing to eliminate naval units prior to attacking the coast).

Just an idea.

Karl, TripleA has also improved its resolution when you zoom out.  So now the map images remain reasonably crisp even if you zoom out to 50% (which on many maps will give you a fair amount of the map).

Then you can still use the “Territory Tab” to scan any and all territories & sea zones and the contents of the territories you cursor over will appear in the panel on the right hand side of the screen.

Most all of the true classics are there.

A few I’d add…

Last of the Mohicans
One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest
Layer Cake
Boiler Room
Big Red 1
Serpent & the Rainbow
The Usual Suspects
Ronin
The Score
American Beauty
Bond  (All the originals anyway)

Sorry if I duplicated… it’s hard in a list that’s not alphabetized.

And more I’m sure… just can’t think of any ATM.

There are a few there I would have never chose, but they were good movies in their own right.  At least there aren’t many there I absolutely disliked.

Yes they were.

Seems as though the point of this thread got lost somewhere along the way. :wink:

I think the original comments were not directed at whether or not one side over the other needed a bid,  but rather that the European game setup was very limiting and a bit silly.

In almost all games the Allies are designed to “hold out” or at least wait  while they gain the units needed to press any front.  I’m not sure that is what is in question.  The fundamental flaw (if you don’t like the scenario of the “Worlds largest Navy” being wiped from the map on turn 1) is due to the limitations of the game based on the map design, unit structure and D6 configuration.

From my vantage point I would have thought that after all this time a new game being released would have more to it then Global offers, especially in terms of making a more realistic game from a Historical perspective.

Bids = broken.  Only bids that are meant to reflect disparities in player experience are not indicative of some design flaw.

So saying the changes increased the bid… is saying the changes were bad for the game instead of improving it.  IMO.

For simplicities sake, and better balance control… wouldn’t it make more sense to only have one bonus for adjacency?  Then you could only ever get a +1 for shared borders.  The rest of the equation could then be dictated by Diplomatic expenditures… thus making it more challenging and costly to the teams rather than giving an advantage in territories that have multiple borders versus those that have 1.  Sweden and Swizterland (though its worthless anyway) being the obvious immediate examples.  Furthermore if you want to make Diplomacy a greater factor in the game wouldn’t it make sense to have all of them worth something?  One of the things that confuses me is that there are all of these neutral nations that are worth nothing… seems like a tremendous waste of time to implement a in-depth diplomacy system for a game that is not really suited for it.

What is the Adjacency rule meant to represent?  That sharing a boarder immediately means you are more inclined to seek an alliance?

I have no idea why you’d even consider making the game worse.  The game was better before.  Adding these changes just so you can have a copy of a broken game doesn’t really make any sense.

God that map is WAY TO SMALL.  It looks like most territories can fit like one or 2 units!

Nice painted units.  They look great.

Might have something to do with what ever system you are running on.  I’m no techy.  I’m sure Veq. will come along and try to help you out with your issues.

I too find Global very limiting from a playability standpoint.  Too much of the game is predetermined, not enough left for players to effectively come up with different strategies that might or can work.  The opening setup is highly unrealistic and leaves the British with only one option.  Not an ideal way to start a game when a team is forced into only one possible move prior to even having it’s first turn.

I agree with Der Kuenstler 100%.